Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

Parthu said:
The increased weight will demand stronger gear. And as such stronger gear was already researched & developed for NLCA, it's design cues will find use in Mk-2 as well.
Click to expand...

A carrier's landing gear is entirely different.

Gripen E doesn't really have any radical change compared to C
Click to expand...

Okay, whatever you say.

There wasn't meant to be any Israeli involvement whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The Israelis are involved in many of our programs. Including the MKI's MAWS and LCA's EW suite..

Not really how we work. Certain limitations on what kinds of LRUs we can adopt will be laid down in the design phase. The LRUs can always change and the design phase (of a modern plane) will have to happen keeping in mind that the LRUs could be from any manufacturer, and of no fixed dimensions or weight stats (within an upper & lower limit).

Mk-1 design was frozen a long long time ago and we are choosing LRUs for Mk-1A now. We must have implemented a whole bunch of new LRUs into the design (even baseline Mk-1) after "design freeze". Like the IFR probe for instance.

The design phase only lays down the design for the airframe, which sets an upper & lower limit to the flexibility of the design. LRUs are always subject to change. In fact they HAVE to be subject to change - that's what makes the plane easily upgradable or reduce maintenance downtime in future during operation.
Click to expand...

Mk1 is a screwed up program. It's been hashed and rehashed many times. When Mk2 takes 10 years, it will get the same kind of treatment. But until that happens, the design that's frozen now is the same thing the IAF will operate in 2025.

Oh it is done all the time.
Click to expand...

Never.

For sure you don't expect IAF to be satisfied with the equipment they specified for Mk-2 in 2010s even in a post-2027 scenario which is when the Mk-2 will attain IOC, do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how it works. Look at the F-35.

Mk2's avionics will be considered as chosen when the design is frozen, not 2010. You forget that Uttam is still in development and will be ready only in 2022. So Mk2 will be getting the latest radar available.

And furthermore, what happens if the Uttam is found to be inadequate in testing and that DRDO needs, say, 4 more years to get it to work right? In such a situation, we will have to buy an interim batch of FCRs, and Mk-2 will have to integrated with them. That is a very feasible LRU change right there. Developing a good AESA-MMR is not easy.
Click to expand...

If this ever happens, we can talk about it then. Right now, Uttam will be Mk2's radar.

Mk1's radar hasn't changed since 1998. All that we are inducting now is a design from the 90s.

Uttam was meant for AMCA
Click to expand...

Nope. Uttam is for LCA.

Uttam AESA-MMR-1.jpg


AMCA will need a much more advanced radar. Maybe an Uttam Mark 2 or maybe something new, which will be relevant in 2030.

(and Mk-1 when IAF said they wanted AESA radar on the Mk-1 airframe itsel...this standard now called Mk-1A). It's only because there was no way it could be ready in time that we went for foreign FCR for Mk-1A (and also for DARIN-3 Jaguar, which Uttam also had in mind).
Click to expand...

Mk1A was always expected to have a foreign radar, an Israeli radar in particular as an offshoot of the Jaguar upgrade program. DRDO wanted to push Uttam on Mk1A, but stopped after it was decided that it won't be ready in time.

IAF hasn't accepted anything.
Click to expand...

All avionics have to be accepted by IAF before a design is frozen. LCA is a govt led program, nothing happens without IAF's green light.
 
randomradio said:
A carrier's landing gear is entirely different.
Click to expand...

As we know for sure that Mk-2 will be significantly heavier than Mk-1, we can be reasonably assured that the landing gear will have to undergo change. We will see.

Mk2's avionics will be considered as chosen when the design is frozen, not 2010. You forget that Uttam is still in development and will be ready only in 2022. So Mk2 will be getting the latest radar available.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the choosing part has not yet happened. DRDO is developing Uttam so that they will have a product to offer for when the requirement eventually (and inevitably) comes up is all.

And you say the design is already frozen as of now, prior to building the prototype. You say Uttam will only be ready in 2022. And you say the designs are to be frozen only after deciding on the LRUs.

So the implication being that IAF chose to use the Uttam on Mk-2, before even knowing what the radar is capable of and whether it meets the requirements or not?

If this ever happens, we can talk about it then. Right now, Uttam will be Mk2's radar.
Click to expand...

Thing is, it can happen. And the design will indeed be capable of adopting a different radar if and when required to do so. Despite the frozen design. That's because the designs are not frozen with particular LRUs in mind. Otherwise it would be a nightmare and outright impossibility to change or upgrade anything in the future.

When we were designing Mk-1, we didn't have Elta 2052 in mind did we?
 
Parthu said:
As we know for sure that Mk-2 will be significantly heavier than Mk-1, we can be reasonably assured that the landing gear will have to undergo change. We will see.
Click to expand...

The landing gear will obviously be modified, but they won't use N-LCA's. A carrier's landing gear is very different. Even the Rafale has two different landing gears.

