Since I mentioned it earlier and forgot to post the picture, I’m doing that now. This pic shows the test pilot wearing the Elbit DASH HMDS while landing in a PV.

picture link

Kramer, in 1985 the prototype was on the drawing board and was early revised, due to the calculated weight was projected outside the requirements..Bae made prototype parts due to lack of equipment at saab at the time, the operational parts was redesigned at saab.

It flew for the first time in 1987 so how was the prototype on the drawing board in 1985?

Regarding BAE making prototype parts, the same is true of Alenia making the prototype wing skins while HAL built the tooling to build it on its own, and yet the LCA was heavily criticized as being “mostly imported” by certain folks in India. My point is that this is not something to jump up and down about. Nobody criticized Saab or Sweden for doing that. Yet, a negative picture is painted for the LCA for precisely the same thing.

Anyhow, as you can see from the report, they estimated Gripen’s weight as 8000kgs empty initially. So you see, these initial target design weights are not etched in stone- they are prone to change as and when requirements change. For instance, I know that the LCA’s weight was affected by one fact- its landing gear.

Initially, the rate of descent for the LCA’s landing gear was designed to be around 8 m/s max and later on, the IAF revised it to 10.5 m/sec rate of descent. Now, if you’re an engineer, you’ll know that this is a huge change. Your landing oleos, struts, attachment points, fittings, everything needs redesign AND crucially needs to be strengthened. This means added weight. And retractable landing gear systems alone comprise something like 5-6% of an aircraft’s weight. So, bit by bit, these things add up weight that is not accounted for during the initial PDP phase that defines basic definition.

i give you credit for looking up history. But looking in the mirror, isnt there any fundamentaly wrong aboat developing the LCA for such a long time.

The problem is that the LCA’s development didn’t really begin when it is claimed to have started – in 1983 that is. In 1983, ADA didn’t even exist, so how could they start work on the LCA? Dassault was identified as the partner for the PDP phase in 1987, so the LCA’s basic design was not even defined till then!

The PDP ended in 1990 and only then did the LCA’s basic configuration emerge. And just then unfortunately, India’s massive economic problems began. They cut funding to the program and it hung in limbo for 3 years- till 1993 it didn’t get the funding to start Detail design work. How do you design a fighter without funding, tell me? Especially when you have to set up the infrastructure and train people in skills that they don’t have because the nation doesn’t have that industry at all? Saab had all that experience from Draken, Viggen and their continuously evolving derivatives, whereas India had lost all the experience gained form the HF-24 Marut and the short sighted decision not to develop further variants.

If you look at FlightGlobal, you’ll find articles dating back to 1993 that indicate that the IAF was not even sure whether it wanted the LCA. Companies were even pitching the AMX, Hawk 200 and F-20 Tigershark at the IAF for the light fighter requirement instead of the LCA! The F-20 was the most devious offer, with the US insisting that India abandon the LCA program if it wanted the F-20 fighter. Even the Soviets were trying their best to interest the IAF in the MiG-29M instead of the LCA even while the IAF was struggling with the MiG-29A/B’s downtimes. Earlier, they offered the MiG-33 single engine design that was eventually sold to the Chinese and formed the basis of the FC-1 design.

The Flygvapnet had done these studies about what fighter option to go with back in late 1970s itself (they apparently had 4 options and went in with an open mind) and after that were firmly supportive of the Gripen. Contrast that with the lukewarm to distant approach of the IAF to the LCA. After Air Chief Marshal Idris Hassan Latif (a man credited with the LCA’s beginning) gave outstanding support to the idea of an indigenous fighter to replace MiG-21’s, the IAF had a variety of ACMs who were either supportive or not supportive and that dictated how engaged the IAF was in the LCA program. For instance ACM Sareen who never even had a meeting on the LCA with ADA during his entire tenure as the Chief of Staff. Things have turned a corner not so long ago, with ACM Tyagi and ACM Major being more supportive.

So, real work on the LCA began 1993 onwards and they had a prototype ready in 1999. Not that bad.

But they lost 3 years due to the Pokhran nuke tests related US sanctions and that delayed first flight by more than 2 years (mainly the FCS which had to be done all on their own in India after they refused to even give them back their FCS test rigs and computer data which were in the US).

Even the Gripen had a delayed first flight because Lear Siegler supplied FCS computers late, but only a few months- but the Gripen wasn’t affected by sanctions like those imposed on India. The LCA was. What would’ve happened to the Gripen program if Lear was forced to cancel its contract to supply FCS computers? Would that not have delayed the Gripen’s first flight by a long while till Saab found an alternate supplier that the US couldn’t pressurize or fabricated the parts on its own?

