Story Behind MK-2 Variant of LCA -Tejas

[Abingdonboy]

Nonsense, since IAF placed a 2nd order for additional MK1s in 2009, so well after the navy started the development of the MK2, but the industry promised IOC and production start of the MK1 around 2011 and we all know that that didn't happend because of the problems to meet IOC and today FOC requirements. In the meantime the MK2 development was full on, which makes it nothing but logical for the IAF to join that development too, WITHOUT moving away from their commitment on the MK1!
Also we know that the MK1 doesn't meet ASR be it for speed (Mach 1.6 only), TWR requirements (1 or more), not to mention that the empty weight goal (5500Kg) was not achieved either and that to overcome these shortfalls, more thrust was necessary. IAF required something around 90kN, while IN needed more, to fulfill their carrier based requirements.

So MK1 didn't suffered from IAF, but from the failure of the industry to deliver it, even to the MK1 FOC requirements!

Agreed, this narrative put foreward in the article seems very immature and silly.

 

[sancho]

Agreed, this narrative put foreward in the article seems very immature and silly.

IDWR, what's more to say.

 

[a.kumar]

Nonsense, since IAF placed a 2nd order for additional MK1s in 2009, so well after the navy started the development of the MK2, but the industry promised IOC and production start of the MK1 around 2011 and we all know that that didn't happend because of the problems to meet IOC and today FOC requirements. In the meantime the MK2 development was full on, which makes it nothing but logical for the IAF to join that development too, WITHOUT moving away from their commitment on the MK1!
Also we know that the MK1 doesn't meet ASR be it for speed (Mach 1.6 only), TWR requirements (1 or more), not to mention that the empty weight goal (5500Kg) was not achieved either and that to overcome these shortfalls, more thrust was necessary. IAF required something around 90kN, while IN needed more, to fulfill their carrier based requirements.

So MK1 didn't suffered from IAF, but from the failure of the industry to deliver it, even to the MK1 FOC requirements!

5500kg was not achieved even in first prototypes , so stop bricking about it and Wings needed to be strengthen after IAF asked for Heaver Weapons systems ,something which was not in original ASR , Now You will argue ohh Project was so slow IAF had to ask integration of New Weapons which required wings strengthening .

It is also funny how 6800 kg Gripen performs ok with 80kn engine but 6500kg Tejas MK-1 with 84Kn engine fails in parameters ? clearly ASR revision happened , if requirement was of 90Kn engine then why 84kn engine was selected ?

 

[sancho]

5500kg was not achieved even in first prototypes , so stop bricking about it

LOL yeah lets just forget about the problems created by ADA / DRDO and just divert the blame to IAF.

Wings needed to be strengthen after IAF asked for Heaver Weapons systems ,something which was not in original ASR

According to whom, the article? The LCA was meant to carry the same missiles as the Mig 21s, R60/73 and R77 and the R60/73s were even fitted to the prototypes, so you don't really want to say that the R77 were too heavy for LCAs midwingstation right?

It is also funny how 6800 kg Gripen performs ok with 80kn engine but 6500kg Tejas MK-1 with 84Kn engine fails in parameters ?

First of all, even the Gripen would not reach the TWR requirement either (MMRCA had the same requirement), but more importantly is, that it doesn't have the design flaws of LCA, which is why it has to deal with less drag and reaches the speed Mach 1.8 or more. So the higher trust for LCA is needed to overcome the drag issue of the design mainly and not just to add more power. That's also why IAF's thrust requirement for the MK2 was lower than IN's, since for IAF it was just needed to correct the flaws, while IN's needs far more thurst to make NLCA operationally useful.

 

[a.kumar]

R-77 really ?? In 1984 ?, do you even know which aircraft in IAF got R-77 first and when ?. I said weapons system why you assuming BVRAAM ? Read Rajkumars lca-Tejas Story it has clear reference of wings Harding .

Let's assume 90kn engine could have sorted the problems ,but IAF never asked GE to uprate F404 engines further, orignal engine had 79kn thrust n current 84kn thrust ,if gripen is not meeting ASR and you expected Tehas to so so ?

So you know how over weight LCA was in first prototype ? You look more clueless .

 

[Ind4Ever]

Yeah that's the problem with IAF they are still flying mig-21 and behaving like they are USAF

Rightly said . When we are suffering with old Mig 21 why can't we place more order for MK1 . If IAF keep increasing the spec this programme will never get over as user will not be satisfied . At least 1-3 years been wasted to meet ever changing specs of greedy IAF. NAVY on the other hand have very good vision and aware of these Mama mama I want this , no I want that . Naa I want that one attitude as MoD will have no hesitation to buy them what they want . No matter how costly it is .

This must change we must live with what we have and try do better with what we have . So in future we can create fighters for what we want . I do respect our Indian Navy which will soon be in advanced blue water navy with more Made in India vessels.

Wonder what will IAF do if India had no money to buy fancy Rafael or PakFa . They won't fly anymore until they get Rafael or what ? Like a spoiled rich kid

Lets see this issue from another angle. Way back in mid 80s, when LCA was conceived, it was for replacement of MiG 21. The project kept lumbering ahead (budgets, technology denial...) and with time the requirement or capability expected from fighter also kept changing and project went into something comparable with an endless loop (in control systems) where a final product couldnot materialize because input kept changing.
Now, Mk-2 shouldn't take as long a gestation period as its predecessor and should get matured relatively quickly. It no doubt is a far superior plane and in this regard, if IAF thinks its money can get a better fighter, there isn't anything wrong to ask for it.

How can you replace 100s of mig 21 with only 40 MK1 ? Which will be completed by 2020 or so ? And don't expect less than 5 years to induct MK2 . So its very wrong foresight of IAF . Every one must agree

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

India need to bring a law that will force the IAF, IA and IN to buy Indian, especially when there is an Indian alternative available.

Russia had that law, US has such a law, even the french have it. Its about time India has it

 

[anant_s]

How can you replace 100s of mig 21 with only 40 MK1 ? Which will be completed by 2020 or so ? And don't expect less than 5 years to induct MK2 . So its very wrong foresight of IAF . Every one must agree

Well sir, i have a different thinking here and i guess this is discussed elsewhere too. When u induct a newer generation aircraft as a replacement to an older one, do you really require one is to one replacement? The newer fighter will bring in capabilities far superior than the one it is replacing and therefore a single piece can take up the job, which would've required more numbers previously.
Besides, the induction of Mk 1, IMHO is a stop gap arrangement at best, which will allow IAF to get experience with the machine and develop infra-structure and operation practices around it. by the time it happens (say 4-5 years), Mk2 should be ready for IOC and we can build upon from there.
As for IAF's wrong foresight, they have been asking for a new machine since mid 90s and when MMRCA (touted as replacements for MiG 21/23/27) started it already was mid 2000 (a decade). Our extremely tedious procurement procedures didnot allow IAF to get Rafale still and if one puts himself in ACM's shoes, whose mistake is it? His or Establishment's ?

 

[oFFbEAT]

It's not only 'ego' that is making IAF work against National interest, there's more to it.........
Like America sabotaged our Space program, Russia is doing the same to our indigenous Defense program........
Countries works for their own National interest, so you can't blame USA and Russia BUT what saddens and worries me is that Indians(that too, those who are at the forefront of protecting it) are working against their own National interest......

 

[SR-91]

Yeah that's the problem with IAF they are still flying mig-21 and behaving like they are USAF

Very true, Numbers is the key!!!
I would've liked to see IAF order at least 4-5 squads of MK1.

 

[ZooZoo]

5500kg was not achieved even in first prototypes , so stop bricking about it and Wings needed to be strengthen after IAF asked for Heaver Weapons systems ,something which was not in original ASR , Now You will argue ohh Project was so slow IAF had to ask integration of New Weapons which required wings strengthening .

It is also funny how 6800 kg Gripen performs ok with 80kn engine but 6500kg Tejas MK-1 with 84Kn engine fails in parameters ? clearly ASR revision happened , if requirement was of 90Kn engine then why 84kn engine was selected ?

Because Sweden doesn't have terrorists and traitors... In IAF and India there are some ppl who sabotage Desi project, these ppl are paid by Foreign Armed forces Company to do so...

10 years ago, these India born Russian agent sabotaged Arjuna tank.. Now these India born CIA Agent are sabotaging LCA...


lets see how Manohar will respond...

My suggestion: Disintegrate IAF, and send all top ranking officers of IAF on immediate leave without Pension. Give half IAF to Army Aviation corps and half to Naval air wing... Indian don't need such officers..

 

[sancho]

Let's assume 90kn engine could have sorted the problems ,but IAF never asked GE to uprate F404 engines further, orignal engine had 79kn thrust n current 84kn thrust

The uprated version is the GE 414, the difference in thrust of the prototypes and the MK1 version, comes from further developments of the GE 404 itself and are not specific to IAF requirements. Moreover, why would we buy 2 different engines, for IAF and IN? That cuts the requirement in half, therefor increases the costs for an assembly line and makes it financially not justifiable anymore. So a common procurement to deal with the higher thrust requirement for both foces was logical, sadly IAF was dependent on IN's requirements, otherwise the EJ200 engine would had been the far better choice.

if gripen is not meeting ASR and you expected Tehas to so so ?

Because Tejas was developed with that requirements in mind, Gripen wasn't and that surely worked against it in the MMRCA as well.