BlackArcherI don’t care about this LCA versus JF-17, but I believe your statement here is not correct because I have an old GE poster showing all the military aircraft (drawings) using their engines (late 1980-ish, I would date it around 1989) and in it was the LCA. In fact, that’s the first time I’ve learned about the existence of the LCA and the drawing in the poster looks very very close to what the LCA looks like today….really not much changed, thus the development have already went through some phases.
then how about relating the JF-17 to the Super-7 effort? That would put it in the same ballpark as far as development duration goes. It was the progenitor project for the JF-17 after all.
HAL only identified Dassault as the consultant for the LCA in 1987- check this FG archive page
And this FG article from 1990 shows an LCA that is very similar to the final shape.
And by 1991, the Project Definition Phase (which is before any development begins) was completed and it was stated that the design and engineering work had begun..
But this was followed by the Indian economic meltdown which led to a severe funding crunch that almost derailed the project. HAL hadn’t built a single prototype till 1994 and this was later on followed by the US sanctions post the 1998 nuclear tests, something that set back the program by at least 2-3 years while the FBW was developed indigenously.
And here is what ADA, the design agency, mentions as the timeline for the LCA program.
1983
DRDO got permission to initiate a programme to design and develop a Light Combat Aircraft.
1984
Government of India set up Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) as the nodal agency developing the LCA and managing the program
1985
IAF generated Air Staff Requirements (ASR) for LCA in October 1985.
1986Government allocated Rs. 575 Crores for the LCA programme.
Programme to develop an indigenous power plant (engine)- Kaveri was launched at GTRE.
1987
Project definition commenced in October 1987 with French aircraft major Dassault Aviation as consultants.1988
Project definition phase completed in September 1988.1989
Government review committee expressed confidence in LCA programme. It was decided that the programme will be implemented in two phases.1990 – 1999
1990
Design of LCA was completed as a tail-less compound delta winged relaxed static stability aircraft.Phase 1 (Technology Demonstrator) of the development was commenced to create the proof of concept.
1993
Full funding approved from April 1993 and development work for phase 1 started in June.
1995
First technology demonstrator, TD-1, rolled out on 17th November.2000 – 2009
2001
4th January – the historic first flight of the Technology Demonstrator TD-1 marking a new era in the aviation history of India.
BlackArcherInteresting, the highlighted bit. Which “aerospace defense circles” are these ?
Could you provide some sources ?
Hope they are not based in Abbottabad …
😀
BlackArcherSo data from the designers of the JF-17 is BS?! The 300-500km combat range of the Limited Capability Aircraft is from yourself. After 30 years of apparent development, those are still the official figures it appears. For such a well documented aircraft, don’t you think that’s rather strange?
the JF-17 data is either made up, or with caveats that are not being mentioned..and gullible folks believe it hook, line and sinker..of course, if a PAF pilot says that they need fuel more than weapons, its purely for tactical reasons.. 😀
Besides, you don’t seem to believe the same designers when they claim the design service life is 3000 hours..whereas that appears perfectly sane, since the JF-17 was meant to replace the F-7 and A-5s and Mirages that don’t have the 6000 hours airframe life of more modern fighters.
BlackArcherJapan and India to collaborate on developing the Shin Meiwa US-2 amphibian..wonder what joint development means since its a developed product already..
BlackArcherUnfortunately for you, there is plenty of material out there if you bothered to take your head out of your ass and take any notice.
There is a plethora of material from SAAB which shows the Gripen C’s combat radius on internal fuel alone is 800km and 1,550km on external fuel. Take a close look at the PDFs on SAAB’s site, based on “Signatory’s” very useful post some years ago:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?85882-Saab-JAS-39-Gripen-info
For the JF-17, the very old and now archived PAC site (the one that the Wiki site actually references) gave a combat radius of 1,352km (840nm), although there was no indication of what fuel configuration this was based on, it’s most likely based on external fuel. PAC’s current site gives no details on combat radius.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101024210239/http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17.html
The chief designer of the JF-17 project gave a presentation on the aircraft a couple of years back at the Dubai airshow, which includes more up to date specs based on the designers of the aircraft itself.
