Yes it is, single engine, cheap(er than PAK-FA) 5th gen plane would be excellent for RuAF. If this is definitive stuff….hmm.

Could be a significant market with those two air forces alone, export potential as well.

or could it be AMCA ? Indians have already made it clear that it would be a twin engine in Mig-29 class (based on kaveri, russian version can use maybe next gen derivative of RD-93) and would be made carrier capable (possibly for CATOBAR carrier).

I have my doubts over medium size stealth fighters, if it is possible to cram large bays inside them then it shows up as increased drag and reduced fuel capacity (imagine a f-16 to fatboy JSF transition for mig-29 to AMCA) The increase in surface area in terms of percentage for a medium fighter will be much larger than that for a large fighter (F-22, Pak-Fa).

On the positive side, this fighter can borrow a lot of FBW code from Mig-35 and maybe the carrier landing gear from Mig-29k.

Now this is something that will make the offsets part of the C-17 deal worth it !

link

Yay !! That should speed up engine development a lot, not only Kaveri but lots of other UAV engines as well !!

Just thought it would be useful to have a thread for this, rather than the Rafale, Typhoon and MMRCA threads being used by those trying to prove that the aircraft they “support” is incontestably better than the one they don’t.

Perhaps it’s not in the spirit of this thread but…

I think that the Rafale is superior to the Typhoon. In some regards. I also think that the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale. In some regards.

what what what ??? !!! typhoon superior to rafale in any aspect ? boy you are so dead now :p
btw if rafale loses out in MMRCA now then its just a case of typhoon being cheaper and rafale being superior. If rafale wins, not only is rafale superior but it is also cheaper. :diablo:

So you are trying to tell me what I mean? I think I might know what I mean better than you do! Yes, Tejas is a 2nd line lead in fighter.

You asked for proof, I posted it, you didn’t like that I’d called your bluff. More correctly I made point A, proved point A, then you tried to falsely attribute point D to me and then claimed my proof for point A did not support point D, but since the point D was made by you there is no onus upon me to prove it.

Wow, thats confusing actually :p btw did you notice that you are comparing specs of Mk1 with mig29k, not considering the possibility that Mk2 has roughly 15-20% higher thrust and increased MTOW? No ?

It may well turn out to be a bad idea though, as they don’t have that much in the way of resources, and they want to develop Gripen NG and perhaps a naval version too. This spreads them too thin and risks making the end result substandard. One could argue that ploughing it all into Gripen NG would yield a much more attractive end product.

Did you also know that NLCA project was started on the request of Indian Navy after the first flight of Tejas in 2003 so it is way deep into development with its own fund allocation from the Navy? Did you also know that the initial orders of NLCA were placed even though there was already an understanding to purchase Mig-29k along with Gorshkov ? I do not want to get into platform comparison, but if Tejas is a LIFT, then its capabilities as pretty close to Gripen as a LIFT :p You may also want to check in the correct statistics for Mk1 from this info board from AI-11 before quoting figures.

Not wing loading but the claim that Tejas is a better aerodynamic design. Ah can’t wait for the MK1 and MK2 to enter service, didn’t they confirm that the MK1 will be an 8G fighter compared to the Gripen which is a 9G fighter ?

HAL’s info display board from Aero India 11.

AFAIK, the complete flight envelope hasn’t been opened for Tejas.

Fair enough, but I also think JF-17, Tejas, FA-50 probably won’t be competing into larger competitions like the MRCA or Brazil’s FX-2, very soon (and not because of political reasons etc).

true. all 3 are first attempts by their respective manufacturers in the fourth gen market, although good ones at that, while SAAB has a long history of (successful) product development. Although i like to play the devil’s advocate but given a choice i too would go for gripen unless these 3 offer a massive cost advantage and political neutrality, and more often than not its the pariah states that are looking for these type of weapon systems.

The high quality avionics in Gripen and mostly imported ones in Tejas, along with imported engines and “keep everyone happy” diplomatic relations of both India and Sweden have ensured that these two won’t be tapping into this huge market. This market could have been the monopoly of FC-1, but KAI has scored a point by making an “advanced trainer” with light attack and a2a capabilities rather than a cheap fighter. A trainer doesn’t set off as many alarms in senate as a fighter sale does :p

Sure, here’s the proof. If the LCA were as capable as the Mig-29, then only the LCA would have been procured. That was not the case however, both were procured, so clearly Mig-29 is more capable than LCA. As I was saying, second line aircraft 😎

MTOW
Mig-29: 24,500 kg
Tejas: 13,300 kg

Speed
Mig-29: 2M
Tejas: 1.8M

Thrust to Weight Ratio
Mig-29: 0.97
Tejas: 0.91

Loaded Weight
Mig-29: 18,550 kg
Tejas: 10,500 kg

Mig-29’s are a part of gorshkov deal and also an insurance policy. NLCA is going to be based on GE414 and “expected” to be close to sea gripen in raw performance, unless sea gripen goes for epe engine. You can say its not gonna happen or something similar or remark at the futility of such an exercise but lets just give credit where its due 🙂

considering it is not a proper fighter, it doesn’t even have a radar in this version I consider the price too high. it’s a good aircraft but should cost within 15-20 mil. twinblade, it can’t do air patrol or replace the mig-21 or f-4. in effect it’s a modern equivalent of the hawk.

My bad. I assumed it came with a radar and preconfigured with weapons. In that case its a loot 😀