Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft project

[S-DUCT]

Yes that would be smart...I believe an engine testing facility is coming up in India- any details on that? We need to up-size our anechoic chambers otherwise the models will be low RCS or even VLO but the end article will be "Ram Jane".

High altitude engine test facility is being built bu Boeing as part of offset to the deal of 10 C-17 globemaster and will ask about its current status from PKS.

But even MK.2 makes me want to scream..where is the AESA radar..I believe a consultancy partner has yet not been selected? At least the engines have been signed upon and all the M-TOT/TOT details hashed out. Also the payload is to go up to 5000Kg- what's up with that?

Yeah,but as per SIPRI database, one EL/M-2052 AESA radar was sold to India.

Any idea on the current and also projected weights that the individual hard-points can take? With 5000Kgs we could look at dual astras on two hardpoints, 2 WVRM on two individual hard-points and two LGBs on the the main hard-points- the first one on wings from the wing roots. That could actually get the IAF happy. No? Or too speculative?

Buddy,I did'nt followed development of MK1,MK2 from the start,educated member like @sancho can help you here.

 

[S-DUCT]

@Dillinger:
Yep.I have read DPP-2013.
and yes ADA/DRDO have been spanked well,but I am waiting cancelation of HAL's BTT-40.This trainer should had been built 2 decades ago and instead of focusing more on LCA,FGFA,ALH,MMRCA ,HAL is diverting precious human resources just for self-pride in this crap.
BTW,what is TPCR?(is that mean,private players will be assited by HAL/DRDO to set up technological base and infrastructure).

 

[Dillinger]

@Dillinger:
Yep.I have read DPP-2013.
and yes ADA/DRDO have been spanked well,but I am waiting cancelation of HAL's BTT-40.This trainer should had been built 2 decades ago and instead of focusing more on LCA,FGFA,ALH,MMRCA ,HAL is diverting precious human resources just for self-pride in this crap.
BTW,what is TPCR?(is that mean,private players will be assited by HAL/DRDO to set up technological base and infrastructure).

The MoD has also granted a longstanding request by private defence companies for access to the military’s 15-year Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP), so that they have the lead time needed to meet future equipment needs. Today the MoD stated, “The DAC has approved the release of a public version of its 15-year perspective document (LTIPP), outlining the “Technology Perspective and Capability Roadmap” (TPCR) against LTIPP 2012-2027. The TPCR will provide useful guidance to the Indian Defence Industry for boosting its infrastructural capabilities and directing its R&D and technology investments.”

 

[sancho]

The projects are already being run by separate teams and adequate manpower has been assigned- there is no cross linkage here.

Different teams are leading the projects, but from the same companies, so that doesn't matter. The point is, ADA/DRDO already showed signs to basically abandon LCA project and switching their focus to AMCA, which is nuts by the fact that LCA MK1 is not ready yet, that they still working on the basics of MK2 and that AMCA according their own logic should based on MK2 techs. So all in all that doesn't make sense at all and as I said on IDF, Antony shows some balls here and makes sure that the more important project for India will be finished first!
I wished he does the same with AWACS India too. So much RESPEKT for the DM for a bold move, hope he stays on this policy and will give the forces here and their some kicks in their a... too!

With 5000Kgs we could look at dual astras on two hardpoints, 2 WVRM on two individual hard-points and two LGBs on the the main hard-points- the first one on wings from the wing roots. That could actually get the IAF happy. No? Or too speculative?

It's not the overall payload that is important here, but the load limit of each hardpoint and the total number of hardpoints. Simple example, the external wingstations have a weightlimit of 150Kg, which means it doesn't matter if the MK2 has 3500Kg payload ot 9500Kg, the maximum in carries on this stations is basically a single missile. On the other side, if the payload would be increased only to 4000Kg, but the weightlimit of the same hardpoint will be increased by 250Kg each, you could carry a twin pylon for 1 BVR and 1 WVR missile.
The best solution however would be the Gripen NG solution and since we integrate the same GE 414 into the MK2 and need a re-designed fuselage too, it would have been the most logical change. Not sure why they didn't took this approach, maybe the drag issues were a reason.

 

[Dillinger]

Different teams are leading the projects, but from the same companies, so that doesn't matter. The point is, ADA/DRDO already showed signs to basically abandon LCA project and switching their focus to AMCA, which is nuts by the fact that LCA MK1 is not ready yet, that they still working on the basics of MK2 and that AMCA according their own logic should based on MK2 techs. So all in all that doesn't make sense at all and as I said on IDF, Antony shows some balls here and makes sure that the more important project for India will be finished first!
I wished he does the same with AWACS India too. So much RESPEKT for the DM for a bold move, hope he stays on this policy and will give the forces here and their some kicks in their a... too!



It's not the overall payload that is important here, but the load limit of each hardpoint and the total number of hardpoints. Simple example, the external wingstations have a weightlimit of 150Kg, which means it doesn't matter if the MK2 has 3500Kg payload ot 9500Kg, the maximum in carries on this stations is basically a single missile. On the other side, if the payload would be increased only to 4000Kg, but the weightlimit of the same hardpoint will be increased by 250Kg each, you could carry a twin pylon for 1 BVR and 1 WVR missile.
The best solution however would be the Gripen NG solution and since we integrate the same GE 414 into the MK2 and need a re-designed fuselage too, it would have been the most logical change. Not sure why they didn't took this approach, maybe the drag issues were a reason.

Indeed its a good move.

