What's new

Tejas MK-2 will fly in 2015

Is it really? To be honest, when we look at the changes of MK2 we know so far, there is hardly any BIG change of the airframe that would require major design changes. The fuselage will be stretched to house the new fuel tanks and engines, but that's it right?
The new engines are upgraded version of the older once with the same size, which actually should make the integration very easy and fast. Wasn't this even one of the main points of procuring this engine?
AESA and IRST developments on the other side would be new, but are not confirmed yet anyway and don't need major design changes too.

So all in all, why they need 4 to 5 years (2010 engine selection, 2011 show of MK2 models at Aero India) to first fly an MK2 prototype?
On the other side, they needed 2 years to first fly N-LCA prototype after roll out without any changes at all, so I shouldn't be that surprised about the long timeframe for MK2.

It's a shame what we do with this project, because it is so important for our indigenous industry and the fighter itself has a lot of potential, but we simply fail to get to propper planing and development as it seems. :frown:

sancho & a LCA thread can never be seperated........ :lol:
 
.
how did you came to this nos.?? any links ?

i made a post showing the link as below. and if this news of 45 more Mig29k is true, as per the thread as below, then it will mean for higher number of delivery of Mig29k after 1-2 years, which will mean the delivery rate of SU30mki+Mig29k may be 42+ also :undecided:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/187946-45-more-mig-29k-indian-navy-2.html#post3067769

Russia will be delivered to India in 2012, more 40 m-17V-5 type of military transport helicopters, 21 Su-30MKI (signed in 2000, according to contract to license the assembly), 12 Su-30MKI (according to the 2007 supply contracts signed) and nine carrier-based fighter aircraft MiG -29K/KUB

http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/72568
 
.
i made a post showing the link as below. and if this news of 45 more Mig29k is true, as per the thread as below, then it will mean for higher number of delivery of Mig29k after 1-2 years, which will mean the delivery rate of SU30mki+Mig29k may be 42+ also :undecided:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/187946-45-more-mig-29k-indian-navy-2.html#post3067769

it's good that India is getting 2 squadrons of high end planes every year, i am excited about that time when the inductions of latest fighters will peak itself, with the inductions of FGFA, Rafale, LCA, naval LCA, maybe Rafale -M for navy all at the same time around 2020.

My guess:
FGFA - around 10/per year
Rafale - around 16-20/per year
LCA - around 16-20/per year
NLCA - around 10/per year
Rafale M - around 10/year

Total - above 65 aircrafts/year (equals to 3 squadrons) :cheers:

@Hello_10, India contracted 16 mig 29k in the earlier contract & both GOI & IN claims that it have got 15 in it's inventory, i heard that 1 mig 29k got crashed while having test flights, i want to know from you if the Russian govt. is giving IN a replacement or it will be first crash of IN mig 29k without any Indian flying it???
 
. .
Is it really? To be honest, when we look at the changes of MK2 we know so far, there is hardly any BIG change of the airframe that would require major design changes. The fuselage will be stretched to house the new fuel tanks and engines, but that's it right?
The new engines are upgraded version of the older once with the same size, which actually should make the integration very easy and fast. Wasn't this even one of the main points of procuring this engine?
AESA and IRST developments on the other side would be new, but are not confirmed yet anyway and don't need major design changes too.

So all in all, why they need 4 to 5 years (2010 engine selection, 2011 show of MK2 models at Aero India) to first fly an MK2 prototype?
On the other side, they needed 2 years to first fly N-LCA prototype after roll out without any changes at all, so I shouldn't be that surprised about the long timeframe for MK2.

It's a shame what we do with this project, because it is so important for our indigenous industry and the fighter itself has a lot of potential, but we simply fail to get to propper planing and development as it seems. :frown:

All Indians will agree to you, but the thing is we cant change it & the one who can change dont have the desire. they are busy filling their pockets.

GOI have long drown policy of Public Privet participation. but still Private sector is ignored & PSU or Imported products are prefered.
 
.
Is it really? To be honest, when we look at the changes of MK2 we know so far, there is hardly any BIG change of the airframe that would require major design changes. The fuselage will be stretched to house the new fuel tanks and engines, but that's it right?
The new engines are upgraded version of the older once with the same size, which actually should make the integration very easy and fast. Wasn't this even one of the main points of procuring this engine?
AESA and IRST developments on the other side would be new, but are not confirmed yet anyway and don't need major design changes too.

