Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[randomradio]

That's semantics. We can argue on what 5 th gen is till the cows come home. What's your definition of 5th gen?


The MWF isn't stealth though it aims to be LO. We've defined the tech specs of MWF. I'm not aware of the tech specs of the F-22. If it's your point that the F-22 which has been geometrically designed to be stealth apart from the RAM coating which designates it's stealth capabilities as opposed to the MWF, then I've nothing to say.
It's all very well to be aspirational.

That's the problem, processing. You cannot process what I write.

Nothing what you said here has anything to do with what I said.

I guess the 2005 F 22 will get what the 2030 MWF will get. With the former being stealth & the latter attempting to be so with attempted LO & attempts at SPECTRA Like abilities.

Once again, processing problems. Mk1A will get what 2005 F-22 had. MWF will get what 2025 F-22 will get.

What's your opinion? According to you Gaganshakti was a great success too. Till Balakote happened.

Both were beyond excellent, except for the fratricide incident, which had nothing to do with fighter jets anyway.

The Mig-21 killed an F-16 that was equipped with MAWS with an 80s designed missile.

Already answered this.

Zero marks for your answer.

Lasers too? You're claiming MWF will already have near 6 th gen capabilities.

Yes. It's nothing out of the ordinary. This stuff is being developed now.

Par for the course. Any enhancements in this regard to bring it to state of the art status is always welcome.How's it going to enhance the fighting abilities or stealth abilities?

What stealth abilities? Once again, processing problems.

I'd rather have processing problems than be insanely optimistic while being simultaneously sober. I will still be excused. What's your excuse?

Processing problems are far more serious.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Not really.

Right now I'm still unclear as to the nature of ORCA, whether it's TEDBF or a separate program. But this is not an official program. So I don't think MMRCA (now called MRFA) will be affected by ORCA.

There was an alternate plan to produce 100+ jets for the navy, separate from their tender for 57 MRCBF. ORCA may very well be aimed towards that goal rather than the IAF. So it's the navy's requirement of 150+ jets that's in question, not IAF's MRFA.

Anyway, I doubt the ORCA's going to exceed the capabilities of the Rafale F4.2, maybe 4.1 is possible, so it's going to be difficult for ADA to convince the IAF to go for their jet, although the navy will be more willing due to problems with Rafale's unfoldable wing design for carriers.

So, as long as Rafale is L1, you will see 200 jets from MRFA. The IAF most definitely needs 200+ Rafale class jets.

The nature of ORCA is simple. It's a HAL project. Designed to derail the MMRCA since HAL is effectively out of contention. My 2 cents. It's needs to be promoted just to give HAL the ability to design their own aircrafts thus giving us a second design house apart from the ADA. Let the ORCA be designed with funds being 50:50 split between funding by HAL thru internal accruals & MoD. Let them come up with TDs. A decision on whether the project proceeds to LSP & beyond can be made on an as is when is basisThis should have no bearing on the MMRCA which should proceed immediately.

The TEDBF seems designed not only to cater to replacement of existing MiG 29K but also for the future IAC - Vishal. That means a good 120 FA.

 

[randomradio]

What happens if India wants US SUPPORT
for Military Action in POK

India has no need for US interference anywhere within our territory.

Also, the US cannot operate in POJK, they are not trained for it. Rather they will get in the way of our own operations, that we are actually trained for.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

India has no need for US interference anywhere within our territory.

Also, the US cannot operate in POJK, they are not trained for it. Rather they will get in the way of our own operations, that we are actually trained for.

We need Diplomatic and Political support
And Some Very good Targeting Information

We need them to keep quiet and NOT
Talk about Restraint

 

[randomradio]

The nature of ORCA is simple. It's a HAL project. Designed to derail the MMRCA since HAL is effectively out of contention. My 2 cents. It's needs to be promoted just to give HAL the ability to design their own aircrafts thus giving us a second design house apart from the ADA. Let the ORCA be designed with funds being 50:50 split between funding by HAL thru internal accruals & MoD. Let them come up with TDs. A decision on whether the project proceeds to LSP & beyond can be made on an as is when is basisThis should have no bearing on the MMRCA which should proceed immediately.

The TEDBF seems designed not only to cater to replacement of existing MiG 29K but also for the future IAC - Vishal. That means a good 120 FA.

First we need to see if there is a difference between ORCA and TEDBF. Also, no, HAL has nothing to do with ORCA/TEDBF, both seem to be ADA's independent programs. It's possible the private sector will be roped in instead.

If HAL needs to design aircraft, then they have to make their own independent designs, not simply modify ADA's existing designs. Reliance may become our next major design aerospace house.

 

[randomradio]

We need Diplomatic and Political support
And Some Very good Targeting Information

We don't need a fighter jet deal to get political support.

Targeting information? We have two programs with the US for this purpose. One is with Raytheon for 1 ISTAR aircraft (with 4 more from DRDO with Raytheon's support) and the other is with General Atomics for drones.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...u-s-istar-jet-4-more-with-indian-sensors.html

India, US $7.5 billion defence deals for armed drones, spy planes in pipeline

Of course, there's P-8I also.

 

[_Anonymous_]

First we need to see if there is a difference between ORCA and TEDBF. Also, no, HAL has nothing to do with ORCA/TEDBF, both seem to be ADA's independent programs. It's possible the private sector will be roped in instead.

If HAL needs to design aircraft, then they have to make their own independent designs, not simply modify ADA's existing designs. Reliance may become our next major design aerospace house.

As of now the ORCA concept has been floated by HAL. Harshavardhan Thakur was the first to break news on this front. Officially HAL hasn't commented on it. The TEDBF is ADA's baby. If you've any other sources contradicting my post here, I'd be happy to correct this post.

 

[randomradio]

As of now the ORCA concept has been floated by HAL. Harshavardhan Thakur was the first to break news on this front. Officially HAL hasn't commented on it. The TEDBF is ADA's baby. If you've any other sources contradicting my post here, I'd be happy to correct this post.

Then they might already have been chosen as the lead integrator.

It's simple really. If ORCA is aimed at the IAF, then it's been made to kill MRFA. If ORCA and TEDBF are the same, then it's for the navy.

But I don't think these programs have HAL's design expertise, because if it did, then it will be a full 12-15 year project, and not the stated 6 years for ORCA.

And of course, if ADA wants ORCA to see light of day, then they have to propose a private sector lead integrator since the IAF won't agree with HAL capturing pretty much all programs. They have already given HAL LCA and MWF. It's the same egg-basket story all over again.

 

[Bon Plan]

in a French and Swiss news : Naval Tejas lands and take off from a carrier. Congrats !!!!

Inde : La version navale du HAL Tejas a franchi un pas décisif en appontant et en décollant d'un porte-avions | Zone Militaire

Décollage réussi d’un porte-avions pour le Tejas !

(sorry, it's in french)

 

[LoneWolfSandeep]

It's simple really. If ORCA is aimed at the IAF, then it's been made to kill MRFA. If ORCA and TEDBF are the same, then it's for the navy.

ORCA and TEDBF are the same, and its for Navy 150+ requirement, I had read about it in detail somewhere, cant find the link presently, didn't deem it important at that time to store, will post if I find it later, basically what it said was its length dimensions be closer to Mig29K, even the folding wings will be at exactly the same distance as on current Mig29K, so as to have no modifications to existing Carriers and can be a like for like replacements. Also article said both engines will be separated with a thin heat firewall of sorts and will be placed as close to one another like in F18, so that in case loss of one Engine, least effect in landing on deck, by sideways push due to single engine, and to support a DSI intake, to support super cruise in higher speeds, also will support a slight forward sweep angle of wings, again this helps navy to land/takeoff at unfavorable wind speeds all pointing to its for NAVY. Outer wing starts where the color change from grey to blue.
ORCA=TEDBF

 

[randomradio]

ORCA and TEDBF are the same, and its for Navy 150+ requirement, I had read about it in detail somewhere, cant find the link presently, didn't deem it important at that time to store, will post if I find it later, basically what it said was its length dimensions be closer to Mig29K, even the folding wings will be at exactly the same distance as on current Mig29K, so as to have no modifications to existing Carriers and can be a like for like replacements. Also article said both engines will be separated with a thin heat firewall of sorts and will be placed as close to one another like in F18, so that in case loss of one Engine, least effect in landing on deck, by sideways push due to single engine, and to support a DSI intake, to support super cruise in higher speeds, also will support a slight forward sweep angle of wings, again this helps navy to land/takeoff at unfavorable wind speeds all pointing to its for NAVY. Outer wing starts where the color change from grey to blue.
ORCA=TEDBF

View attachment 13145
View attachment 13147

You are referring to ****. That's just someone's opinion.

Before i am going to post u hv done it...

The early bird gets the worm.

 

[LoneWolfSandeep]

You are referring to ****. That's just someone's opinion.

Nope I stopped reading **** long time back..

Also if you compare pics of TEDBF from article and pic of ORCA (both posted in my last post) you would see the graphic render is of same plane. Including same payload(simulated) in both images
ORCA is TEDBF that I am 100% sure

More pic of TEDBF - to compare with ORCA

Did you spot any difference to claim otherwise??

 

[randomradio]

Nope I stopped reading **** long time back..

Also if you compare pics of TEDBF from article and pic of ORCA (both posted in my last post) you would see the graphic render is of same plane. Including same payload(simulated) in both images
ORCA is TEDBF that I am 100% sure

More pic of TEDBF - to compare with ORCA
View attachment 13154
View attachment 13152
Did you spot any difference to claim otherwise??

My opinion is TEDBF will be a tailed delta, similar to the N-LCA Mk2.

Of course, in the design above, the sweep is too high again.

The pics you posted are both ORCA, those are not TEDBF.

The thing about ORCA is, it's simply a slight modification of the MWF. The two F414 engines will not fit within such a small space as is shown in the image. So it's just some random design someone inside HAL or even ADA came up with based on the TEDBF idea.

 

[vstol Jockey]

My opinion is TEDBF will be a tailed delta, similar to the N-LCA Mk2.

Of course, in the design above, the sweep is too high again.

The pics you posted are both ORCA, those are not TEDBF.

The thing about ORCA is, it's simply a slight modification of the MWF. The two F414 engines will not fit within such a small space as is shown in the image. So it's just some random design someone inside HAL or even ADA came up with based on the TEDBF idea.

IMHO, using Mk2 design for Navy will be a big stupidity. The design of TEDBF is better suited for deck ops compared to this design of Mk2. The performance requirements for a deck based fighter in terms of forward visibility, bolter performance and waive off performance are much stricter compared to a shore based fighter. Moreover the rate of roll requirements on approach are also higher than a shore based fighter. Please remember that deck of a carrier is a completely different world compared to shore operations.

 

[Janardan Shukla]

First we need to see if there is a difference between ORCA and TEDBF. Also, no, HAL has nothing to do with ORCA/TEDBF, both seem to be ADA's independent programs. It's possible the private sector will be roped in instead.

If HAL needs to design aircraft, then they have to make their own independent designs, not simply modify ADA's existing designs. Reliance may become our next major design aerospace house.

I think ORCA is proposed for providing a cheaper alternative to the MMRCA fighter requirement ( not program).
If pursued it will create a window for IAF to buy heavy fighter like Su 35 or Su 57 in MMRCA 2.0 program.
Personally I think that should be the course. In the cost of a single Rafale we could get 1 su35/57 and one ORCA.
Buying heavy jet from Russia will also reduce the cost of upgrading our mki fleet.
Plus we need large no (600-700) twin engine jets to effectively counter collusive threat of China and Pakistan.

 

[randomradio]

IMHO, using Mk2 design for Navy will be a big stupidity. The design of TEDBF is better suited for deck ops compared to this design of Mk2. The performance requirements for a deck based fighter in terms of forward visibility, bolter performance and waive off performance are much stricter compared to a shore based fighter. Moreover the rate of roll requirements on approach are also higher than a shore based fighter. Please remember that deck of a carrier is a completely different world compared to shore operations.

The N-Mk2 is pretty much dead. Only vested interests and the ignorants are proposing the MoD should continue with the program for the navy.

 

[randomradio]

I think ORCA is proposed for providing a cheaper alternative to the MMRCA fighter requirement ( not program).
If pursued it will create a window for IAF to buy heavy fighter like Su 35 or Su 57 in MMRCA 2.0 program.

That doesn't make sense. IAF can go for MMRCA and also Su-57. It's not either/or. But right now IAF can pursue only one program at a time, especially with MWF going on in parallel. So they have settled for MMRCA/MWF combo instead of Su-57/MWF combo. MMRCA is of higher priority anyway.

Su-35 is not necessary since we already have MKI. Even the Russian orders for Su-30SM is now much greater than Su-35, even though both jets cost the same to them. So we already have a winner here. As for Su-57, I don't think the IAF will look at it until 2025, and procure it only after 2030, in case they think it's necessary at the time. We will have to wait for the Su-57 program to finish first, and that may happen only in 2025-26, when the new engine gets operational clearance.

In the cost of a single Rafale we could get 1 su35/57 and one ORCA.

Neither ORCA nor Su-57 exist. So how do you know the final price when even Sukhoi and HAL do not have the answer?

MKI and Mk1A combined are the same cost as the Rafale. So, it's like you're saying Su-57 and ORCA will cost the same as MKI and Mk1A. Makes sense?

Buying heavy jet from Russia will also reduce the cost of upgrading our mki fleet.

Not necessarily. Actually I don't think it will make a difference. Our MKI fleet is already big enough to bring down upgrade costs to its lowest possible level anyway. The Russians also plan to buy new build Su-30s with Irbis-E and 117S, so the cost will be under control by the time IAF's upgrade begins.

If you buy a new type of jet from Russia, you will pay royalty twice instead.

Plus we need large no (600-700) twin engine jets to effectively counter collusive threat of China and Pakistan.

The problem is any half-baked program like ORCA will not match the Rafale F4.2. Maybe it will match F3R or even F4.1, but not F4.2. And this is only considering technology. If you consider the number of years Rafale has been in service and seen combat use, it's a much safer bet. It also has a global ecosystem in place, and is expanding. ORCA has no real advantage over Rafale.

 

[LoneWolfSandeep]

My opinion is TEDBF will be a tailed delta, similar to the N-LCA Mk2.

Of course, in the design above, the sweep is too high again.

The pics you posted are both ORCA, those are not TEDBF.

The thing about ORCA is, it's simply a slight modification of the MWF.

lol N-LCA MK2 is a non folding wings (impracticable for future Mig29k replacements, with wing span will support very less fighter in carriers), no canards for slower approach speed approach landing/takeoff - it was nothing but a dead horse.
Its current evolved version is TEDBF which will have Omni role capabilities, using learning from earlier models/projects.

The two F414 engines will not fit within such a small space as is shown in the image. So it's just some random design someone inside HAL or even ADA came up with based on the TEDBF idea.

As far as close by engines is concerned, see below F18 its both engines are very close by, and guess which engines its getting in upgrade package - Check out the Powerful Engine Upgrade the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers Are Getting
GE414 so its already 100% doable

 

[randomradio]

lol N-LCA MK2 is a non folding wings (impracticable for future Mig29k replacements, with wing span will support very less fighter in carriers), no canards for slower approach speed approach landing/takeoff - it was nothing but a dead horse.
Its current evolved version is TEDBF which will have Omni role capabilities, using learning from earlier models/projects.

N-LCA Mk2 doesn't require folding wings because it's only 8m wide. With folded wings, Mig-29K is reduced to less than 8m. SH with folded wings is 9.3m.

The problem for N-LCA is not lack of canards, it's single engine, that's all.

There is no rule saying a carrier jet should have folded wings. The Sea Harrier and F-35B do not have folding wings either. Whereas the F-14 had variable sweep wings.

TEDBF doesn't seem to be an evolution of LCA, it's supposed to be a clean sheet design. Just like how AMCA is also a clean sheet design. ORCA is an evolution of LCA.

As far as close by engines is concerned, see below F18 its both engines are very close by, and guess which engines its getting in upgrade package - Check out the Powerful Engine Upgrade the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers Are Getting
Its 100% doable

View attachment 13173

You misunderstood. The ORCA's engine design is fake. It's not to scale. Which goes to indicate the ORCA is simply a concept design, not an actual design.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

Which goes to indicate the ORCA is simply a concept design, not an actual design.

ADA is having too many interns these days

All tasked to make designs on Computers