Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

_Anonymous_ said:
Vstol raised serious issues with the design and consequently development and manufacturing. What's your counter? Has the ADA frozen a design with the concurrence of the IAF? Has it been validated by wind tunnel tests , etc?
Click to expand...

The design released in the air show is the final design. It's apparently yet to be frozen, but it is the final design.

Yes, it has been validated by wind tunnel tests. These are official wind tunnel models.

IMG_20190219_143911.jpg


IMG_20190219_143945.jpg


In fact metal cutting will begin "soon".
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: BlackOpsIndia and _Anonymous_
vstol Jockey said:
Bhai, while I like your love for India as much I have for India, I have difficulty in agreeing that ADA will deliver.
Click to expand...

ADA will deliver this time. They are not doing anything new in the program except for adding canards, which is well within the scope of their capabilities.

Apart from that, everything else will be ready, including avionics, before the Mk2 begins first flight. Uttam, UEWS etc will be ready for production by 2022-23. Even IMA architecture will be developed first for Mk1A and MKI before the Mk2's IMA is expected to be ready. So Mk2's IMA will have an extra 3 years for maturing. Even the OBOGS has finished integration on PV-3.

They are basically doing what you said you would do with MSA, cut down development time by using all existing and proven technologies. So all that's really left is building 4 prototypes and flight testing them.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: GuardianRED, sid4587, Shekhar Singh and 1 other person
Quick updated, that once again shows, the poor improvement of MWF.

This time direct comparison between light class MK1A vs so called medium class MWF, both with maximum loads (except for dumb bombs)
Fighter comparison FOC vs MWF 2.PNG


Even with more stations, there is hardly any difference to the light class version, in terms of weapon load capability.

Also interesting, the comparison between MWF navy vs MWF AF
Fighter comparison MWF Navy vs MWF 1.PNG


The navy version, actually comes out with better load capabilities, but will remain with the limited flight performance, of the MK1 airframes (8G, Mach 1.6).

Another ADA/DRDO failure in the making!
 
Sancho said:
Quick updated, that once again shows, the poor improvement of MWF.

This time direct comparison between light class MK1A vs so called medium class MWF, both with maximum loads (except for dumb bombs)
View attachment 5674

Even with more stations, there is hardly any difference to the light class version, in terms of weapon load capability.

Also interesting, the comparison between MWF navy vs MWF AF
View attachment 5673

The navy version, actually comes out with better load capabilities, but will remain with the limited flight performance, of the MK1 airframes (8G, Mach 1.6).

Another ADA/DRDO failure in the making!
Click to expand...

@_Anonymous_

Sancho hasn't realised that the payload of the MWF is 6.5T yet. And none of the MWF payloads even cross 5T.

In fact, the difference between MWF and Mk1A in his loadouts is just 2 WVR missiles. What a joke.

This easily tells you how duplicitous he really is.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Schwifty, _Anonymous_ and Shekhar Singh
randomradio said:
@_Anonymous_

Sancho hasn't realised that the payload of the MWF is 6.5T yet. And none of the MWF payloads even cross 5T.

In fact, the difference between MWF and Mk1A in his loadouts is just 2 WVR missiles. What a joke.

This easily tells you how duplicitous he really is.
Click to expand...
Coming from a family of practising lawyers, I can say with confidence, there are quite a few members here who have the makings of excellent lawyers and prospective politicians too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh
Sancho said:
According to older graphics, it has a weight limit of 150Kg, including pylon. MICA should had been possible, but we probably decided for a cheaper Python V, now maybe Asraam. The fact that the model shows a dual pylon for BVR missiles and the same WVR missiles on external and wingtip station shows, that no BVR missile in the weight class of Derby, Astra, let alone Astra MK2 are possible there.
Click to expand...

The Mk1A is designed to carry two WVR missile on a dual pylon which shows that the outboard station is infact capable of more than 200 Kg payload. So there is no weight restriction to carry a BVR on outboard pylons for Mk1 or Mk2 wings.

Payload without pylon weight:

2 x R-73 - 2 x 105 Kg = 210 Kg
2 x Asraam - 2 x 90 Kg = 180 Kg

1 x Astra - 154 Kg
1 x Derby - 100 Kg


Tejas%2BMk.1A.jpg


Sancho said:
Yes, that's what I mentioned before and what shows the irony of the whole MK2 mess, the redisign of the NLCA, now offers it the chance, to comply to navy's requirements, of 4 BVR missiles and it also makes it swing role capable, while IAFs version will remain as limited as the MK1 airframes. Btw, according to the weapon load config, it's just a single centerline station, so dual pylon for AAMs.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'll have to disagree here. If Naval platform can accommodate 2 BVR in the fuselage stations, why is it not possible to do same for MWF which is the same airframe? So the capability exists, its just the matter of what IAF requests for. There is no point nit picking models, just because one configuration was displayed, it doesn't mean no other configuration is possible.

Therefore a strike configuration can easily carry 4 WVR+ 2 DT + 2 Strike Munition + 2 BVR + LDP

nmca2-jpg.5512


Sancho said:
At least up to 1000lb bombs, will be carried on the wings (just as for Gripen C/D) => 3 x BVR on the centerline + 2 x WVR on the wing tips vs zero BVR for MWF.

That's factually wrong, by the fact that there is evidently only 1 station, compared to 3 at the Gripen E centerline. So no made up tandem or side by side config possible.
Click to expand...

You do realise, you didn't utilise the centerline station for MWF at all in your image. Just because the mockup displayed single centerline station doesn't mean the design is not capable to accomodate 2 BVR if need arises. While it may not have 3 BVRs in the belly as Gripen-E, 1-2 BVR is not impossible to accommodate. The rear fuselage has been widened to accommodate the bigger engine creating more real estate for 2 separate pylons as displayed with naval model.

fighter-comparison-mwf-1-png.5560


I agree with your lack of optimism about ADA, they haven't really given us much reason to put faith in them so far. Regardless, if Tejas MK2 works out as planned, it's better than inducting Gripen-E. The timelines are however disappointing, but as a nation we will need to make Mk1/Mk2 work one way or the other and fill up our lower tier requirements regardless of the upsetting timelines. Imports should be limited to high performance deep strike platforms only. Just my personal opinion.

Good Day!
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran, Shekhar Singh, BlackOpsIndia and 2 others
randomradio said:
Mk1A is only delayed by a year, because negotiations are still not complete. If you recall, it was called SOP-18. 18 signifies the year. And the design was ready for production in 2018.

The contract should have been signed in July last year. But the govt has delayed it by setting up a new committee because of the higher than expected cost, and then the committee recommended restarting contract negotiations. So all the delays are now bureaucratic.
Click to expand...
the shock of 463 crore right?
 
randomradio said:
@_Anonymous_

Sancho hasn't realised that the payload of the MWF is 6.5T yet. And none of the MWF payloads even cross 5T
Click to expand...

Looooooooooooool 😂😂😂😂😂

If it needed more proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, this would it be. A typical mistake by some with random knowledge.

Payload only tells you, what the total weight limit of all stations is. So if every station would be loaded with the maximum possible weight for that station. That however "logically" is not the case with CAP, or CAS roles and if all stations are blocked by weapons or fuel already, you can't add more weight either!
That's why the payload increase means nothing, when you don't add also more stations, that can carry more loads.
And that's exactly why you only can spread misinformation, since you lack basic knowledge to understand first! 😁
 
R!cK said:
The Mk1A is designed to carry two WVR missile on a dual pylon which shows that the outboard station is infact capable of more than 200 Kg payload.
Click to expand...

That's not correct for 2 reasons. First MK1A is planned with Python V and not the heavier R73 anymore and 2 you should have checked the weapon load graphic =>

Screenshot_2019-03-29-05-19-59_0.jpg


As you can see, BVR missiles are only planned for the mid wing station.

Same for the naval MWF =>

drIbEO9.png


So neither MK1A, naval MWF or any model/graphic of AF MWF show BVR missiles on the external wing stations.

R!cK said:
why is it not possible to do same for MWF which is the same airframe?
Click to expand...

Because it's not the same airframe! The naval version is wider, to integrate the larger gears and more fuel tanks. That increases the width and therfore the possibility of a dual launcher. The AF version gets the same length extention of the airframe, due to the plug behind the cockpit, but the width is still restricted by the same gear bay location.

R!cK said:
I agree with your lack of optimism about ADA
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with optimism, but with understanding what the improvements MWF actually offers and what is just re-branding with a new name.
It gets heavier, but that doesn't mean it can carry loads comparable to real MMRCAs, because paper specs doesn't help, when you don't add stations, that actually can carry higher loads. The wingtip as well as the intake stations however, are designed for the the lightest loads, so you have to find ways to improve the load capabilities on the already existing stations => dual pylon on the mid wing station.
 
Sathya said:
According to Aero vayu mag , N MWF design complete, fabrication in progress , roll out by Aug 2020.
Even Af MWF design is getting over. .
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be true, because that would only be possible, if they design it first and the AF version later. That's probably also why the naval MWF doesn't feature wingtip stations, or IRST.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom