Why no DSI for Tejas Mk2 ?

[Photon Vish]

China changed from conventional to DSI in J10-B.

Tejas mk2 is brand new plateform, then why did not we invest in DSI ?

Its supposed to take time due to lots of changes and bigger airframe so why not add DSI ?
I dont think it would have taken more time than current mk2 taking to develope.

 

[TARGET]

China changed from conventional to DSI in J10-B.

Tejas mk2 is brand new plateform, then why did not we invest in DSI ?

Its supposed to take time due to lots of changes and bigger airframe so why not add DSI ?
I dont think it would have taken more time than current mk2 taking to develope.

My guess is that ADA reduced complexity for faster delivery. While a DSI provides a stealth advantage, its performance is better under Mach 1.8. The LCA already utilizes a 'Y'-shaped intake duct that hides the engine blades better than the J-10 design, and maybe the LCA Mk2 can fly above Mach 1.8. Also, for low-speed control and high-angle attacks, the LCA's 3-door auxiliary air system provides superior airflow.

 

[randomradio]

China changed from conventional to DSI in J10-B.

Tejas mk2 is brand new plateform, then why did not we invest in DSI ?

Its supposed to take time due to lots of changes and bigger airframe so why not add DSI ?
I dont think it would have taken more time than current mk2 taking to develope.

DSI was unproven when Mk1 was designed. And they decided to keep the same on Mk2 to derisk the program.

Why fix what ain't broke?

 

[batman]

China changed from conventional to DSI in J10-B.

Tejas mk2 is brand new plateform, then why did not we invest in DSI ?

Its supposed to take time due to lots of changes and bigger airframe so why not add DSI ?
I dont think it would have taken more time than current mk2 taking to develope.

What's the major advantage of a DSI on a non stealth design?

 

[Photon Vish]

What's the major advantage of a DSI on a non stealth design?

Reduction of weight maybe ? And maybe less LRU ?

 

[Choice_of _inevitability]

What's the major advantage of a DSI on a non stealth design?

Nothing beyond simplification of intake geometry

 

[batman]

Reduction of weight maybe ? And maybe less LRU ?

Maybe, I don't think it's worth pursing if it means delay in the program.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

Maybe, I don't think it's worth pursing if it means delay in the program.

From the J-10A to the J-10B/C, the switch from an adjustable intake to a DSI reduced weight by 150 kg, but sacrificed high-altitude interception capability, transforming the aircraft into a missile carrier. Its high-speed and high-altitude performance sharply deteriorated (and worsened further with the WS-10 engine).
The engine gained over 200+kg in weight（AL-31FN→WS-10x）, while the intake modification only shed 150 kg, plus the shift in the center of gravity...

Then install a very large and heavy radar up front to balance it out.

 

[Choice_of _inevitability]

Then install a very large and heavy radar up front to balance it out.

There's often a weight gain when you switch from a modern PESA to AESA. You are basically replacing a hollow metal plate and tubes with a huge block of metal and electronics.
Tejas went from a 80-90kg to some 120kg+.
The older antenna weighed only 4.8kg

 

[batman]

From the J-10A to the J-10B/C, the switch from an adjustable intake to a DSI reduced weight by 150 kg, but sacrificed high-altitude interception capability, transforming the aircraft into a missile carrier. Its high-speed and high-altitude performance sharply deteriorated (and worsened further with the WS-10 engine).
The engine gained over 200+kg in weight（AL-31FN→WS-10x）, while the intake modification only shed 150 kg, plus the shift in the center of gravity...

Then install a very large and heavy radar up front to balance it out.

Tejas has a fixed-geometry, Y-shaped bifurcated air intake with a fixed splitter plate to divert boundary layer air, it doesn't have a variable-ramp intake to begin with, switching to a DSI would mainly eliminate the splitter plate and simplify the intake rather than replacing an advanced interception-optimized intake system. Therefore, any changes in weight, pressure recovery, or high-altitude performance would likely be much smaller than those reported for the J-10 transition.