So all in all, why they need 4 to 5 years (2010 engine selection, 2011 show of MK2 models at Aero India) to first fly an MK2 prototype?
On the other side, they needed 2 years to first fly N-LCA prototype after roll out without any changes at all, so I shouldn't be that surprised about the long timeframe for MK2.

It's a shame what we do with this project, because it is so important for our indigenous industry and the fighter itself has a lot of potential, but we simply fail to get to propper planing and development as it seems. :frown:

Sancho, we can blame many people and planning for the delay. I understand we all are frustrated. However if that is what is available to us, then we cant do anything about it. If thats the way DRDO and ADA are functioning then there is nothing we can do about it.

The whole India is going through a policy paralysis and when it comes to a scientist, he is always at the receiving end.
Do we even know if the engines have come so far, and its not the job of DRDo to get us the engine. If I remember it correctly then the GEF414 will come by 2014.

There are AESA and IRST developements which are due also and IAF needs a proper AESA as per its requirements.
So we do have challenges in getting this ready soon.

What I can guess is that they are focusing now to give FOC to Mk1 and you can see the puch is currently on Mk1 so that they can validate all systems and take the inputs to make Mk2. Which is a good thought I will say.

Give some time to the scientists Sancho, they created a fighter plane ina country which doesnt even had a local motor cycle engine until sometime.
 
.
yaha har dal pe babau baitha hai .. anjam-e-DRDO kya hoga. !!!! :alcoholic:
 
.
All Indians will agree to you, but the thing is we cant change it & the one who can change dont have the desire. they are busy filling their pockets.

GOI have long drown policy of Public Privet participation. but still Private sector is ignored & PSU or Imported products are prefered.

It's funny that we always blame GoI, Indian forces and point to private sector when DRDO, ADA, NAL and HAL scientists have messed out the developments. When will we start criticising them?

Sancho, we can blame many people and planning for the delay. I understand we all are frustrated. However if that is what is available to us, then we cant do anything about it. If thats the way DRDO and ADA are functioning then there is nothing we can do about it.

Of course, learn from these mistakes, correct them and make it better in the next development, but do you see any correction, learning curve or improvements for the next developments?
I don't, DRDO and ADA already wants to develop NG aircafts without having the basics ready by now. HAL wants to develop, licence produce, upgrade more and more aircrafts at the same time and is surprised by delays of IJT. Indian forces are remaining in the past and on their pride of having certain capabilities (attack and utility helicopters only for IAF, dedicated ATGMs for IAs Rudras) or want what things what the others have too (LCA / N-LCA, AMCA / N-AMCA, mid air refuellers) although these assets would be more effective if operated by certain forces only, just like some developments would be more capable and easier if they had only requirements of a single force...
The point is, there are too many that wants too much, because of the wrong reasons and when things fails we have an easy excuse, the government!
Is it too much if our scientists just concentrate on what they really can deliver and go for JV/co-developments with foreign partners? Can't the forces jointly look at what's best for Indias defence, instead of what is the best for their own force?
And what about us? Why do we expect our companies and scientists to deliver high class techs and weapons only, why is the pride of indigenous developments so important to us?
Of course, there are many people that could and should criticise (starting with us), but the most important point is to change the mindset and be more realistic about these developments!

Yes we need indigenous developments, but I love to see the Dhruv flying in operational service in Indian force with foreign help, instead of seeing LCA beeing nothing else than a prototype because we wanted to do it alone! Just like I take any MKI, Apache or other foreign arms or techs over any Indian development, as long as it's protects our country!

So indigenous is not the only way and foreign assistance or procurements are not wrong at all!
 
.
REPOST

Tejas Mk2 M-MRCA


With the Ministry of Defence sanctioning US$542.44 million (Rs2,431.55-crore) for the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in order for it to undertake full-scale engineering development of the ‘Tejas’ Mk2 medium multi-role combat aircraft (M-MRCA), it would seem, on paper at least, that ADA as per its own projections is now well-positioned to roll-out the first ‘Tejas’ Mk2 prototype by September 2013 and make this prototype fly by December 2014, following which Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) would begin series-producing the M-MRCA by 2016. In reality, however, several R & D challenges lie ahead, most notably in the areas of systems integration and mission software development, which can only be overcome if ADA is allowed to fast-track the selection and procurement of key mission sensors, cockpit avionics and structural components.

For its part, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Navy, which are the principal stakeholders in the ‘Tejas’ Mk2 programme (with each financing 40% of their respective variants of the ‘Tejas’ Mk2) and will become the fourth-generation M-MRCA’s principal operator as well, has insisted on several enhancements to be incorporated into the single-engined single-seat ‘Tejas’ Mk2, which include:

  • A major upgradation of the glass cockpit design that is characteristic of the existing Tejas Mk1 MRCA, with two 8-inch by-20-inch panoramic active-matrix liquid crystal displays (PAMLCD) replacing the existing four bulkier AMLCDs.
  • Installation of a fully integrated but open-architecture mission avionics suite that will include a new-generation mission computer, active electronically-steered array-based multi-mode radar (MMR), an infra-red search-and-track sensor, or IRST (either pod-mounted or carried internally), helmet-mounted display (HMD), and two-way airborne data-links for communicating with friendly combat aircraft, AEW & C platforms and unmanned aerial vehicles..
  • An integrated defensive aids suite (IDAS) that includes a combined radar/missile approach warning system, countermeasures dispenser, fibre-optic towed-decoys, and an internal self-protection jammer.
  • An air-to-air/air-to-ground software-defined radio system that harnesses the power of its distinctive automatic routing and relay capabilities to offer extended range, while offering video, voice and data simultaneously at an exceptionally high data rate.
  • The ability to carry a laser designator pod, tactical reconnaissance pod, and escort jamming pod.
  • Installation of a frameless canopy actuation system, and a retractable aerial refuelling probe.
  • Employment of triple-ejector racks capable of launching precision-guided munitions (PGM) like the 125kg/250kg AASM (from the France-based Sagem Défense Sécurité subsidiary of the SAFRAN Group) laser-/GPS-/imaging infra-red sensor-equipped standoff munition, GBU-39 small-diameter bomb, CBU-105 sensor-fuzed weapons from Textron Systems, and MBDA’s Brimstone millimetre-wave radar-guided anti-armour missile.




From the above, it becomes evident that the IAF intends to position the ‘Tejas’ Mk2, to be powered by a 98kN thrust F414-GE-INS6 turbofan built by GE Aero Engines, as an M-MRCA capable of undertaking all-weather defensive counter-air operations, as well as all-weather effects-based tactical air-to-ground precision strikes in support of friendly ground forces out to a depth of 80nm beyond the jointly-defined Army/IAF fire support coordination line. Consequently, in order to meet the IAF’s time-bound roadmap for inducting the ‘Tejas’ Mk2 into service, ADA is soon expected to convene a series of bidders’ conferences, following which both global and restricted requests for proposals (RFP) are likely to be issued to interested original equipment manufacturers (OEM) by the last quarter of this year, with final vendor selection taking place before 2012 ends. For supplying the PAMLCDs, the principal contending OEMs are expected to include US-based L-3 Display Systems, BARCO of Belgium, SAMTEL Display Systems Ltd of India, Elbit Systems of Israel, and SAFRAN of France. The PAMLCDs will enable the pilot to view more battlespace information within a larger viewing area.

The open-architecture mission computer has been developed by the Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) and will be built by HAL. As far as the X-band AESA-based MMR goes, on paper there are six competitors: SELEX Galileo’s Vixen 1000es/ES-5 Raven, the four-nation Euroradar consortium’s Captor-E, THALES Avionics of France’s RBE-2, Israel Aerospace Industries/ELTA Systems’ EL/M-2052, Northrop Grumman’s scalable agile beam radar (SABR), and Raytheon’s RACR.

The SABR is the result of Northrop Grumman’s long-established expertise in fielding AESA-based MMRs for combat aircraft since the 1990s, starting with the APG-77 for the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor, APG-80 for the UAE Air Force’s Block 60 F-16E/F Desert Falcons, and APG-81 AESA for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF.

Raytheon too has a well-established reputation in this field, having supplied the APG-79 (from which the RACR is derived) for the Boeing-built F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 2, and the APG-63(V)3 for Boeing F-15SGs of the Republic of Singapore Air Force. The EL/M-2052’s array comprises ‘bricks’ of 24 transmit/receive modules, making it easy to assemble the AESA in different configurations to match the size and shape of an existing combat aircraft’s nose, up to 1,290 modules. Smaller, lower-module-count versions can be air-cooled, reducing weight and making integration simpler. Of these contenders, the least risky favourites for being shortlisted are the SABR and RACR, both of which have been available since 2008.

OEMs likely to bid for supplying internally-mounted high-resolution IRST sensors include THALES Avionics with its OSF, Russia’s Urals Optical Mechanical Plant (UOMZ) with its OLS-30, and Selex Galileo of Italy with the 55kg Skyward. The sole pod-mounted IRST sensor is likely to be proposed by Lockheed Martin, whose Shadow Pod offers dramatically improved raid cell count (40 times more accurate than radar) at maximum declaration ranges (more than 60km) and provides the combat aircraft’s mission computer with track-file data on all targets and infra-red imagery to video displays. It can operate in either track-while-scan or single-target track modes with selectable scan volumes in azimuth and elevation. The HMD to be chosen for the Tejas Mk2 will be the Dash Mk5 from Elbit Systems. The Dash Mk5 has a magnetic helmet-mounted tracker to determine where the pilot’s head is pointed, and comes combined with a miniature display system that projects information onto the pilot’s visor. The head tracker and visor display act as a targetting device that can aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking.

To obtain a variety of information and sensor-based data such as airspeed, altitude and target range, the pilot can refer to the visual display on the inside of the Dash Mk5 while remaining in a ‘heads-up’ position during combat, thereby eliminating the break in visual contact that occurs when the pilot looks away to check the display readouts in the cockpit. To aim and fire an air combat missile, the pilots will be required to simply point his head at the targets and press a switch on the flight controls to direct and fire a weapon. To attack a ground target, the pilot can acquire the target with a laser designator pod (LDP) and note its location on the helmet display. Alternatively, the pilot can use the helmet display to cue sensors and weapons to a visually detected ground target.

An umbilical cable carries power and video drive signals to the internal helmet electronics, and position-sensing signals from the helmet to the signal processor box. The umbilical is provided with a quick disconnect connector to provide for safe ejection. The 8.5kV high-voltage supply for the helmet’s CRT display is embedded within the helmet, so that no high voltages are present on the umbilical. The tube and supply are embedded in the back of the helmet.

The Dash Mk5 projects the CRT image via a folded optical path directly on to the spherical section visor. All symbology is calligraphic, produced by a programmable stroke generator, and a green phosphor is employed. Integration of HMD modes, HOTAS controls, and weapons system modes have been done in the Tejas Mk1’s mission computer operational flight programme and are specific to the IAF’s requirements.


The two-way airborne data-links are likely to be supplied by HAL, which, among other systems, will be supplying the RAM-1701AS radio altimeter, TACAN-2901AJ and DME-2950A tactical air navigation system combined with the ANS-1100A VOL/ILS marker, CIT-4000A Mk12 IFF transponder, COM-1150A UHF standby comms radio, UHF SATCOM transceiver, and the SDR-2010 SoftNET four-channel software-defined radio (working in VHF/UHF and L-band for voice and data communications), and the Bheem-EU brake control/engine/electrical monitoring system, all of which have been developed in-house by the Hyderabad-based Strategic Electronics R & D Centre of HAL.

The open-architecture IDAS has been under joint development by DARE and Germany-based Cassidian since 2006, and will include the AAR-60(V)2 MILDS F missile approach warning system, the EW management computer and Tarang Mk3 radar warning receiver (developed by DARE and built by Bharat Electronics Ltd) and countermeasures dispenser built by Bharat Dynamics Ltd. Reusable fibre-optic towed-decoys using suppression, deception and seduction techniques that are likely to be evaluated include BAE Systems’ ALE-55, Raytheon’s ALE-50, RAFAEL’s X-Guard, and Cassidian’s Ariel Mk3, which incorporates a phased-array beam-steering device, providing full spherical coverage with 1.2 kW of power. Contenders for supplying the pod-mounted escort jammer include IAI/ELTA with its ELL-8251, and RAFAEL’s Skyshield. For self-protection, Elettronica of Italy has proposed its Virgilius family of directional jammers (as part of the IDAS suite), which make use of active phased-array transmitters for jamming hostile low-band (E-G) and high-band (G-J) emitters.

For tactical strike missions, the ‘Tejas’ Mk2 will be equipped with the Litening-3 LDP and RecceLite tactical reconnaissance pod—both built by RAFAEL.

The customised frameless canopy actuation system and retractable aerial refuelling probe are likely to come from UK-based Cobham. The triple-ejector racks are likely to be supplied by either US-based EDO Corp or Cobham Mission Equipment. The rack is a weapon-suspension unit that attaches to an aircraft’s weapon pylons, enabling each pylon to carry three weapons. The mission planning-cum-debriefing system is likely to be custom-developed by Israel’s Rada Electronics Industries, which had earlier developed a similar system for the Su-30MKI.


Weaponisation of the ‘Tejas’ Mk2 is still work in progress, with the Astra Mk1 BVRAAM, now being developed by the DRDO’s Hyderabad-based Defence R & D Laboratory (DRDL), allowing IAF pilots to hit enemy aircraft up to 44km away and at altitudes of up to 20,000 metres. The follow-on Astra Mk2 will have a longer range of 80km. Once it is 15km from the target, the Astra Mk1’s on-board Agat-built 9B-1348E radar will pick up the target for terminal homing. When the target is within 5 metres, the Astra’s radio proximity fuse will detonate its warhead, sending a volley of shrapnel ripping through the targeted aircraft. A drawback in the Astra Mk1 remains its high weight. In comparison with the Astra Mk1’s 150kg, other BVRAAMs like the Derby weigh around 100kg only, while the Vympel R-77 weighs 175kg.

RACR+%2528above%2529+%2526+ELM-2052+AESA-MMR.jpg

ES-05+Raven.JPG

SDR-2010+SDR+radio+%2528left%2529%252C+CIT-4000A+IFF+transponder+%2528right%2529+%2526+UHF+SATCOM+receiver+%2528below%2529.jpg
















------------------------------------------------






DATA_Tejas_Industrial.gif
 
. . .
```:blah::blah: this big 'will' again

'will' is big b'coz our 'will' is big, we will make our dream of world class fighter true one day of course it will take time. But you can continue with your painting & ctrl c, ctrl v job.
 
. .
Is it really? To be honest, when we look at the changes of MK2 we know so far, there is hardly any BIG change of the airframe that would require major design changes. The fuselage will be stretched to house the new fuel tanks and engines, but that's it right?
The new engines are upgraded version of the older once with the same size, which actually should make the integration very easy and fast. Wasn't this even one of the main points of procuring this engine?
AESA and IRST developments on the other side would be new, but are not confirmed yet anyway and don't need major design changes too.

So all in all, why they need 4 to 5 years (2010 engine selection, 2011 show of MK2 models at Aero India) to first fly an MK2 prototype?
On the other side, they needed 2 years to first fly N-LCA prototype after roll out without any changes at all, so I shouldn't be that surprised about the long timeframe for MK2.

It's a shame what we do with this project, because it is so important for our indigenous industry and the fighter itself has a lot of potential, but we simply fail to get to propper planing and development as it seems. :frown:

Don't you think this delay is due to the TOT we will get from Rafale deal. May be they want something for mark 2 which they don't have right now. Mark 2 isn't major design change. It's just value addition. So I think they are purposefully delaying it. Otherwise as you mentioned it should be around 9/12 months job to create a prototype. Isn't it ???
 
.
right now we have 22 mk1 prototypes and by 2015 we will have atleast 5-6 more,

then the mk2 will fly and we will build 30 more prototypes of it for testing till 2030, then superstealthy mk3 will fly and another 50 prototypes for testing.

they india will be the only country to build an airforce with prototypes. :lol: we dont even need to manufacture them so many testing prototypes. :tup:

Don't be so obtuse. Program's like these require close to a dozen platforms to properly test and evaluate everything properly the fact is due to sanctions and finacial reasons some of the prototypes have actually come to the end f their lives and been retired already and needed t be replaced for continued testing. If you don't test properly you are gong to have a horrible time after induction starts and there is a reason the LCA has suffered no accidents uptil now and for a nation like India that hasn't done anyhting like this before it is even more nessercary.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom