LCA AF Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[Rajput Lion]

MKI has near 10tonnes of internal fuel(9980 kgs to be precise) and its OEW is 18.4 tonnes. So its take-off weight is 28.4 tonnes and when its 10tonnes of internal fuel-load is taken into account, its fuel-fraction comes out as 35.21%. We are looking to improve SFC of AL-31FP through advance-metallurgy upgrades done by MIDHANI. Don't think AMCA or MK2 or any other ASF would match the range/radius of MKI solely on internal-fuel unless it has gigantic size like J-36.

 

[randomradio]

MKI has near 10tonnes of internal fuel(9980 kgs to be precise) and its OEW is 18.4 tonnes. So its take-off weight is 28.4 tonnes and when its 10tonnes of internal fuel-load is taken into account, its fuel-fraction comes out as 35.21%. We are looking to improve SFC of AL-31FP through advance-metallurgy upgrades done by MIDHANI. Don't think AMCA or MK2 or any other ASF would match the range/radius of MKI solely on internal-fuel unless it has gigantic size like J-36.

It's 9.64T. The 10T capacity is for the Chinese version via KNAAPO. Ours was enchanced from the original 9.4T on the Su-30M by Irkut.

Switching out the Russian parts with Indian will help decrease fuel consumption, but it won't change the fuel fraction without an actual reduction in overall airframe weight. But MKI MLU is likely to get heavier, hence the need for additional few kNs of thrust to compensate. So FF will decrease further, and hopefully fuel consumption will compensate for the loss to maintain current range.

 

[Rajput Lion]

It's 9.64T. The 10T capacity is for the Chinese version via KNAAPO. Ours was enchanced from the original 9.4T on the Su-30M by Irkut.

We have the same enganced wing-spar fuel tank of Su-27M, just like the Chinese MKK version. Only thing missing in MKI versus 10.25 tonnes fuel load of old Su-35(T-10M) is the twin-fin fuel tanks(around 135kgs each). So, MKI has 10tonnes of internal fuel load.

Switching out the Russian parts with Indian will help decrease fuel consumption, but it won't change the fuel fraction without an actual reduction in overall airframe weight. But MKI MLU is likely to get heavier, hence the need for additional few kNs of thrust to compensate. So FF will decrease further, and hopefully fuel consumption will compensate for the loss to maintain current range.

Actually, MKI UPG. with lighter radar(around 200-300 kgs lighter), new IRST(around 100 kgs lighter) and new avionics(replacing older/heavier Russian/Western) with new-age lighter ones will decrease its weight substantially. The new FCS/FBW also would save weight over older one.

 

[randomradio]

In other news, we may be up for disappointment. The F414-INS6 contract seems to be for the older 7 stage version rather than 6 stage.

Let's see if they create a hybrid using EDE's materials, like what they have done on existing SHs. This will provide significant improvement in life and efficiency without the 6 stage design.

@Picdelamirand-oil
Seems like INS6 being 6 stage was fake news.

 

[Tamilan57]

In other news, we may be up for disappointment. The F414-INS6 contract seems to be for the older 7 stage version rather than 6 stage.

Let's see if they create a hybrid using EDE's materials, like what they have done on existing SHs. This will provide significant improvement in life and efficiency without the 6 stage design.

@Picdelamirand-oil
Seems like INS6 being 6 stage was fake news.

When is disappointment not the case with Indian Air Force? Completely useless IAF and MOD.

 

[Choice_of _inevitability]

So , the supposed internal fuel capacity of tejas mk2 is 3.3tonn. While tejas mk1a(internal +external which its alwys used) is over 5 tonn

So let be direct, the modern warfare requires lots of bvr as well as fuel capacity to stay in fight

Now tell me, why not drdo while completely redesigning tejas mk1a into mk2 , why dont they increased fuel capacity to over 5 tonn ? Ef typhoon, a 1980s design has 5 tonn fuel

Here is my post from Other forum:

#825
Opinion:
What: The current expected internal fuel capacity designed by ada was a foolish decision, they should have opted for over 5 tonn of internal fuel capacity (like rafale, and even rafale needs cft and droppable fuel tank)

How ?: there is very large volume between spine and wings of tejas mk2 , so insted of keeping that for aerodynamic. They should have made it bulky and eadily over 1.5-2 tonn of additional fuel can be added(like cft position in f16 but far less aerodynamic cost due to much better blending )

Why ? : menurabality now matter less and less with over 100km effective/no escape zone range of bvr missile, but fuel matter special since more no bvrs required or heavy ground launched missiles are needed

---> and no , 2 engine dont consume 2x fuel, fuel consumption depends upon required thrust

Tejas mk1a biggest issue is small internal fuel so it fly with 2 external fuel always , so why not atleast aim for that combined fuel of tejas mk1a for internal of tejas mk2 ??

Indian designers are stupid, desigining a 4.5 gen jet in 2010, but with just 3.3tonn of fuel ?? , and now tejas mk2 will awys need atleast 2 drop tank for any meaningful use for offensive ops

--> hope that they are aiming for over 10k tonn fuel capacity for amca(as amca will come when even europr will be inducting their indigenous 6th gen with massive fuel capacity)

Gripen E/F a one-to-one equal of MK2 has a similar fuel capacity (3.4t). Maybe you can't magic more fuel into a similarly sized airframe

In other news, we may be up for disappointment. The F414-INS6 contract seems to be for the older 7 stage version rather than 6 stage.

Let's see if they create a hybrid using EDE's materials, like what they have done on existing SHs. This will provide significant improvement in life and efficiency without the 6 stage design.

@Picdelamirand-oil
Seems like INS6 being 6 stage was fake news.

That explains the "ToT"

 

[randomradio]

We have the same enganced wing-spar fuel tank of Su-27M, just like the Chinese MKK version. Only thing missing in MKI versus 10.25 tonnes fuel load of old Su-35(T-10M) is the twin-fin fuel tanks(around 135kgs each). So, MKI has 10tonnes of internal fuel load.

It's 9.64+0.27 on MKK. Someone's added to that once again to go above 10T.

MKK has nothing to do with T-10M. It came out of the T-10U family. All single-seat versions that came out of T-10S had fuel loads above 10T. All T-10U family with 2 seats have fuel loads below 10T. It's because the fuel tank behind the single-seat cockpit was removed to fit a second cockpit.

Actually, MKI UPG. with lighter radar(around 200-300 kgs lighter), new IRST(around 100 kgs lighter) and new avionics(replacing older/heavier Russian/Western) with new-age lighter ones will decrease its weight substantially. The new FCS/FBW also would save weight over older one.

What I've learned is if weight savings have been achieved below a baseline, they will add sufficient number of upgrades to bring it back to the baseline. Even if it means adding ballast. In some cases, depending on the age of the jet, just the process of improving service life comes at the cost of new attachments that increase weight. So weight only increases from its original production standard. Empty weight won't go down, only go up. They compensate with increased thrust and fuel efficiency, sometimes they give up on the latter if it's due to a SLEP.

 

[Hydra]

You are looking at one or two areas. That's not enough. If you don't have space and nuclear capabilities, you are not a peer or near-peer of India.

North korea had ballistic missiles & nukes. And they tested long-range missiles than that of india, they tested more nukes than india, they tested more powerful nuke than what we had tested. Are you saying thatbthey are peer to peer to india?

 

[randomradio]

When is disappointment not the case with Indian Air Force? Completely useless IAF and MOD.

ADA's choice, not IAF's or MoD's. I was a fan of the EJ200.

 

[Tamilan57]

Gripen E/F a one-to-one equal of MK2 has a similar fuel capacity (3.4t). Maybe you can't magic more fuel into a similarly sized airframe

That explains the "ToT"

So our AMCA Mk1 will have a 98KN engine instead of 120KN engine?

 

[randomradio]

That explains the "ToT"

It's more like they made EDE/EPE as a potential upgrade rather than a new build. INS6 was chosen for its proven status.

And the tech that went into EDE should still be available, materials and coatings, and that's the Holy Grail, not the 6 stage design.

The 6 stage design gives 6000 hours of hot core life, but when the same materials are combined with the 7 stage design, we could still get 4000 hours out of it. Nothing changes for LCA Mk2 and TEDBF. Both would still need an overhaul regardless.

 

[Hydra]

So our AMCA Mk1 will have a 98KN engine instead of 120KN engine?

Yeas

 

[randomradio]

North korea had ballistic missiles & nukes. And they tested long-range missiles than that of india, they tested more nukes than india, they tested more powerful nuke than what we had tested. Are you saying thatbthey are peer to peer to india?