So the implication being that IAF chose to use the Uttam on Mk-2, before even knowing what the radar is capable of and whether it meets the requirements or not?
Click to expand...

It's clear you haven't understood. Design is frozen when the IAF is 100% sure about what they are going to get.

Thing is, it can happen. And the design will indeed be capable of adopting a different radar if and when required to do so. Despite the frozen design. That's because the designs are not frozen with particular LRUs in mind. Otherwise it would be a nightmare and outright impossibility to change or upgrade anything in the future.

When we were designing Mk-1, we didn't have Elta 2052 in mind did we?
Click to expand...

You still didn't get it. What you are hoping for is the failure of Uttam or Mk2 for all this to play out.

The IAF and ADA are going all-in on Uttam. If Uttam fails, then the entire program fails. Then they have to reconfigure the LCA Mk2 with a new radar and then freeze that design before making a prototype and flight testing it. It's not some add-on feature, there is a process that is followed.
 
randomradio said:
The landing gear will obviously be modified, but they won't use N-LCA's. A carrier's landing gear is very different. Even the Rafale has two different landing gears.
Click to expand...

We'll see how much it will change, but it will change for sure. And we'll see if it draws cues from NLCA or not. As of Rafale, the Air Force variant was developed out of the Naval variant. Rafale M was the first configuration.

It's clear you haven't understood. Design is frozen when the IAF is 100% sure about what they are going to get.

You still didn't get it. What you are hoping for is the failure of Uttam or Mk2 for all this to play out.

The IAF and ADA are going all-in on Uttam. If Uttam fails, then the entire program fails. Then they have to reconfigure the LCA Mk2 with a new radar and then freeze that design before making a prototype and flight testing it. It's not some add-on feature, there is a process that is followed.
Click to expand...

Reconfiguring Mk-2 with a different radar, if and when required to do so, will be no more difficult that installing Elta 2052 on Mk-1.
 
Parthu said:
We'll see how much it will change, but it will change for sure. And we'll see if it draws cues from NLCA or not. As of Rafale, the Air Force variant was developed out of the Naval variant. Rafale M was the first configuration.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The landing gears are completely different.

Reconfiguring Mk-2 with a different radar, if and when required to do so, will be no more difficult that installing Elta 2052 on Mk-1.
Click to expand...

Who's installing 2052 on Mk1? It's going on the Mk1A. And the Mk1A has its own design process.

If you want Mk1 also retrofitted with 2052, it's going to take a long time. It's not plug and play. In fact, the entire avionics system has to be changed, which can only be done in MLUs or complex overhauls.

They are changing everything on Mk1A, even the Mission Computer.
 
randomradio said:
Who's installing 2052 on Mk1? It's going on the Mk1A. And the Mk1A has its own design process.

If you want Mk1 also retrofitted with 2052, it's going to take a long time. It's not plug and play. In fact, the entire avionics system has to be changed, which can only be done in MLUs or complex overhauls.

They are changing everything on Mk1A, even the Mission Computer.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. Most of the major LRUs are changing. Despite the Mk1A airframe design itself not changing from Mk1.

If it was like you said (design frozen with pre-decided LRUs and any changes in LRUs requiring going back to square one), the Mk1A development would have taken as long as Mk2 would.

Same would be true for Mk2. The design freezing is with regard to the airframe, not LRUs. LRUs always need to very flexible with changing requirements. On the other hand if IAF were to ask the agencies to incorporate an Internal Weapons Bay in LCA, then that is when the fact that the airframe design is frozen would obstruct such a modification.

Swapping LRUs is relatively easy. In fact it is DESIGNED to be easy.
 
Parthu said:
That's exactly the point. Most of the major LRUs are changing. Despite the Mk1A airframe design itself not changing from Mk1.

If it was like you said (design frozen with pre-decided LRUs and any changes in LRUs requiring going back to square one), the Mk1A development would have taken as long as Mk2 would.

Same would be true for Mk2. The design freezing is with regard to the airframe, not LRUs. LRUs always need to very flexible with changing requirements. On the other hand if IAF were to ask the agencies to incorporate an Internal Weapons Bay in LCA, then that is when the fact that the airframe design is frozen would obstruct such a modification.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what LRU means.

Swapping LRUs is relatively easy. In fact it is DESIGNED to be easy.
Click to expand...

No. LRUs are made easy to change for maintenance, it has nothing to do with development. When something breaks, you can simply switch it out with a new LRU. But the LRU has to be the same thing the aircraft was originally developed with.

As the name suggests LRU = line replaceable unit means the unit can be replaced by the user at the flight line.

An LRU is only a small part of the whole. AESA T/R modules come in LRUs as well. If a T/R module fails, then the LRU it is connected to is replaced. If Uttam T/R modules fail, that doesn't mean I can use RBE-2AA LRUs to replace Uttam LRUs.