This shows that the JF-17 has a combat radius of 1,400km in the A/A mode (H-H-H) comprising 2x ASRAAM, 2x MRAAM, 2x 1,100l tanks and 1x 800l tank, not that far off the Gripen C. In the A/G mode (M-L-L-H) comprising 2x SRAAM, 4x 250kg bombs, 2x 1,100kg tanks and 1x 800l tank, the combat radius is 1,000km. Interestingly, range on internal fuel alone is given as 1,800km and with the 3 drop tanks is given at 3,000km. We know from the current PAC website that the JF-17 has an internal fuel load of 5,130lbs (2,331.8kg), or 3,000l (http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17). From the presentation, the 3 drop tanks give a total external fuel load of 3,000l, which suggests that the combat radius on internal fuel alone, and with 2x SRAAM and 2x MRAAM, is aprox >700km, again, not that far off the Gripen C, although there’s no details on what combat load the SAAB figures are based on. Similarly, for the A/G mode on internal fuel alone, 2x SRAAM and 4x 250kg bombs, the combat radius is likely to be >500km. Interestingly, the presentation also shows an empty weight of 6,400kg, lower than the figure on PAC’s site of 6,586kg, and a maximum external load of >4,000kg, with a >8g figure, which actually supports the old PAC claim of a +8.5g capability.
For the Tejas, the current figures of “300-500km” can’t be anything more than based on internal fuel alone, although there’s no details on what load this is based on. But if it’s clean configuration, then the range with any external stores is likely to be considerably less than that. There’s a very good reason why there are no real details on the Tejas’ combat radius, because given all its hype, it falls way short on range compared to other lightweight fighters out there in a similar class, no wonder in some aerospace defense circles it’s called the “Limited Capability Aircraft”.
😀
What a load of BS!
😀
so the Tejas’ combat range is 300-500 km, with the added suggestion that this may be in clean config whereas the wonder machine JF-17’s is >700 km with external payload all while the Tejas carries more internal fuel and the SFC of their engines is not too different in cruise? A little bit of logic would be nice if one had half a mind to apply it.
BlackArcherNot speculation, but comparison of designer/manufacturer data, you are the one speculating on hearsay with no data. If you compare the figures from the manufacturers/designers, the Tejas is very short legged relative to the Gripen, T/FA-50 and JF-17. Where do the figures from Wikipedia come from? They don’t just magically appear from nowhere, have a look at the sources, and feel free to update Wikipedia with more reliable data, if you have any. Even using a more “up to date figure” provided by one of your compatriots of 500km, the Tejas is still short legged compared to the other three.
Wikipedia figures are old and mostly not reliable..the fact of the matter is that we don’t know the exact figures for either the JF-17 or the Tejas Mk1 from an authoritative source, about whether those figures are based on internal fuel alone or with drop tanks. Considering the fuel fraction figures for the Gripen, Tejas Mk1 and JF-17 (and the not so different SFC for the engines), the combat range difference is not possible in the hundreds of kms.
I was quoting the data provided by the manufacturer. Published articles can make errors, for example, your compatriot suggested that the Flightglobal article on the Tejas gave a wrong figure for its combat radius.
Unfortunately for you, there are 2 articles, both of which quote the design agency, stating that the design life is 3000 hours. These are both recent articles. In the past we know that in both the JF-17’s and the Tejas Mk1’s case the max +ve G was quoted as 9G by the manufacturer, and then some info boards revealed that it was now +8G. So, unless the manufacturer has posted upto date specs on their website, they need not always be accurate.
Besides, I was comparing export potential of four lightweight fighters with broadly similar capabilities, even though in that regard the Tejas falls way short on its limited range compared to the other three. In other aspects, the Tejas also offers limited potential in terms of exports, particularly given its current state and the items that still need rectifying;
1. Expand flight envelope to -3.5 to 8G (Currently -2 to 6G).
2. 24° angle of attack (Currently 22°).
3. In-flight refuelling capability (Integration of Cobham probe complete).
4. Demonstration of Rafael ADS Derby BVR air-to-air missile.
5. Demonstration of Rafael ADS Python-5 IIR close combat missile (Related post here).
6. Completion of integration & demonstration of KBP Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 23mm cannon.
7. New design drop tanks for supersonic flight.
8. New radome to improve radar and electromagnetic performance.
9. Validate more efficient cooling system for aircraft braking assembly.
These are the pending issues to be taken care of before FOC. That doesn’t mean that they cannot be done. Regarding the AoA, the IOC-II figures are 24 deg alpha.
Here is ADA’s (the design agency) own website that put up this brochure on the Tejas Mk1 achieving the IOC-II.
It clearly states on page 5 that the envelope expansion upto 24 deg AoA has been achieved.