So you see, the LCA program was actually blighted by some other events (economic downturn, US sanctions, etc.) and these were not some lame excuses. They were genuine reasons.

To develop anything state-of-the-art, you need to keep the pace up, otherwise its already old when getting to operational. I think this is one of the biggest problems with LCA is the pace of things. Requirements is getting tougher with time. Don’t get it wrong, i love the little bagger, but theres obiusly problems.

Looking at gripen, i would say it had its share of critism as well, even thou it just took 8 years from start to first delivery. I think all todays eurocanards have had a lot of critism as well as f-22 and f-35.

So the real question is:
How do you get the pace up?
I would say more outside help (as you imply) and change management.

I think that they’ve learnt their lesson now. The Brahmos, the FGFA, all point to that- tie up JVs when dealing with technologies that are not available and share the risk, burden and rewards. But the only reason that India can even dream of a JV is because of the infrastructure, technologies and experience gained through the LCA program, otherwise India would forever be the largest importer of fighters in the world. After all, if they had no other option, obviously they would only import, so why would any nation offer a JV instead?

Imagine what could’ve happened today if the IAF had abandoned the LCA and gone with short term solutions like dead-end designs such as the AMX or the Hawk 200 that were offered! What use would those fighters have been for the IAF in today’s combat scenario or 10-20 years down the line ? They were using 3rd generation technologies on airframes that were hardly the most suitable for supersonic combat (at least the AMX and Hawk 200 weren’t), had no FBW FCS and would’ve been obsolescent by now.

Did you know that DRDO approached Ericcson for the PS-05A radar to be used on the Tejas? And that after negotiation, Ericcson decided not to supply it because they wanted local production and ToT. So, the MMR radar program started and it lagged in some areas. Today, there are other options like Israeli ones (which didn’t really exist as an option back in mid to later 1990s when India’s relations with Israel were covert- the BJP govt. changed that) and there is even an X-band AESA in the works for the Tejas Mk2.

The Tejas as it stands today is at par technologically speaking, to the best that the IAF has. It has potential for upgrades, and with the open architecture avionics and weapons computers, it has the ability to be upgraded throughout its life with new electronic and new weapons (such as the new Close Combat Missile for the Tejas Mk1 by the time it reaches FOC, most likely the Python V). It’ll be more agile, more maneuverable and more state of the art than any of those earlier options were. And when the Tejas Mk1 joins the IAF this year end, it will be priced at around $25 million per fighter, and for that price offers serious capabilities that are not too far behind the Su-30MKI..of course, the Su-30MKI is a mature fighter now, and has some obvious advantages due to its size and performance, but many of its avionics are derivatives of avionics originally designed for the Tejas. And when our neighbour is now inducting a fighter like the JF-17 and intends to make it the backbone of its service, then I cannot see how the Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 will be obsolete by comparison in any particular area. Maybe you could point that out?

More on the topic of using some sense of perspective before jumping to criticize the LCA.

The Gripen’s flight control system computers are produced by the US firm Lear Siegler, as is the system in Israel’s Lavi next-generation fighter. Unlike Gripen, the Lavi will have a quadruplex computer. Hokborg explains that Sweden went for
triplex rather than quadruplex because “we wanted to have as simple a system as
possible without compromising on safety. We strongly believe it is sufficient,” he
says. “It is a good and flexible system.”

The UK firm Page Engineering, an AB Electronic Products subsidiary, will develop the stick and the throttle lever for the first 30 aircraft. Both are optimised for full hands on throttle and stick (Hotas) operations by the pilot..The Hud, designed and produced by Hughes, employs diffractive optics or holography to project all vital data to the pilot while looking up and out of the cockpit.

Gripen’s FBW developed by Lear Seigler (its first flight was even delayed when Lear Seigler as I’ve posted below), HUD by Hughes, stick and throttle lever system by Page Engineering of UK..it is filled with parts that were designed and developed outside Sweden. I’m not questioning why it was done (time/budget/not wanting to re-invent the wheel, etc.) but the fact that when the same happens with the LCA, it was criticized heavily as not being “indigenous enough”. Even that is being taken care of by including Indian designed and made HUD, AMLCD MFDs and so on in the cockpit and every where else for production LCAs. The majority of the LCA’s avionics and systems are indigenously designed and developed and since they had little background in doing that, they were prone to delays. Any sane person can understand that, but not trolls or nitwits (like our dim media)

First flight of the JAS 39 Gripen, Sweden’s next generation light multi-role fighter, could be delayed following unexpected hold-ups in the delivery of fly-by-wire computer components from US manufacturer Lear Siegler…

But the first flight now looks certain to slip back further into 1987, although FMV are urgently seeking ways to keep the aircraft on schedule…Lear Siegler is supplier of the flight control computers for the FBW system. The Gripen is built by the JAS Industry Group, a consortium of Swedish companies including Saab-Scania, VolvoFlygmotor, Ericsson Radio, and the Government-owned maintenance company FFV.But to cut down development time and costs, Sweden has drawn heavily on foreign expertise with the wing, engine, cockpit headup display and essential parts of the flight control system designed overseas under sub-contract.

And again, I’m sorry to be mentioning the Gripen, I’m not targeting it but using it as an example of how the LCA is being unfairly targeted by media and certain ignorant posters.

Flightglobal pdf

At this stage, two main problems remain unresolved. The Swedish press has reported that the Gripen’s weight is over the required eight tonnes. Bengt Schmitdh confirms that there is a slight difficulty over weight. But he puts this in its context: “It is very normal for a development aircraft to have
weight problems,” he says.

A more serious problem is that, because of the degree of subcontracting outside Sweden, a third of the programme is funded in foreign currency—particularly in US dollars and British pounds.

Of course, the article dates back to 1985 when the Gripen prototype was just getting ready, but when a Swede says that developmental aircraft have weight problems and it is very normal, does it carry more meaning than when an Indian guy says it ? at least it seems so on this forum.

note the weight of the initial prototype- 8000 kgs ! This is confirmed in another article on FlightGlobal as well, which states

FlightGlobal pdf

With the aircraft weighing in at about eight tonnes, it was inevitably powered
by a single engine.

The Gripen is half the weight of the Viggen, yet is required to match Viggen
performance. Hokborg says that initial doubts that the Gripen could match the
Viggen’s capabilities have now largely been dispelled. Improved engine performance, enhanced manoeuvrability, courtesy of fly-by-wire flight controls, extensive use of composites, and advanced avionics mean that “in most instances the Gripen turns out quite a bit better”, according to Hokborg.
Thirty per cent of the airframe is composite, including the wing, fin, canard, intakes, and undercarriage doors. This is an enormous weight-saver and will enable the Gripen to carry a Viggen-sized weapon load. The aircraft, being small, will be difficult to spot, and ways of reducing the aircraft’s radar signature are currently under study. Hokborg will not be drawn on how this will be achieved, but admits thatcomposites will play a part.

What fools these Saab guys must be to use so much composites like Mr Matt claimed ADA and HAL were ! They ought to have consulted Mr. Matt and they’d have found out that composites aren’t so great after all and then they would’nt have had any weight issues on the earliest Gripens ! If they’d consulted Mr. Matt and found out how useless composites are in saving weight, the Gripen might have weighed even less, huh ? RCS reduction through composites ? What use is that, right Mr. Matt ?

“The basic principle when we got the contract,” explains Bengt Schmitdh, one
of Saab’s JAS 39 assistant project managers, “was to bring down the cost by
using existing equipment.” The principle has been applied generously, with important components developed using foreign technological expertise. The Gripen’s wing and powerplant are obvious examples of this policy. The wing
is a joint Saab/British Aerospace development. BAe is building wings for the first two prototypes, and is responsible for design of the wing torsion box and installing fuel tanks, electrics, and hydraulics.

Saab designs the control surfaces, pylons, and the wing/fuselage joints and fairings. After completion of the prototype articles, production of the wing will pass to Saab’s Linkoping plant entirely. With the aircraft weighing in at about
eight tonnes, it was inevitably powered by a single engine. A number of options were considered before a specially developed version of the General Electric F404 was finally selected. In its Swedish confirguration, the engine is co-produced by GE and Volvo Flygmotor and is designated the RM12. Airflow and temperature have been increased to boost the thrust to 18,0001b at low-level reheat, compared with 16,0001b in the standard F404. The front end of the RM12 has been strengthened to protect against birdstrikes, a particular SAF problem. Bench testing of the engine began in January this year and has proved the engine to be on schedule and up to performance. By the time it reaches production qualification, in late 1987, it will have completed 3,800 test hours. Despite the extensive draw on foreign expertise, all Gripen systems will be specially developed to meet strict requirements. “Nothing is bought directly offthe- shelf, but our own development money pumped into it will be recouped on series production,” says Schmitdh.

Saab pointed out the benefits of using foreign expertise in reducing cost/time and developmental issues when designing the Gripen. Heck, one of the most important parts of the aircraft (the wing torsion box) was designed by BAe.

But on the LCA, since the very beginning, people have cribbed about foreign content, giving it a very negative image..even people like a former Admiral (Nadkarni), who almost a decade ago who was cribbing about Italian firm Alenia supplying the first 2 sets of wing skins for the LCA while production tooling was ramped up at HAL to build the rest, terming it a big failure on India’s part. This negative perception has generally prevailed over the huge positives, but that is also HAL/DRDO’s fault and their complete lack of image management is a lesson that India’s PSU’s need to learn quickly. Because in many ways, even the customers are affected by negative publicity (as any one who works with product development and marketing will know).

