BlackArcherIts a good hedge pending how mk2 pan out, one thing tho, the simple delta of mk1 cant compete with the canards in agility,
a complete re-design is needed, and perhaps that is where SAAB is consulted,
but if they are anyway going to make a Gripen clone, well, perhaps get ToT and an assembly line
There isn’t going to be any complete re-design. the Tejas Mk2’s design has been frozen and detailed design work is underway. Any change in the design now would totally derail the timelines. There isn’t going to be a Gripen clone in India, that much is for certain.
BlackArcherYour response is not satisfactory.
Gripen E is of course far above and beyond the Tejas mk1, however it remains a single-engine, lightweight 4.5 gen fighter.
IF the Tejas mk2 is successful one would expect it to be quite close in performance to the Gripen E. It even comes with the same engine! (F414)
Thus, it would make absolutely no sense at all to purchase Gripen E as an “MMRCA substitute” unless the Tejas mk2 is not very sucessful.
Here you go, this quote from an article on Typhoon prospects talks about the possibility of other jets fulfilling the remainder of the requirement for 126 jets.
India remains a target as well for Typhoon despite the Indian government opting to buy 36 Rafales in the last few weeks.
“They have made their first selection for a very limited number of Rafales compared with an [original] requirement for 126 jets. I was in India last week talking to them and the competition is still open on what they do for the second and maybe even third tranche procurement of fast jets,” he said.
The Gripen NG is being pitched by Saab for the same “competition”. As absurd as it sounds that another type would be added in addition to 36 Rafales, right now price is what is driving the GoI to look for other options to fill in the 90 units that remain from the original 126 units required.
BlackArcherNot this silly Generation nonsense again! It is a meaningless comparator, in what way do you define it? The JF-17 has features that match contemporary aircraft that have the 4th generation label that people bandy about. The only reason you bring up the 3rd generation label is to satisfy a personal need to feel superior, after that it is a pointless exercise in d1ck swinging.
keep it polite dude, I’ve not gotten personal with you..I’ve seen plenty of pointless d**k swinging going on the Typhoon thread about generations and what not and no way to justify how in hell its so damn expensive..just how do you define it for the Typhoon? we’ll start from there. Or are you telling us that u just don’t understand how technology evolves and if you’re using technology that dates to a generation ago, you’re a generation behind?
Perhaps the guys at BAe or LM could tell you what the 4th generation label means, or maybe they’re also d**k swinging and its a personal need to feel superior for them as well..
Eurofighter more 5th gen than F-35 claims BAe
F-35 pilot calls the Typhoon 4th gen
When I say built with significant Chinese support I mean exactly that: It is CURRENTLY built with significant Chinese support. If you want to talk about DEVELOPMENT then yes it was almost entirely developed by the Chinese. The thing is I haven’t seen a single Pakistani military official express any upset over that, they have been entirely pragmatic and there have been multiple articles released in AFM where Pakistani officials state they couldn’t of done it without China. Pakistan can’t build a fighter on its own and I have seen no evidence they are particularly bothered by that, the same goes for other Pakistani defence programs.
precisely- they wanted a fighter, not an industrial and technological aerospace base. India’s requirement and aim of thr program was different and so the program was structured differently. We wanted a fighter we got 270 Su-30MKIs which someone else developed for us, to our specifications, on our dime. Just like the JF-17..that doesn’t make it an Indian fighter and its done precious little for India’s aerospace industry compared to thr LCA .
So for India, its not just the fighter that matters, but also what its done for the aerospace industry in India and what capabilities its built up as a result. Ok?
Lets be brutally honest India has needed significant outside help to get Teja to the point it is at now, when Tejas is in full squadron service then lets have a talk about comparing it to the JF-17 until then it is a boorish exercise in aforementioned d1ck swinging.
Yes it has, but its done the bulk of the hard development work on its own. Different goals for different programs.
And you talk about boorish? Just because I point out the absurdity of one guy who repeatedly attempts to derail Tejas threads with retarded arguments about “Combat capable” calling the Tejas a joke? And here you’re telling us that we can’t compare airplanes because one Is in service and the other is just about to enter it? Who comes up with that definition of what can and cannot be compared?
BlackArcherThe JF-17 is a low risk design built with significant Chinese support but the reward is aircraft in Squadron service that have a very respectable development path and offers much of what on paper the Tejas might do.
Low risk design – yes
Built with significant Chinese support? That’s absurd- its developed entirely by the Chinese!! Pakistan gave money, specifications, help in testing and has managed the program in part but that’s about it. No technology inputs, nothing where they could offer the Chinese anything..maybe other than help in integration of Western specific avionics.
Squadron service for a 3rd generation fighter – yes, perhaps 2 years ahead of the LCA..But apart from certain production technologies, no technological base has been built in Pakistan by the JF-17 program completely unlike the LCA program. They still cannot develop and build a fighter on their own, whereas India has built up the base for doing much of the work on its own. The Kaveri program has been the one big setback on the LCA, but even that engine’s follow on engines will go on to power the AURA UCAV.
BlackArcherBlackArcherI am going to take a stab in the dark here but are you comparing the JF-17 to the Tejas by any chance.
It isn’t issue of if one aircraft is better than the other on paper, the Tejas might well just be that in comparison to the JF-17. The issue is which aircraft is currently in service…
The Tejas started development in the early 80’s and as of yet hasn’t been released for service whilst the JF-17 started serious development in the 90’s and is in full service. However good the Tejas might end up being it doesn’t remove the fact that it’s development has been painfully protracted.
Tejas did not start development in early 1980s..the ADA which developed LCA wasn’t even formed in 1983. The PDP phase, didn’t end until 1990 and the design was finalized around that time. Serious work began after that and if you look at the technologies that had to be developed for it, in 2 crucial areas- composites and FBW, India did the bulk of the development on its own, with good help from foreign sources. Had the LCA been developed with no composites and with a hybrid FBW like the JF-17, two crucial technologies that make the Tejas a 4th gen fighter wouldn’t have been there and the attendant development and testing effort would’ve been reduced tremendously.
Now, there is talk of developing a JF-17 with full FBW and composites, but China will take less time than India took, since it has the requisite experience now. Had it been attempted when the JF-17 was originally developed, it would’ve surely pushed service entry several years behind.
Also I wouldn’t exactly say Pakistan rushed the JF-17 into service, first flight was 2003, PAF started flight evaluation of an initial batch in 2007 with initial release to service in 2010 of 14 aircraft with No.26 Black Spiders squadron. They now have more than one squadron operating the type with others converting vs no Tejas squadrons in India.
I’m only using that poster’s definition of what “combat capable” means to point out how the PAF rushed it into service so it could replace obsolete A-5 Fantans..
he claims that lacking a BVR missile, air-to-air refueling and a EW jammer makes an aircraft not combat capable..yet the PAF inducted 50 JF-17 Block Is that didn’t feature these capabilities. the IAF refuses to induct fighters that lack these capabilities..even if the JF-17 was Indian, it wouldn’t have been inducted at its Block I or even Block II state of capability. otherwise the Tejas as it was at IOC-2 phase was even further ahead, development wise, than the JF-17 was at its service entry. It is able to use its HMDS (something the JF-17 lacks to date) or its radar with the R-73E, it can drop LGBs that it can self-lase, and it has a RWR that is one of the more modern sets. And as regards performance, both are 8G/26 deg AoA capable.
There is a difference in the philosophy of the IAF and PAF- the IAF is willing to wait till a LCA is fully FOC compliant, whereas the PAF was willing to incrementally add capabilities after it was in service. Many would argue that the PAF showed far greater sense of understanding of the situation, where even without some capabilities, the JF-17 was a far more capable platform than what it was replacing. But the IAF has its sights firmly on the MRCA and that has blinded it to the obvious advantages of early service entry for the LCA. I suppose one of the reasons could be the Air Marshals don’t want the govt. to hold up the MRCA citing LCA induction that would allow for squadron numbers to build up. After all, the IAF’s biggest gripe is falling squadron numbers, so the situation gets so dire that the GoI pushes through the MRCA deal even though it would be exorbitantly expensive.
BlackArcherHere’s the relevant portion from IHS Jane’s 360.
Ya, so the landing gear didn’t lower so he did a belly landing. If thr landing gear failed to retract, as u had stated originally, then there’d have been no issues.
BlackArcherGoogle translated (with minor corrections) from:
http://www.svd.se/ministern-positiva-samtal-med-indien-om-gripen/om/gripenaffarerna
“
Does this mean that somebody in India is not feeling confident about the Tejas?
Or something else?
No this is to do with the 90 odd Rafales that weren’t ordered..36 supposed to be ordered, but they may look for ” another MMRCA
BlackArcherNo one is saying JF-17 does not suffer problems my friend.
Right now though Block II is at Paris, 3 squadrons are equipped and it is carrying out air defence alert with BVRAAM with PAF and anti-terror strikes in FATA, with a AESA equipped example not far away.
Whatever way you look at it, that is not bad going…
Well you would like us to believe that a 8G , 26 deg AoA max fighter on one side of the border is somehow miraculously better than another with similar performance capabilities on the other side of thr border. All because one is integrated with SD-10 missiles just sometime ago..even though all current examples fly without aerial refueling, any laser designation pod, any HMDS..
We know why the PAF rushed the JF-17 into service. Far better to induct something that is affordable than scrounging around for more retired or stored second hand Mirage airframes to keep up a semblance of numbers in service. They still prefer to get second hand F-16s, even when so many JF-17s are rolling off the assembly line. I think that it makes it obvious that given a choice what level of fighters the PAF would like to have. But like prudent people with near empty or tiny pockets, they’re making do with what they can get for the little they can afford.
Had the IAF been starved of funds, with no likelihood of getting Western fighters because they’re unaffordable or like thr Gripen, the OEM country is unwilling to sell, they’d have been trying to make the best with what they could get.
BlackArcherNo one knows, apart from the fact that the entire visit of ACM was centered in Block III. Not be suprised at all if he saw a Block III fly. Not everything is made public.
No one knows but you tell us that maybe its even flown! lol..that is the definition of “flights of fantasy”..I don’t know if you really don’t realize how stupid that sounds!
A Chinese poster (whom you use a crutch many a times) said that it was a twin-seater prototype most likely. But for you, before he even said that, it was a Block III and it still is.
Anyway, you ought to be very glad that not everything is made public about the JF-17..so you can present this fantasy picture of a program that has no glitches, no issues, no problems, only happy times. There really are perks to an opaque culture. At least on the internet.
BlackArcherTo be honest no one knows if Block III has flown or not. Last news report of ACM’s visit to China said he inspected a JF-17 prtotype. Seeing at Block 1 is already in service and Block II being produced I will leave it up to you top try and guess what type pof JF-17 prototype he looked at.
Didn’t someone already correct your flights of fantasy on PT-05 already? That it was related to the twin-seat JF-17 and not Block III?
BlackArcherLanding gear failed to retract on takeoff. Pilot chose to abort mission and land. Plane becomes uncontrollable during landing. Pilot ejected.
Source. Scroll down to the very last page.
if the landing gear failed to retract then it wouldn’t have been an issue..the issue was that the nose gear failed to come down and the pilot chose to do a belly landing, lost control and ejected.
BlackArcherAESA radar has not even been flown on the JF-17 yet, and you think it will enter service in 2017?
Seriously?
He lives in his own world where the JF-17 is the platinum standard for all light fighters..lol. They haven’t even finalized the Block III config from what we’ve read so far and he’s already talking about service entry in 2017. But that’s all right, he’s entitled to his own opinions and this is the internet after all..the real world lies outside.
BlackArcherYou never can post without getting rude can you?
No contract signed for Rafale yet and Qatar/Egyptian deliveries given a priority, even the French Air Force may give up their aircraft but these, but no chance before 2017.
The LCA MK1 is a joke. Time to get over it ever seeing frontline service.
First Block III slated to enter service in PAF in 2017.
Only stating the facts. Suddenly someone mentions that JF-17 Block III will get AESA and it becomes the best thing there ever was..lol. We have no clue as to how good Chinese are with AESA and how mature their technology is and here you’re already patting yourself on the back when a third generation fighter that still lacks Air to air refueling (which as per you makes it unfit for full combat..lol) gets an AESA radar..as if no one else will get it in the timeframe when that enters service.
As for the JF-17, the PAF agreed to take it into service in a hurry because they badly needed to retire airframes. It entered service without the ability to fire BVR missiles, without any air to air refueling (which it still lacks, despite 2 squadrons being in service), and without the ability to lase LBGs or drop PGMs, or a HMDS (which it still lacks).. The hurry was obvious to everyone. The fact that it hasn’t fully matured yet shows in the fact that despite its price point, and aggressive marketing, it still hasn’t found a customer.
BlackArcherNo one said an AESA guarantees anything it does bestow a huge advantage in detection though. I believe that if JF-17 Block III will be the first AESA equipped plane in South Asia though. That alone is a good feat.
We’ll see about that when it happens. As of now JF-17 Block III is simply not finalized, so its too early to say anything about timelines.
BTW, there is talk of an intermediate Tejas Mk1 P with an Elta AESA to slot into production before the Mk2 gets into production. And if the IAF’s Rafale deal is sealed before the year end, it’ll probably enter service before the JF-17 Block III. That will then be the first AESA equipped fighter in South Asia..not that it matters that much except for “my d*** is longer than yours” type competitions.
Sign In
