Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
The reason why IAF ordered 83 mk1a is because MK2 was not ready. IAF placing follow on orderes before evn first MK1a rolled out is MK2 got delayed further.
I don't know, tweet from livefest is not displaying.
It saying, first flight of MK2 will be in 2027,not before than that.
Mk2 delayed.
Mk1A order at least got increased with additional building capacity, Initially it seemed 83 Mk1A would be built at the rate of 8/ year.
Mk2 induction will follow at same rate as Mk1A..
Who knows when AMCA and tedbf will role out.
Mk1A order at least got increased with additional building capacity, Initially it seemed 83 Mk1A would be built at the rate of 8/ year.
Mk2 induction will follow at same rate as Mk1A..
Who knows when AMCA and tedbf will role out.
Meanwhile Can we improve the design, since the delay is already happening.
We are moving methodically now. People get frustrated too early these days. Only thing I don't like in our Tejas program are the American engines. French M-88 and its derivatives would have been much better and safer option.
USA is exposed now as it is actively supporting and protecting Khalistan movement and thus Balkanization of India. I've said it before and will say it again; Russia, France and Israel are our natural friends and allies and we should stick with them rather than putting all our eggs under our covert/overt enemy like USA. Period.
If we design JV engine with France in same dimensions with F414, we can swap at MLU.
Since Amca and tedbf also going to be developed using F414.
That's the plan. Apart from that, we should continue to pursue our Kaveri program too.
Only initial variants. Later ones should have JV engine of 110-120KN class.
Nah stick with the American engines. The ge-404 is the best powerplant we can buy for the Tejas. We could fit in ge-414's. But Tejas mk1b needs to be developed now. Tejas mk1b needs ge-414 GaN aesa and atleast legion pod irst similiar to the f-15/16's.
We need atleast 400 mk1a's and mk1b to comfortably fight a two front war. Delay of mk2 also makes the need for MMRca all the more necessary. Typhoons or rafales we need to get any of them fast. Preferably typhoon with mk2 radar
There is no denying that American jet engine tech is by far the best. But we're talking about strategic autonomy here. Depending too much on Murica is detrimental towards our safety, IMO.
So far the DAC clearance is for MK1A, so identical to the earlier version. MK1B could be future MLU.
MRFA is a different requirement altogether. It has nothing to do with MK2 or AMCA. Typhoon? No. In fact, hell no! Rafale is a far superior plane to it and we already have developed required infrastructure for it. So no new plane, please!
I do not know stuff about technical parts of fighter jets, or the engine sourcing, (geo)politics behind it , order pipeline, effort done by different entities etc etc.
But from a simple standing point, there are certain irregularities , esp with people throwing around that infamous 4 iteration infographic
first, what was their plan with the F404 and F414 ? this is not clear to me , we know engine sourcing was a big issue itself and designers needed to base on one fixed engine for one jet. So from the beginning, why did they think simply fitting a higher thrust engine on a common airframe would solve the issue of IAF wanting replacement for mig21, mirage 2000 class all of these. Perhaps they should have just made only 1 LCA, the current existing mk1a, nothing more. This early one airframe fits all engine approach was wrong.
Anyway, storm brewing in Defence community space currently, while ADA keep working on.
But from a simple standing point, there are certain irregularities , esp with people throwing around that infamous 4 iteration infographic
first, what was their plan with the F404 and F414 ? this is not clear to me , we know engine sourcing was a big issue itself and designers needed to base on one fixed engine for one jet. So from the beginning, why did they think simply fitting a higher thrust engine on a common airframe would solve the issue of IAF wanting replacement for mig21, mirage 2000 class all of these. Perhaps they should have just made only 1 LCA, the current existing mk1a, nothing more. This early one airframe fits all engine approach was wrong.
Anyway, storm brewing in Defence community space currently, while ADA keep working on.
Incompetent loud mouths promised so much before program approval. Went to silence afterwards. This cycle will continues for AMCA and we will keep importing. I guess IAF already knew whats going on thus persisting on MRFA.
LCA Mk1 became overweight by 1T, so they needed additional thrust to make up for it. Then they figured out the F404 cannot provide that, hence F414. LCA Mk2 was initially the LCA Mk1 with some modifications and F414.
There were three requirements. One requirement was to replace the Mig-21 with LCA, the second to replace Mig-27 with F-16, M2000 or Gripen C/D. The third was a high-end twin-engine jet to complement the MKI. In reality, we needed 500 MKI class jets, but that's not a good idea politically speaking, plus we wanted more modern tech, hence MMRCA.
So 500 high-end jets and 350-400 low-end LCA + Mirage 2000s. That was the plan.
But due to delays, and a very severe requirement shortage, the IAF relented and accepted a slightly modernized LCA Mk1A which fixes many of the most problematic issues and somewhat meets requirements, primarily helped by the fact that adversaries are no better in this segment. The somewhat fixed LCA Mk1A is a step-up compared to the F-16, JF-17 and J-10C, so it was accepted as a Mig-21 replacement.
Post HAL's welcome interference in LCA Mk1A, combined with all the delays in decision-making before that, helped ADA catch up. So instead of allowing the IAF to import more SE jets, they decided to make one for the IAF. That's how the previous LCA Mk2 now became a Gripen E/Mirage 2000 cousin. The success of Gripen Demo is probably what led ADA down this path. And now, ADA gets SE MII and the IAF can import the TE requirement via MRFA.
So there you go, that's how we are fulfilling all three requirements, effectively 850-900 jets.
FGFA was supposed to replace the MKI 'cause the MKI was designed for a service life of 25 years. But the Russians signed the FGFA's death warrant by making a better MKI than planned. So with its new 40-year life, we could delay the FGFA decision by 10 years, and that's what we have done. Of course, this also led to delaying the MKI's MLU. It was originally supposed to be done in 2014.
We will most likely have 600 high-end and 400 low-end jets by 2045 or so. After 2045, we will need LCA Mk1/A and MKI replacement.
So that's the IAF's fighter fleet in a nutshell.
Oh yeah. ADA's dates are all just imaginations. I doubt even they trust their dates. It's all politics.
The uncertainty around AMCA is even more worse 'cause we haven't yet decided on the engine.
And, as per the IAF, we MRFA, FGFA and AMCA.
I am concerned about the timelines of AMCA. It is in ADA's interest to not deliver AMCA too early (if you know what I mean).
Why so? ORCA? The IAF won't go for it 'cause of MRFA.
And the faster the better, 'cause there is a need for three more fighters. LCA, MKI and TEDBF successors. And ADA is only guaranteed the MKI successor, but only after the completion of AMCA. So a delay there will force the IAF to look for stopgap solutions once again, and this could entice both IAF and IN to go for SCAF. So any delay will be due to ADA's own bungling nature.
ORCA will take 8-10 years once TEDBF achieves an advanced level in its flight testing phase. It's pointless. It's very likely that Rafale production will be over by then. AMCA Mk1 and TEDBF will be certified at roughly around the same time, say 2035. AMCA in 2040. So ORCA by 2042 or so. By then MRFA would have finished 11-12 years of production.
No, Why would IAF order enough mk2 if AMCA is near? The timelines are too close now for LCA mk2 and AMCA Mk1. If they get project approval next year then the difference will be just few years.
ORCA will not exist. Its pointless.
I think it's safe to assume that AMCA will see a 10+ year delay in which case the mk2 will be safe.
If not, and the AMCA and the mk2 are both coming around the early-mid 2030s, then why even pursue the mk2? Just go all in on the 1A, order more AMCA and get buddy drones to fill any capability gap.
There is not much differences between two. Most things will be reused in the AMCA mk1. However late, LCA Mk2 will be a reality. No question about it.
You cant just push AMCA timelines like that. A stealth aircraft is an absolute necessity.
Everything flows from the airforce requirement not the other way around.