The 0.5m increase may not get all internal avionics fit inside as the majority portion would go for widening the air intake. Some points which may help are listed below
I said I don' think 0.5 M increase is not the final designed to be freezed. Technologies keep on evolving and electronics help in making things compact, Have you heard of the MMR acting as Jammer and EW DRFM.
Thrust to drag
Since frontal area dominates drag, and engine frontal area dominates aircraft frontal area, thrust to drag ratio will take a form of thrust divided by the engine frontal area (inlet diameter used).
F404-GE-402: 19,88 N/cm2
F-414-400: 20,52 N/cm2
F-414 EPE: 24,62 N/cm2
Thrust to weight
Engine thrust to weight ratio is an important (though not the only) factor in determining aircraft’s thrust-to-weight ratios, just as engine’s thrust-to-drag ratio is an important factor in determining aircraft’s thrust-to-drag ratio.
F404-GE-402: 7,76:1
F414-400: 8,95:1
F-414 EPE: 10,74:1
Fuel consumption
Fuel consumption depends on both thrust and thrust-specific fuel consumption. Since aircraft with higher TWR can reduce thrust and still match performance of lower-TWR aircraft, both thrust-specific and total fuel consumption, at dry thrust and afterburner, will be compared.
Dry thrust:
F404-GE-402: 0.826 kg/daN h
F414-400: 0,84 kg/daN h,
F414 EDE/EPE: 0,81 kg/daN h
Afterburner:
F404-GE-402: 1.77,5 kg/daN h
F414-400: 1,85 kg/daN h
F414 EDE/EPE: 1,78 kg/daN h
Bypass ratio
Main function of low bypass ratio is to enable the engine to achieve high thrust-to-weight and thrust-to-drag ratio at dry thrust; both these qualities are required for supercruise.
F404-GE-402: 0,34:1
F414-400: 0,25:1
F414 EDE/EPE: 0.24:1
Percentage of maximum thrust achievable on dry power:
F404-GE-402: 62%
F414-400: 69%
F414 EDE/EPE :70%
Service life is as follows:
F404-GE-402: 4.000 h
F414: 6.000 h
Thanks for all the info
TEchnically i was hoping that MK2 can have a more refined combat range of 800km with internal fuel so that the gain in 15% approx MTOW over Mk1 can be properly translated into a direct gain in firepower. But i believe that may not be so much possible as MK2 will require a 1200L tank centreline with its combat range almost similar to MK1. Thus the gain in firepower may be more of 10-12%. This makes me think a bit oddly about the whole MK2 saga.
800 Km in internal fuel, are you kidding even F-16 have 500 KM combat range on Hi-lo-hi profile with 2 WVR and 2 bombs and that too in ambient environment, not in Indian conditions. MK2 is much more power, agility, refining, with 3 drop tanks and 9-10 hard point with airborne refuel capability, with AESA FCR capable of SAR, with GMTI, IRST, TVC, capable of replacing Mirrage 2000 and Mig 29.
The main problem is first production of test protos aimed at 2021 and then running a 3-5 years minimum 3-4 protos to validate the MK2 every aspect. Then handing SP units IOC types to IAF who will ask changes and finally incorporating these changes and passing FOC.
So end to end time from now in years
6 (2015-2021)+ 5 (4 protos and validation of every system and clocking mandatory flight airtime for checking every aspect )+ 3 (IOC to SP to weapon system integration and validation)+ 2 (Final FOC along with changes suggested by IAF) = 15~16 years
So 2030 year.
What to expect by then.. I can imagine LCA Mark 2A with 5th gen avionics, EW and other Ultra LOng Ranged BVR within 2 years ie 2032 for minimum 150 jets order.
The rest can be made via LCA Mk3 which HAL will produce by 2035 for proto testing.
I will go with the IAF chief Saha quote to leave Mk1 Mk1a, MK2, or MK1p for IAF, and IAF will keep on inductiong LCA with the improvements whatever comes first.
Sorry for being cynical.. Seems the drama is making me feel a bit idiotic for our indigenous fighter programme.
God knows what they will say about AMCA (if and when the plan is put into action)
I guess IAF should just first get 100 Mark1a and if they love it then order another 100 and bundle out mark2. Better use those resources for 2030 timeline by doing AMCA project and adopting it completely and overseeing execution from the go.
I think Tejas should be marketed in the international market, because that will make the program better, and the profit gain could be utilized in future improvements. and for About AMCA programme , this is what Dr K Tamilmani have to say
1."We have to introduce three technologies on AMCA that are not there on light combat aircraft (LCA): stealth; thrust vectoring engines; and supercruise (the capability to fly at supersonic speeds without engine afterburners.) We are working on all three areas already."
2."By late-2019, I will need an engine to be integrated onto the AMCA. We are discussing with multiple engine vendors - Rolls-Royce, GE, Snecma. We could buy an upgraded version of an existing engine, with its output enhanced to 110KiloNewtons. The vendors need three years to develop that."
3."With the government-to-government route with the US now open, we would be happy to use the GE F-414 engine. We have been working with the smaller GE F-404 on the Tejas for a long time and have seen no problems,"
Possibility to produce 120kN Thrust through EPE variant of GE-414 and super-cruising ability have already been demonstrated at Mach 1.2 using GE-414 with Gripen. An India already going to buy 99 F414-GE-INS6 to power LCA Mk II