The point of LRUs is to make maintenance and repair easy. Imagine you have a smartphone, but your display cracked. Imagine a world where you had to throw the phone away just because of a cracked display. That's how most avionics were in the past. But with LRUs, you now only have to change your display, the display is the LRU. But what you are trying to say is an iPhone display will fit a Samsung phone. That's obviously not how it works.
 
randomradio said:
I don't think you understand what LRU means.



No. LRUs are made easy to change for maintenance, it has nothing to do with development. When something breaks, you can simply switch it out with a new LRU. But the LRU has to be the same thing the aircraft was originally developed with.

As the name suggests LRU = line replaceable unit means the unit can be replaced by the user at the flight line.

An LRU is only a small part of the whole. AESA T/R modules come in LRUs as well. If a T/R module fails, then the LRU it is connected to is replaced. If Uttam T/R modules fail, that doesn't mean I can use RBE-2AA LRUs to replace Uttam LRUs.

The point of LRUs is to make maintenance and repair easy. Imagine you have a smartphone, but your display cracked. Imagine a world where you had to throw the phone away just because of a cracked display. That's how most avionics were in the past. But with LRUs, you now only have to change your display, the display is the LRU. But what you are trying to say is an iPhone display will fit a Samsung phone. That's obviously not how it works.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly what LRU means - however the whole notion was simplified due to the two major avionics LRU clusters (the radar & EW suite) being the topic in question. A typical fighter radar consists of about half a dozen individual LRUs to include the array and back-end components like the radar computer. Also, we can consider the radar itself as an LRU considering it is nothing but an amalgamation of these individual LRUs.

Either way - whether you consider the item in question as "LRUs" or as "Radar & EW suite", the point still stands. The Mk-1 design (in Mk-1A standard) uses a radar and EW suite (among other additional equipment like IFR probe) which it was never originally designed to work with, back when the Mk-1 design was frozen a long time ago. The changes of these equipment did not result in any necessity for us to go back to detailed design phase, or make any worthwhile changes to the airframe of Mk-1. The Mk-1A still uses the same airframe, same rigs & same tooling used to build Mk-1 airframe.

This is what flies in the face of your argument that a plane only has to work with a pre-decided set of equipment (such as radar, EW suite components & avionics) which were intended for it prior to freezing of design and that changing any of these equipment would result in a huge drawn-out process which would only be feasible in a deep upgrade/MLU.

Whereas the truth is that taking out the old slotted-array MMR and replacing it with the 2052 AESA required next to zero worthwhile changes to the basic airframe design, and the same goes for the EW components. And an airframe for Mk-1A can be put into production on the same production line, also requiring no changes to the airframe assembly jig.

How is this possible? Because there's no such thing as deciding on which avionics to buy even before freezing the airframe design.
 
Parthu said:
How is this possible? Because there's no such thing as deciding on which avionics to buy even before freezing the airframe design.
Click to expand...

You are completely destroying time tested proven processes.

Aircraft design is frozen with avionics.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Hahaha. You poor man. You haven't been keeping track of the discussions here then. PKS is to randomradio is what a glass half empty is to an optimist.
Click to expand...

I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist

I am a Realist

If you have followed Tejas project , then you must have seen how the dates and deadlines have been stretched

And still there is no news of MK 1 A

In these circumstances , MK 2 being a More
Complex and Advanced plane , is bound to take more time than MK 1
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist

I am a Realist

If you have followed Tejas project , then you must have seen how the dates and deadlines have been stretched

And still there is no news of MK 1 A

In these circumstances , MK 2 being a More
Complex and Advanced plane , is bound to take more time than MK 1
Click to expand...

Any news regarding Mk2 first flight ?
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
TRISHUL: LCA-AF Mk.2's Fuselage Design Details Emerge, Plus BVRAAMs, LRAAMs & ASMs Powered By SFDR

@randomradio. Prasun Sengupta saying
That MK 2 will Enter series production In
2030

Please read this
Click to expand...

It's just his assumption, which is mostly always wrong.

He's assumed a 2026 first flight, hence he's assumed series production will happen in 2030. ADA's plan is 2022 first flight and IOC in 2025. So there's a significant mismatch between his opinion versus what ADA's announced.

When it comes to his articles, just look at the pretty pictures. Take his content with bags full of salt.
 
randomradio said:
It's just his assumption, which is mostly always wrong.

He's assumed a 2026 first flight, hence he's assumed series production will happen in 2030. ADA's plan is 2022 first flight and IOC in 2025. So there's a significant mismatch between his opinion versus what ADA's announced.

When it comes to his articles, just look at the pretty pictures. Take his content with bags full of salt.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think Sancho & PKS are the same person. Your opinions?
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Sometimes I think Sancho & PKS are the same person. Your opinions?
Click to expand...

Definitely not .

Sancho is full time critic.

Always trying to find out the drawbacks / wrong doing in deal.

PKS is i think wants to increase the readers of his blog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom