Focus Shifts to Tejas MK-2, Project all set to go Critical

[migflug]

Main reason for going f414 is because of drag...
Power will compensate for it..

It is said that aerodynamics will be improved by 5-10%
That's needs to be seen after waiting for a few years




Saab asked for a 51 % share??! that means they will dictate terms for us..

Yaa i know that but we could have asked for 49%. Even if they dont agree isnt it possible for ada to make design like gripen itself

 

[magudi]

Then why didnt we go for it.

The answer is Saint Anthony. Btw saab seems to be back in picture now, interesting times ahead

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

Yaa i know that but we could have asked for 49%. Even if they dont agree isnt it possible for ada to make design like gripen itself

Well - The final design of Mark II is yet to be frozen.

ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL should redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights)

Though Mark I design could have been better.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace.

@Abingdonboy Any possibility the Mark II featuring canards? - or most probably LEVCONS...

 

[sathya]

Well - The final design of Mark II is yet to be frozen.

ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL have to redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights)

Though Mark I design could have been better.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace.

@Abingdonboy Will Mark II Feature Canards?

Don't lev cons do part of canards job?

Can someone educate me the differences in having lev cons vs canards ?

 

[migflug]

Well - The final design of Mark II is yet to be frozen.

ADA and the Aircraft Research & Design Centre at HAL have to redesign Tejas Mark-2 as a genuine MMRCA with the originally conceived canard-delta wing configuration (whose absence has made the Mk-1 incapable of meeting onerous operational requirements, like acceleration and sustained turn rates in dogfights)

Though Mark I design could have been better.

Had the design-wise more challenging canard-delta winged Tejas, recommended by four of the six international aviation majors hired as consultants, not been discarded and international best practices followed from when the Light Combat Aircraft programme was initiated in 1982, ADA (design bureau), HAL and IAF would have worked together. IAF would have inputted ideas at the design and prototype stages, HAL produced the prototypes, and IAF pilots flown them. The design validation and rectification, certification, pre-production, and production processes would then have been in sync and progressed apace.

@Abingdonboy Will Mark II Feature Canards?

Even without canard if we elongate it by 1m or 1.4 (aq to studies to solve all drag issues ) We will get much better plane.
what do u mean by final design yet to be frozen? Will it nt be elongated by .5m and inlets by 10cm???

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

Even without canard if we elongate it by 1m or 1.4 (aq to studies to solve all drag issues ) We will get much better plane.
what do u mean by final design yet to be frozen? Will it nt be elongated by .5m and inlets by 10cm???

The preliminary design is out - the final one is yet to be finalized/frozen -

Tejas Mk-II Preliminary Design to be Out Next Month -The New Indian Express
Tejas, Mark II ‘overengineered’ to large extent, confirms official | Millennium Post

Most probably LEVCONS as in NLCA-

 

[axisofevil]

Plz God I hope we tie up with Saab. I would love for the US to tie up but given the issues I doubt it. The next best thing is Saab. Offer them 49%. Make it happen. When Saab first propsed their offer a few yrs ago.....It was the best and remains so. We need a partner as well and not just TOT who help us grow and become stable in aircraft design. Once, we have achieved that we can focus together on unmanned jets.....


Go with Saab....we will not be disappointed. Whatever parts that some may say are subject to sanctions are core areas that can be addressed by both of R&D working on it.


Tejas design is shit. Not impressive at all. Once we induct it, we are stuck with it and can never change it. It will too damn costly to do so. This is greatest opportunity to do so.

 

[HariPrasad]

Hmm.. none of your mentioned improvements seems to have an impact on drag. Isn't drag a factor of wings and aerodynamic features? Allowing bigger engine and increased payload by strengthening wings are internal change having mundane to no effect on drag - as of my info.

Okey that is another irony, I mean another one apart from others - that no one has an idea what is the core-cause of performance dis-satisfaction in Tejas. You keep improving "shine" and "polish" without addressing weight, drag and other critical aspects which would remain untouched. Was Radar an Issue in Tejas? I don't think it ever was! Bigger engine would demand more fuel.. so where is more fuel volume going to come from if size of the aircraft stays the same? Was small payload another core issue? No offense but this project is in deep $! Accept and start-over. You can do it better the second time you try.

Weight in Mk 2 is reduced by 450 lg and there is a 5 to 10 percentage improvement in Aerodynamic performance.

Also we should have gone with e200 rather than 414 as it has higher dry thrust of 69 KN than 414 62 kn. It is dry which matters more than wet thrust.

They Did not bid for engine i think. More over the Thrust of 414 shall go upto 118 KN and it will be suitable for Naval Tejas also.

 

[sathya]

Competition was between GE and EF200 , GE won .

 

[Ind4Ever]

The preliminary design is out - the final one is yet to be finalized/frozen -

Tejas Mk-II Preliminary Design to be Out Next Month -The New Indian Express
Tejas, Mark II ‘overengineered’ to large extent, confirms official | Millennium Post

Most probably LEVCONS as in NLCA-

From the second article !!

IAF has already placed an order of 4 squadrons of Mark II even though it is still being engineered from the Mark I – with an addition of new canards and redesigning of a part of the fuselage.

So are we looking to add canards ?

 

[Chanakya's_Chant]

So are we looking to add canards ?

Might be! But it has a slight possibilty for the timelines of Mark II project are pretty challenging - First flight by 2018 - The Mk-II will have some 25-30 percent commonality in parts with the MK-I and these parts (i.e not requiring any modification) are already in production. For the MK-I parts that have to be modified, thousands of new drawings are being worked upon jointly by DRDO-HAL and the private sector. It will probably be LEVCONS....

Even without canard if we elongate it by 1m or 1.4 (aq to studies to solve all drag issues ) We will get much better plane.
what do u mean by final design yet to be frozen? Will it nt be elongated by .5m and inlets by 10cm???

The Mk-II design is expected to achieve a 5 percent improvement in drag characteristics through 'production improvements' related to further streamlining (reduced contour variations etc) of the Mk-I airframe. The Mk-II design will specifically address the sustained turn rate (STR), climb rate and transonic acceleration shortfalls of the Mk-I. It will have a STR of 18 degrees (same as the F-16's). The climb rate will also be more or less satisfactorily reached. Transonic acceleration is expected to be realized fully. Moreover the Mk-II airframe will certainly be able to reach and fly through Mach 1.8 in a dive.

According to Dr Tamil Mani of DRDO 'The final Mk-II drawings will be completed by December 2015.'

 

[HariPrasad]

HERE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IS THAT YOU CAN NOT BUILD SOPHISTICATED FIGHTER WITHOUT CLIMBING A LEARNING CURVE. Mk 1 is our learning curve. We can not have AMCA or MK2 without having MK1.

 

[alonsofff123]

HERE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IS THAT YOU CAN NOT BUILD SOPHISTICATED FIGHTER WITHOUT CLIMBING A LEARNING CURVE. Mk 1 is our learning curve. We can not have AMCA or MK2 without having MK1.

the big problem is MK1 is a totally failed project, a shit plane

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Hmm.. none of your mentioned improvements seems to have an impact on drag. Isn't drag a factor of wings and aerodynamic features? Allowing bigger engine and increased payload by strengthening wings are internal change having mundane to no effect on drag - as of my info.

Okey that is another irony, I mean another one apart from others - that no one has an idea what is the core-cause of performance dis-satisfaction in Tejas. You keep improving "shine" and "polish" without addressing weight, drag and other critical aspects which would remain untouched. Was Radar an Issue in Tejas? I don't think it ever was! Bigger engine would demand more fuel.. so where is more fuel volume going to come from if size of the aircraft stays the same? Was small payload another core issue? No offense but this project is in deep $! Accept and start-over. You can do it better the second time you try.

The length of the aircraft is supposed to be increased by 1 m and its wing by 0.2m. But the IAF it seems does not want to make big changes in the original design. It is happy to have the length to be increased by 0.5m and wings to be the same.

Dont know the point they are trying to make. Finaly ADA and IAF have to sit together for a compromise.

 

[HariPrasad]

the big problem is MK1 is a totally failed project, a shit plane

Hummmmmm,

Keep updating yourself from open source media and not the chinese shits.