Making nukes and missiles are relatively easy if you have been given the tech for it. So no.

Where is their actual nuclear ecosystem? All they have is a 5 MWe reactor which they use to get the plutonium necessary for nukes and they get only a few kg every year. Our official potential is 20-25 kg per year, but was done over many decades, and our unofficial potential is 1000+ kg.

Japan only needs 1 year to make nukes.

 

[randomradio]

So our AMCA Mk1 will have a 98KN engine instead of 120KN engine?

No one has ever claimed AMCA will get uprated F414s. There is potential, but the idea lives only on the net, nothing official.

With new turbine materials, we can uprate it. After all, it's just a software update.

 

[Hydra]

Making nukes and missiles are relatively easy if you have been given the tech for it. So no.

Where is their actual nuclear ecosystem? All they have is a 5 MWe reactor which they use to get the plutonium necessary for nukes and they get only a few kg every year. Our official potential is 20-25 kg per year, but was done over many decades, and our unofficial potential is 1000+ kg.

Japan only needs 1 year to make nukes.

Yeas, that's the point. Nukes & Ballistic missile won't make you to peer nation to EU or P5. Your conventional weapon manufacturing & R&D ecosystem makes.

We really lacks in that. I will rate Soko & Japan above India.

Turkey is catching up and they are ahead of us in many areas too, they fielded a naval indigenous multifunction radar on ship before even we think about doing the same.

 

[Sathya]

In other news, we may be up for disappointment. The F414-INS6 contract seems to be for the older 7 stage version rather than 6 stage.

Let's see if they create a hybrid using EDE's materials, like what they have done on existing SHs. This will provide significant improvement in life and efficiency without the 6 stage design.

@Picdelamirand-oil
Seems like INS6 being 6 stage was fake news.

It's more like they made EDE/EPE as a potential upgrade rather than a new build. INS6 was chosen for its proven status.

And the tech that went into EDE should still be available, materials and coatings, and that's the Holy Grail, not the 6 stage design.

The 6 stage design gives 6000 hours of hot core life, but when the same materials are combined with the 7 stage design, we could still get 4000 hours out of it. Nothing changes for LCA Mk2 and TEDBF. Both would still need an overhaul regardless.

If it is seven stage with 4000 hrs life, then I think we are betting the chance of 120 Kn JV engine to be swapped in at MLU.

 

[PhotonVish]

Gripen E/F a one-to-one equal of MK2 has a similar fuel capacity (3.4t). Maybe you can't magic more fuel into a similarly sized airframe

Well thats called design choices.

Only thing similar to gripen e is engine. Everything is upto ada to decide.

If ada/iaf wants, then they can easily put 5 tonn of fuel, may be little more rcs and little aerodynamic penality, but that's it.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

In other news, we may be up for disappointment. The F414-INS6 contract seems to be for the older 7 stage version rather than 6 stage.

Let's see if they create a hybrid using EDE's materials, like what they have done on existing SHs. This will provide significant improvement in life and efficiency without the 6 stage design.

@Picdelamirand-oil
Seems like INS6 being 6 stage was fake news.

• GE may have led India to believe in a more ambitious engine development path;
• this ambition was also commercially useful for making the Super Hornet more competitive, particularly against the Rafale M;
• with the Indian naval competition lost, U.S. interest in pushing for a more advanced version may have waned;
• and India is thus left with a more conservative solution, centered on an F414 engine that is closer to the proven standard than to the most promising next-generation version.

The more ambitious engine may have served primarily as a showcase at a time when Boeing needed to beat the Rafale for the Indian Navy; once that battle was lost, GE was able to revert to a more conservative approach, without worrying much about Indian expectations for the Mk2.

 

[Lolwa]

Result we didn't have an exchange of populations nor did partition bring about peace in the neighborhood which should've automatically birthed the question - why did we have the partition then ?

The Partition was creation of the Mecca Medina paradigm in the Indian context. With Medina being Pakistan and Mecca being Delhi.
That's the entire reason population transfer never happened. Gandhi was a British loyalist at the end of the day who supported the British against Boers in South Africa.

 

[Lolwa]

AL-31FP and RD-33 are insufficient.

China can somehow use the al-31 to power the j-10's but we can't use it for some reason. The rd-33 and ge-404 have similar specs.