That's why I asked for the individual carriage capacity of the hard-points. There are three hard points on each wing, the first two hard-points (moving from wing roots to wing tips) can carry drop tanks and LGBs, which means they are rated for heavy loads- my interest is on the 2nd hard-point on each wing- this one- if it can take two BVR each will get the IAF a bit happy. A mix of 2 WVRM, 4BVRM, 2 Sudharshan LGBs will fit right in- since the hard-pint for the targeting pod is already secured. I believe there is a central hard-point beneath the fuselage also.

I am referring to the hard-point carrying the multiple unguided rocket launcher for the carriage of two BVRM astras- I mean one of them just weighs 150Kg and since the no. of hard-points is not changing it makes sense that they'll strengthen the existing hard-points aside from the 3 which can already carry drop tanks. No?

Also why no movement on CFTs?

 

[sancho]

Indeed its a good move.

That's why I asked for the individual carriage capacity of the hard-points. There are three hard points on each wing, the first two hard-points (moving from wing roots to wing tips) can carry drop tanks and LGBs, which means they are rated for heavy loads- my interest is on the 2nd hard-point on each wing- this one- if it can take two BVR each will get the IAF a bit happy.

IAF seems not to have a big issue with the hardpoints, since they doesn't seem to require it as a change for the MK2. So they might be happy with 4 x BVRs and a centerline fuel tank in interception role, or 2 x BVR and 2 x wing fuel tanks in CAP. The problem however will be in strike roles, since all hardpoints are occupied. Here you can see the current loadlimits and hardpoint configs:

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130421/yhpiebpv.jpg

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130421/7pswq4fx.jpg

 

[RazorMC]

20 ,jet per year is good rate bro.. tejas will get foc in 2015 and 1st sq will come in 2016....... I hope no more delay now....

20 per year is only the initial production capacity IMO.
Once everything's nice and ready, production is going to be ramped up significantly.

Anyways, good move to complete one development and then focus on more advanced one. The real milestone will be the 100% Made in India engine and radar.

 

[Dillinger]

IAF seems not to have a big issue with the hardpoints, since they doesn't seem to require it as a change for the MK2. So they might be happy with 4 x BVRs and a centerline fuel tank in interception role, or 2 x BVR and 2 x wing fuel tanks in CAP. The problem however will be in strike roles, since all hardpoints are occupied. Here you can see the current loadlimits and hardpoint configs:

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130421/yhpiebpv.jpg

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130421/7pswq4fx.jpg

Hard-points 2 and 6 from the first pic are already configured for 800Kg so can't they take 2 Astra BVRMs each on say cobham supplied dual pylons (cobham is reported to be already supplying regular pylons for the LCA), that way you could hypothetically carry-

A) 1 SRAAM on HP-1 AND 7 EACH
B) 2 LRAAMs on HP-2 AND 6 EACH
C) 1 LGB on HP-3 AND 5 EACH
D) 1 Fuel tank on HP-4

The above is based on pic 1 as far as hardpoint numbering goes.

We'd have a package of 2 SRAAMs, 4 LRAAMs, 2 LGBs, 1 Drop tank.

The higher thrust engine should accommodate that, no?

 

[sancho]

Hard-points 2 and 6 from the first pic are already configured for 800Kg so can't they take 2 Astra BVRMs each on say cobham supplied dual pylons (cobham is reported to be already supplying regular pylons for the LCA), that way you could hypothetically carry-

A) 1 SRAAM on HP-1 AND 7 EACH
B) 2 LRAAMs on HP-2 AND 6 EACH
C) 1 LGB on HP-3 AND 5 EACH
D) 1 Fuel tank on HP-4

The above is based on pic 1 as far as hardpoint numbering goes.

We'd have a package of 2 SRAAMs, 4 LRAAMs, 2 LGBs, 1 Drop tanks.

The higher thrust engine should accommodate that, no?

With a single centerline 725l fuel tank, you hardly get any range, especially with such strike loads. That's why I said, it might be enough for interceptions and AAMs, but not for more.

 

[Dillinger]

With a single centerline 725l fuel tank, you hardly get any range, especially with such strike loads. That's why I said, it might be enough for interceptions and AAMs, but not for more.

That's why I was opining CFTs, reduce drag, increase range and still free up 2 hard points.

No CFTs on the horizon so far though-

 

[GR!FF!N]

actually,in other case,I'd support parallel research..but you know,its HAL and ADA..couldn't oppose their decision.but I think after making Tejas MK-II,we mustn't delay for AMCA project,2025 should be the deadline for that project(though I hope we could atleast finish within 2028,realistic approach)

 

[Kompromat]

Step in the right direction.

 

[sancho]

That's why I was opining CFTs, reduce drag, increase range and still free up 2 hard points.

No CFTs on the horizon so far though-

Yes, or as I said the Gripen NG way, which adds more fuel and hardpoints, with a single modification. Anyway, I still hope that the new internal fuel tanks might add some useful capacity to the MK2.

 

[Dillinger]

Yes, or as I said the Gripen NG way, which adds more fuel and hardpoints, with a single modification. Anyway, I still hope that the new internal fuel tanks might add some useful capacity to the MK2.

What's the MK.1 combat radius with one fuel tank, with 2 and without any?

 

[Donatello]

Seems like a sensible decision. When the future IAF needs are being met by MMRCA tender, SU30MKIs, M2K and Mig29s, then i don't see where a fifth aircraft would fit in. Unless, of course IAF wants to induct more than a thousand combat aircraft.