10. Additional weapons testing, including PGMs.
Some of these are quite fundamental and not what one would expect with a fighter that’s been in “development” for almost 30 years. Take for example the G limit, it’s still at -2 and +6, and the expected range is now -3 and +8, when for years we’ve been hearing how it was expected to be -3 and +9. AoA still at 22, and a target of 24, when the JF-17 is at 26. Quite surprised to hear the simple integration of a canon is still not done, no supersonic external tanks, the fact that the radome needs to be redesigned for the radar and brake issues, these aren’t what one would expect from a fighter that has been in “development” for so long, which all impact its export potential, at least when compared with what’s available on the market.
30 years..yes of course considering your nationality you’d want to bandy a figure that is dishonest at best. The fact is that the actual development work started in 1993 and by 2013 the Tejas has reached IOC. That’s 20 years in development, not 30. In 1983, the project was approved, but there was no design, no design agency, nothing.
it hasn’t yet achieved FOC. At that point, these pending points will have to be resolved and they will be resolved. The IAF is the primary customer for the Tejas and their requirements alone will keep the assembly line busy for a long time. Exports are not really the primary concern for HAL or the GoI.
As for the -3/+8G, there is no difference between the JF-17 and the Tejas Mk1 in that respect. So what are you even raising this for? Alpha of 24 deg has been cleared for IOC-2 (see IOC-2 brochure I posted) and the final figure for FOC is 26 deg. So no advantage for the JF-17 there either.
This interview of the ADA Director PS Subramanyam clearly states that:
To a question on what was the most difficult part in ‘Tejas’, he said designing and developing “the high angle of attack” and that the team developed its own methodology. This has considerably enhanced the combat performance of the aircraft. With flight control systems, the aircraft maintains an angle and in Tejas the team has designed till 24 degrees, while the aircraft in tests has performed upto 22 degrees. “We expect it to be at 26 degrees for the full operational clearance (FOC).” The maximum degrees in a fighter aircraft is said to be 28 degrees and the aircraft is likely to get there.
I have personally spoken to a very senior naval TP posted to NFTC who has been one of the most experienced Tejas pilots and he had told me back in Feb that the Tejas Mk1 was already tested to 24 deg alpha.
BlackArcherSo let me get this right, quoting official designer/manufacturer specs is “hogwash”, but quoting the opinion of an IAF pilot (which gives no figures or data), or operational preference of the PAF (again no data or figures) isn’t speculation?!
Your entire post earlier was speculation..about the Tejas being a short-legged fighter, something that goes against what a IAF test pilot has said the opposite about. There aren’t very reliable figures, agreed, but you were quoting from wikipedia, which is hardly considered reliable by anyone.
Besides, you don’t have the most accurate data in any case. For instance, you have provided wrong data on the JF-17’s design service life on this very thread (you claimed it was 4000 hours) and I’ve had to quote from a published article to set that record straight (3000 hours).
BlackArcherSo you accept the figures for the Gripen on Wiki but not Tejas? It’s open source, if you believe they are so outdated, feel free to correct them on Wiki with a more up to date figure. The JF-17’s combat radius actually dates back to 2011 during the Izmir airshow in Turkey, as shown in the link. Even if the 500km range for the Tejas is more “up to date”, it’s the shortest of the three by a far margin, and according to you won’t even be achieved until IOC 2? So in what way is the Tejas not short legged of the three? As I originally stated, it is rather short legged relative to other light weight fighters out there, which won’t exactly attract it to foreign exports.
hogwash. A Tejas test pilot has in the past remarked in an article published in Vayu Aerospace on the “fuel sipping F-404 engine gives the Tejas enviable range for its class”. Rest is pure speculation based on inconsistent data.
We know from a PAF pilot itself that the JF-17 needs fuel more than it needs additional weapons to be carried in standard config. I quote him
“We have the capability to carry four but we decided we don’t want to,” said the air commodore. “The JF-17 is a small aircraft and we decided we need fuel
more than the extra two missiles.”
While its not specific in details, it’s enough to get a fair idea that the combat range on internal fuel is certainly no selling point of this fighter.
BlackArcherNo. The LCA is plagued by its Alpha, the 17 is teen fighter that went thought plastic surgery, the 50 is, at least, a goodwill thought in the fighter market and the Gripen is the real beast in the lot.
(Don’t take me wrong, the JF17 is an interesting cat. A pet cat that is named promise.)
