Current Position of Canards in Tejas Mk2 Could Lead to "Developmental Problems", Caution Expert

Professor Prodyut Das, a former Mechanical Engineering professor at IIT Kanpur and a renowned expert in aerospace structures, has raised serious concerns about the design of the Tejas Mk2 fighter jet in his recent blog post. His primary concern revolves around the placement of the canards on the aircraft, a configuration he deems "extremely disturbing" and likely to cause "developmental problems."

Prof. Das points out the uniqueness of the Tejas Mk2's canard placement, highlighting the lack of any existing production canard fighter jet with a similar arrangement. He criticizes the decision-making behind the design, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and risk assessment even in the face of budget limitations. He questions the oversight of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which despite ample funding, apparently failed to recognize this potential issue during the design stage.

To rectify the situation, Prof. Das proposes a transparent approach. He suggests acknowledging the potential problem, expressing gratitude to those who raised concerns, and utilizing the abundant expertise available in India to redesign the forward fuselage. Such a redesign, he believes, would not only resolve the canard placement issue but also present an opportunity to enhance the aircraft's stealth capabilities by reducing its radar cross-section (RCS).

Expressing his concern about the dwindling air strength of the Indian Air Force, Prof. Das warns against prioritizing personal pride over honest evaluations, as it could compromise national security. He advocates for a more open and responsible approach to ensure the safety and effectiveness of India's military aircraft.

Prof. Das concludes by urging a redesign of the Tejas Mk2's forward fuselage to address the canard placement concerns. He reiterates the availability of skilled professionals within India and calls for a transparent and accountable approach to safeguarding national security.

It is important to remember that Prof. Das's views represent his personal opinions and haven't been officially acknowledged by ADA. Further developments on the Tejas Mk2 design are eagerly awaited.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Thanks.

I'm more optimistic and feel Mk2 would enter production by 2032-33. Production rate is something else until done by private company.

Also I think Mk2 would not be obsolete due to electronics as India will be developing those and upgrade jets like AESA in present.

Rest future will tell.

The issue is, now that HAL has almost more or less confirmed that prototype would now fly only in 2026, that time schedule is almost impossible to achieve. You see the prototype testing phase for any new fighter lasts for about 7-10 years. Going by the past record of ADA/HAL, its safe to assume it will last for a decade.

Even if we assume that somehow, they complete it within 7 years you are still looking at 2033, by the time it enters production. Looking at the pace of production at HAL and the term of past contracts, it would take 3.5-4.5 years, that would put it firmly in 2037-40 timeframe.

By that time Ultrawideband GAN based EW systems and Radars with Low Probability Intercept would become mainstream they will totally tilt the balance against it. Also you will see greater proliferation of advanced 5+ generation fighters, with distinct possibiolity of China selling their low observable fighters to Pakistan. Also Pakistan is also a part of Turkish Kaan project that woulkd badly damage the delicate balance of power against something like LCA MK2.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

even if there is any issue, it will be found during prototyping and testing phase after which the issue will be fixed. It is not a huge deal. IAF will not let a flawed aircraft be put into service. The testing and prototyping phase is there for exactly this reason. No need to worry. Trust the process. Tejas is a fantastic machine.

 

[Akshat]

Can you get us Rafale F5 with GaN radar for $150Mln as you keep on saying in every posting of yours.

I don’t have to do anything. Our friend France will provide the lowest possible cost out of all planes like they have done twice. L1, remember?

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

Is it the professor or HAL+ADA who want to sabotage Mk2? Why has it not been rolled out even almost a decade after it was supposed to be put into serial production?

Dude, does an organization as spectacularly inept as ADA/HAL even need helping hand at sabotaging a project of national importance? Doubt it. For tgey themselves have done an absolutely super ob sabotaging the whole development and doubt anyone else would be as good as them ever.

 

[Kjell]

even if there is any issue, it will be found during prototyping and testing phase after which the issue will be fixed. It is not a huge deal. IAF will not let a flawed aircraft be put into service. The testing and prototyping phase is there for exactly this reason. No need to worry. Trust the process. Tejas is a fantastic machine.

That is an outdated way of designing, the later you found the problems the more cost and time it takes to fix it, nowadays you do simulations in the earlier phase.

 

[Akshat]

Dude, does an organization as spectacularly inept as ADA/HAL even need helping hand at sabotaging a project of national importance? Doubt it. For tgey themselves have done an absolutely super ob sabotaging the whole development and doubt anyone else would be as good as them ever.

I am not talking about ineptitude but willful sabotage.

 

[aks2820]

ADA has probably wind tunneled tested and did all calculations on various flows. So, they are best to give answer to this professor.

I think Prof has argued that world over aeronautical agencies have found CFD is not accurate in estimating the flow rate into the intakes in the event of turbulence. Therefore most of them decided to place the canards either behind the intakes or further out on the intakes themselves rather than the fuselage. Just my 2c.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

That is an outdated way of designing, the later you found the problems the more cost and time it takes to fix it, nowadays you do simulations in the earlier phase.

Well the issue is they did do CAD/ CAM design along with Computational Fkuid Dynamics simulations. The problem is that they did it with incorrect design assumptions and for what ever the reason chose to ignore the critical flaw and yet finalize the design and freeze it.

 

[Prof. Prodyut Das]

Kindly do not insult me as a Left Liberal. I am Right wing Nationalist as born and would like to stay that way. Regarding your contradicting opinions I have no intention to gains converts but feel it is my duty as a citizen to point out a very probable error. Don't leave it till it is too late.