IAF pilots have flown the Gripen NG demonstrator in Sweden

IAF team flies Gripen Demo in Sweden with operational AESA radar

21 Apr 2010 8ak:

One of the few benefits of the ongoing flight ban over parts of Europe meant that 8ak got extra time when we caught up with Eddy de la Motte, Director India for Gripen (Saab). Mr Motte confirmed that India had sent an IAF team to Sweden 2 weeks ago and flew the Gripen Demo making it the only foreign air force to have flown the advanced version of Saab’s Gripen Demonstrator. IAF pilots did about 10 flights in Linkoping. Mr Motte said that in mid-May 2010 the Gripen Demonstrator will be sent to India and confirmed that the Gripen Demo was flown with a fully operational AESA radar developed jointly by Selex and Saab Microwave (Formerly Ericsson Microwave).

There was some controversy last month when the FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel Administration) blocked Saab from sending the Gripen Demo fighter to India on the basis that the only plane was needed by the Swedish Air Force for further testing. The RFP for the MMRCA states that the plane offered in response to the tender should be the one that is used for trials but as per Ajai Shukla, the IAF+MoD will give Saab some leeway in this. While this may cause the competitors to cry foul, it is a good sign that the IAF+MoD are using their discretion, where allowed, to assist them selecting the best fighter and this could work to advantage of others as well. For example, Eurofighter, for one is hoping that the dreaded ‘L1’ (lowest bidder) clause would not be the deciding factor where multiple fighters qualify in the final round.

To clarify, Saab’s Gripen aircraft has 4 versions from A to D, then comes the Gripen Demo which is a demonstrator aircraft (and hence different to Gripen D) for the next generation version planned for India interchangeably called the Gripen NG or IN.

To date, Saab has conducted about 20 flights in India, mostly in Bangalore’s Aircraft Systems & Testing Establishment (ASTE) where 2 Gripen-D fighters did low-level, high-speed supersonic tests. In Jaisalmer the 2 aircraft did a weapons release test and one aircraft sent to Leh did landing, engine cold start and take off with full internal fuel plus 2.6 tonnes external load.

Manu Sood, Editor, 8ak mentioned that the American components in the Gripen, mainly the GE F414 engine, is viewed by India as its biggest drawback. Motte said that if that was a genuine concern, then India would not have bought the P-8i and C-130-J aircraft which will play a crucial role in future conflicts and the IAF would not have considered the two U.S. fighters in the MMRCA competition nor the same GE F414 engine for its Tejas LCA which is now in the final stages of a race between that and the Eurojet 200.

Asked what he thinks is Saab’s strongest point, he said “Gripen is the only option that will make India completely independent of the need to purchase combat aircraft from other countries. Gripen IN is equipped with futuristic warfare technologies developed specifically for India and a perfect match to the IAF”. He further mentioned that the low operational cost will translate in to more training hours and he believes Saab is the only company to not only offer a complete ToT on the source codes of the AESA radar (though Russia has promised something similar) but also joint development.

Saab did not comment on the issue of revising the bid price. Earlier AviationWeek had reported that since the commercial bids were valid for 2 years ending Apr 28, 2010, this meant that the vendors could now revise their commercial bids. Given the worsening economic situation globally and huge competitive pressure on this large and geo-politically important deal, surprisingly it means that the bids would be revised downwards! However, a person familiar with defence acquisition told 8ak that “sometimes a simple procedure like collecting certificates from vendors saying we are ready to give the same price also fulfils the need”.

FWIW, the AMCA requirements stated by the IAF are currently being evaluated by ADA.
link

Neelam Matthews

India’s Aeronautical Development Agency is evaluating Indian air force requirements for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
The weight of the AMCA will not exceed 25 tons. The twin-engine configured aircraft will have a higher thrust being in the bigger weight category than the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

The Defense Research & Development Organization (DRDO) had announced earlier this year that the AMCA program would be launched in 2010. While unofficially work has started on the design, according to an official, the AMCA will be officially announced in 6-8 months. “There is nothing official about it… It is currently not a sanctioned project from the government. We are looking at the technical requirements submitted by the Indian air force,” the official told Aerospace DAILY.

The AMCA was earlier called the Medium Combat Aircraft. “This [AMCA] is very different from the design of the MCA,” an official says.

The Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) that India is currently evaluating bids for is a 4.5-generation aircraft, an official says. “None of the contenders fall in the stealth configuration, which is the most important consideration for the AMCA.” India hopes to develop stealth technologies indigenously. “We are looking at stealth features even for the LCA,” the official says. “We believe it can be developed here.”
Not having chosen an engine as yet, it is likely that the Kaveri Mk-2 engine presently being developed by Snecma and Gas Turbine Research Establishment will be used for the AMCA.
Kaveri was first conceived as an engine for the LCA developed by ADA. The LCA is currently powered by General Electric-404 engines with technical evaluations ongoing for a bid for 99 engines. The contenders are the F-414 and EJ-200.

Agreed, it’s a lot better than not having a radar at all.

The Grifo antenna sizes for various aircraft are in the brochure. You should be able to find it online, but I have it on my hard drive so can save you the trouble . . . 😉 Diameters unless otherwise stated. Should also be applicable to antennae of other radars in the same aircraft.
F-5E – 56 x 37 cm
Mirage F.1 – 51 cm
Mirage V – 51 cm
Mirage III – 47 cm
JF-17 – 60 cm
F-16 – 74 x 48 cm

I hope that’s helpful.

BTW, the Brazilian F-5M (previously called F-5BR) has the Grifo radar, not EL/M-2032. The Chilean F-5E upgrade has the EL/M-2032. But both have Derby.

Do you know the antenna size of the Jaguar IM?

Thanks Swerve for that data. I’m looking for the Jag IM antenna size data..hope I can find something. It doesn’t look large though and is definitely smaller than the Mirage-III, F1 and V..so must be less than 47 cm at least.

I don’t know if the LCA has a smaller RCS wrt to the Gripen or vice versa but I was just responding to Abhimanyu who kept saying that the LCA is smaller and hence it should have a smaller RCS. I hope you agree that just because the LCA is smaller,it does not mean the RCS is smaller?

You’re right that simple size alone is not going to guarantee a small RCS if for instance its materials are more reflective, its got more surface area that will reflect microwaves and if its build quality is poor.

So while Abhimanyu’s statements on LCA RCS being smaller than Gripen’s cannot be proven (unless such data is publicly released and I’d be highly surprised if it is) it can well be true as well..just that it is not necessarily only because the Tejas is smaller in size.

I’ll tell you why the Tejas will definitely have a smaller RCS than anything in the IAF (assuming all of them are un-treated, which is also not true). Its built with composites, almost all of its surface area is composites. Its got a better fit and finish between panels that leads to smaller “spikes” in the RCS signature due to gaps between panels. Its got a shielded compressor face and while not shaped for stealth, its front visage is very small. Meaning smaller surface area to reflect back to the emitter and in BVR that will be a benefit.

The Gripen and the Tejas are different aircrafts so how can one just say that the Tejas has less RCS because it is smaller?…if you comparing a smaller Gripen and a larger Gripen or the same for the LCA then yes.But the airframes are different here.

I’m not saying that the LCA has a smaller RCS than the Gripen. But you said that size has nothing to do with RCS which is a patently false statement unless you provide riders that clearly state that shaping is done in which case a large size may have a smaller RCS.

Both these aircraft are built largely of composites which are not big contributors to RCS. Both are single engined where the compressor face is shielded very well. Both have somewhat similarly sized canopies and cockpits (and cockpit reflection is a big RCS contributor) and neither seems to use gold film lined and treated canopies like ‘Have Glass’ F-16s do or the recent MiG-29Ks.

What makes you so sure that the Gripen has a lower RCS ? I cannot see any indication to prove either of them having a smaller RCS. What can you see that I cannot ?

While IAF may not practice these road operations, doesn’t thiscomplicate its war-plans.
Given early warning and air-refuelling capabilities, PAF fighters will be able to survive longer and also sustain their operations for longe
In Swedens case, these road bases were well known. But is it the case with PAF too?

Regards,
Ashish

the question is, how many such arterial roads does Pakistan have ? they’d wreck normal unstrengthened tar roads that are not built out of concrete if they had fighter jets landing on them.

Recon images of key roads will give the IAF a good idea of which areas are being used for dispersed ops. The most important aspect of the Swedish dispersed ops strategy was how difficult it was to locate them because it had a good road infrastructure and even if it didn’t, it wasn’t just highways alone that the Gripen or Viggen could use.

See, Ajai Shukla wrote in his blog that IAF rejected an idea to train rookie pilots in civillian flying clubs. Now, these are used to train rookie pilots to give them the bare basics of flying although they’re on their way to become civillian airline pilots. The stage-1 trainer of the IAF also serves the same purpose.

I’ll be frank here. Ajai Shukla is a well meaning journo, but his knowledge of aviation is well, quite limited. Some of his articles quite clearly betray that. That said, he has very good sources, and has built up a good rapport with HAL and ADA folks and they are happy to give him access to info which others don’t get.

the IAF rejected the idea to do Stage 1 training on the Hansa for a very good reason. Civilian pilots (and not all guys who hold a private pilots licence become airline pilots) do not need to be given the same level of acrobatic flying training as military pilots. Keep in mind that the IAF decides who goes into the fast jet stream, transport stream or helicopter stream after its Stage 1 training only. The acumen, skill and reflexes shown during Stage 1 training decides that. Putting cadets into what is a very docile basic trainer like the Hansa will not be the ideal platform to judge these skills.

Now, it is a misconception that NAL Hansa is a “civilian” trainer, whereas only Deepak can perform acrobatic turns. IAF pilots themselves were part of Hansa’s flight-testing and Wing Commander P Ashoka was a test pilot of Hansa. Here is an account of this last Hansa test-flight in which he is documented to have performed “tight-loops and turns”, “upside down” and flying over reportedly tree-top height.

Even if Hansa MAY be lacking in some aspects of acrobatic training, can’t the IAF simply ask NAL to modify the Hansa to military standards ? What is the pressing need to float a global tender for trainers that would be much more expensive ?

Its not a misconception. Its the way it was designed, its the way it was certified. You cannot willy-nilly overnight decide to fly a civil registered, certified aircraft for military training. It is against the rules, and the Hansa doesn’t have much of the equipment that are considered mandatory for military aircraft (for e.g a Flight Crash Recorder, Aural Warning System, etc.) and other useful features like HUD, Flight Envelope Warning System.

IAF pilots were a part of Hansa’s flight-testing because the only authority in India who had personnel who could flight test any new aircraft belonged to ASTE, Bangalore. Its not because the Hansa had a military role.

BTW, the Hansa’s FAR 23 specifications indicate a max. load factor of 2.5g/-1g. Thats for the utility role and you can easily do ‘upside down’ flying or loops within that load factor and if you carry stores (the Hansa doesn’t) you can go slightly higher than 2.5g. If it was designed per FAR 23 “Acrobatic” criteria, its max. load factor limit would have been 6g/-3g range or higher, which are more commensurate with a military basic trainer.

A utility plane as per FAR 23 can perform the following:

– steep turn, loop positive, Immelman, Chandelle, Lazy eight, Cuban Eight, Aileron Roll and Barrel roll.

What a utility plane per FAR 23 CANNOT (but Aerobatic plane per FAR 23 can) do are the following :

-Vertical Roll, Rolling turn, Hesitation Roll, Slow Roll, Wing Over, Split-S, Erect Spin, Knife Edge

Now do you still want to continue arguing that the Hansa should have been used for basic trainer needs as is, or that others suffer from “misconceptions” ?

What could have been done is to utilise the knowledge gained from the Hansa, and design a tandem (not side by side like Hansa or Grob) seater design with NAL taking the design lead, TAAL (Taneja Aerospace Limited) and HAL doing the manufacture, ASTE being involved from the start to give the IAF’s inputs and give good pilot inputs as well, and using an off-the-shelf Canadian Pratt and Whitney engine to keep development time minimal. That would have been the ideal situation.

However, the fact that the IAF awoke to the situation as late as 2009 and now wants to have a basic trainer ASAP means that there is no time to develop an indigenous HTT-X based on the Hansa. The IAF mucked it up but there’s nothing that can be done about it now.