You can’t make a comparison in the lot. Who by the way, have issued an RFP where FA50 and Gripen were competing?
plagued by its alpha? Its been cleared upto 24 deg for IOC-II, which is 2 deg less than the maximum that the JF-17 can achieve. For the Mk2, it should be even higher than that.
BlackArcherCorrection, the JF-17 Block I is designed for 4,000 flight hours, or 25 years, whichever comes first. First overhaul at 1,200 flight hours.
Nope, its 3000 hours, from multiple articles published. The latest one is from Air International “JF-17 Pride of Pakistan” article where it states that
According to CAC representatives, the JF-17’s service life is currently set at 3,000 hours but, as with many modern fighters, fatigue life depends on the use of the aircraft during its operational service.
BlackArcheryes that was the other on!
Airframe hours:
T50: 8000 hours
JF17: 4000 hoursYou’re getting 2 JF17s every time you buy one T50… if you fly them constantly and use up the hours.
Correction- the JF-17 is 3000 hours not 4000 hours design airframe life.
Also, whats the source of your claimed performance and design service life data for the KAI T-50?
BlackArcherin other news, the HJT-36 Sitara is apparently very close to achieving IOC as well! This went completely under the radar, with some news report from a few months ago suggesting that the spin and stall characteristics were causing some issues.
In Tejas’ shadow, Sitara trainer also poised to enter service
While the spotlight plays over the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) that will, on Friday, be certified fit for induction into the Indian Air Force (IAF), another India-built aircraft is at the cusp of readiness. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has revealed that its Sitara intermediate jet trainer (IJT), which has been in development since 1999, is now “just weeks away from certification”.
Defence Minister A K Antony is flying down here to award the Tejas its initial operational certificate (IOC) on Friday. The Sitara’s success in intensive flight-testing this year means that he could soon be making another trip to award an identical certification to the Sitara.
..
“We have accelerated flight testing dramatically this year, doing 183 sorties – thrice as many as any preceding year. Last month we completed bombing trials and extra fuel tank trials in Jamnagar. Now we are completing the stall and spin tests, after which we will get the IOC,” says Krishna Kumar, Project Manager IJT for HAL.Business Standard visited the HAL division where the Sitara is undergoing flight-testing. One prototype was taxiing out for a test-flight, while technicians readied others. So keen is the IAF to get the Sitara into service that HAL has been allowed to press into flight-testing the 12 trainers the IAF ordered.
..
In addition, the IAF ordered 12 limited series production (LSP) Sitaras in 2006 for Rs 486.82 crore. That works out to Rs 40 crore per trainer, a fraction of what would be paid abroad for a similar aircraft that also integrates rockets, guns and bombs.
Thats about $6.5 million per unit for the IJT at current exchange rates.
BlackArcherI wouldn’t call this as a US nice win. F-414 price is around 6 mln $ per unit (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-to-obtain-99-ge-f414-engines-for-tejas-mk-ii-381334/), while Gripen NG price is around 125 mln $ per unit. Now compare it to 7.5 bln $ for 36 SH. Nice win for Sweden and SAAB.
$125 million fly-away or program acquisition costs?
BlackArcher@halo, @eagle thanks for listing some of Gripen’s advantages over the heavier twins
But SAAB announced they had completed the design of a possible Sea Gripen version earlier this year so I don’t see how Embraer could contribute to the design if the job has alrready been done. As to the probability of it being developed and built, if anyone can do that without it costing a fortune and greatly increasing the price compared to terrestrial Gripen, it is SAAB.
definitely not detailed design work. There is too much expense involved in that for SAAB to go for detailed design work without any customer to finance it. They could have done some work on identifying exactly what work packages would need to be taken up if the Sea Gripen were to become a customer financed variant. Should Brazil decide to take on the Sea Gripen, they would have to fund it’s development, testing and in return, they’d be able to have Embraer take up the detailed design with SAAB.
It will however cost quite a bit more than the Gripen E/F. The cost of the development and testing for Sea Gripen will have to be factored in, and considering the very small production run that is likely, that entire cost will have to be distributed amongst very small number of airframes. SAAB may do integration well, but design and testing costs money, whoever be the OEM.
BlackArcherFlightGlobal is also reporting the same..
Damn, with this rejection, one fun series of threads on Typhoon vs Rafale fanboys will end..:D
Rafale back in the driver’s seat now?
Sign In