Saab did the same with BAe building wings for the first 2 prototypes and where did we ever see anyone criticizing it or Sweden for that ?

These double standards are truly stunning.

Kramer, there are plenty of brochures etc that confirm these figures. But that was not my point. Whatever Gripen’s empty weight is, it bein overweight has never been an issue, i.e. it was within the intended targetted range/acceptable.

So it is within the intended/targeted/acceptable range, being 6800 kgs empty weight and carrying 2400 kgs of fuel and 4000 kgs of payload..

Both have engines of nearly same weight as well, so their structure may weigh nearly the same, yet somehow one is overweight and the other isn’t..

wow.

Is it still so hard to understand that empty weight is something that needs to factor in payload and fuel ?

Kramer, you have some confusing data over fuel capacity in gripen C/D.
it is suppose to be about 3000L aprox. 2400kg the same goes with the D version 2280kg aprox 2850L. NG has aprox 4125L and 3300kg internally(38% more).

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/JSF15_ERIC_GRIPEN_DEMOROLLOUT2008.pdf

my bad ! I typed it as 2280 liters for the Gripen B instead of 2280 kgs..the Gripen A apparently carried 120 kg more internal fuel, so a total of 2400 kgs internal fuel for the Gripen A.

Apparently, as per Chris Yeo’s Flight Global evaluation article (and he should know since he evaluated it and knew the weights of the aircraft and fuel before taking off, to calculate fuel fraction) Gripen A is 600 kgs lighter than Gripen B (7100 kgs) so its empty weight is confirmed as 6500 kgs. Gripen C empty weight is 6800 kgs.

Perhaps those weights are correct, perhaps not. I still maintain that we don’t know. Point is, at one time (many years ago) Sweden did “publish” some data on the Gripen, including internal fuel and weight. Later on it turned out that the fuel info given was not entirely correct — The Swedes went to quite some extent to hide the real fuel load it could take by having a “war” setting on the fuel tank — unless it was set on the “war” setting, you could not access the complete internal fuel volume of the Gripen A! This was later abandonded for the Gripen C, which always flies with 3000l available.

This raises the interesting question of whether the given weight of the Gripen A was also misleading. And whether it still is today. Obviously I don’t know for sure. Of course, it could be that this was done only for Gripen A/B/C/D and the weight given for the NG is the “correct” one. Or perhaps the weights given for both NG and C/D are correct and only the ones given for A/B were wrong. Again, we don’t know.

People working in the air forces around the world are very much aware that some information is classified. Sometimes information is simply not available and not given, however in other cases “information” is given but is on purpose misleading. I don’t think that people in e.g. the IAF are upset if they in one public briefing is told one thing and then afterwards in a classified and restricted briefing is told something else — obviously they understand why this is so, and they also know which numbers to keep in their minds… 😉

Let me turn this around: Do you really think that the air forces of the world so willingly would accept that a lot of detailed information about their weapons systems is made available, for everybody to read?

Do you remember the infamous “Red Flag Pilot” that was filmed and put on Youtube? He made some references to information, the type you could find in Janes’ and other magazines…. implying that what you read in Janes’ is often misleading and wrong.

The classified stuff never makes it into Janes’. Is the weight classified? Perhaps, perhaps not. Consider that the internal fuel was classified on the Gripen A. 😉

I don’t believe for 1 minute that the Saab reps who are preparing documents that are shown as part of marketing to Air Forces are going to be lying about empty weight of the Gripen C/D. That just doesn’t make sense since it is hardly the most important or classified piece of info. If you claimed that performance charts at various altitudes was classified, then yes I’d say that maybe I’d agree with you. But empty weight ? Come on !

There are much more important figures that are generally classified but are known to us about the Gripen (for instance through Chris Yeo’s flight test that was published on FlightGlobal) such as the internal fuel load on a Gripen D (2280 liters internal fuel) and the Gripen C (120 liters more than Gripen D, so it is around 2400 liters). The more accurate estimates for the LCA are that it has around 2486 kgs of fuel, so they are both designed to carry similar amounts of fuel.

Even when I go through the test flight that he wrote about, the empty weight of the Gripen D is given as exactly 7100 kgs (which I mentioned in an earlier post) and it matches EXACTLY with what Saab claimed in a ppt that was aimed at officials from a particular customer.

Wikipedia states that the empty weight of the Gripen C is 5500 kgs..obviously it would’ve given some reference for that figure..and since Saab itself gives 6500-6800 kgs as the empty weight, would you consider me to be trolling if I said that the Gripen C is overweight ?