As already mentioned numerous times earlier (and clearly missed or ignored by you), physical specs like range-payload, hardpoints, internal fuel, empty-weight of Tejas Mk.1 and Gripen-D are almost identical. I mean tested and demonstrated range-payload specs, and not on-paper specs or future specs. As mentioned in the previous post, you have the internet to verify as I’m not going to post all over again.

Tejas Mk.1 has a higher thrust engine GE-F404-IN rated at 82 kN as compared to the Volvo-Aero GE-F404, which is rated at 79-80 kN. Currently Tejas is cleared to fly at Mach 1.7 or M 1.8, +8/-3.5 G and AoA of 22 degrees (in a delta wing, lesser AoA achieves huge turns). It meets all IoC specs at a) sea-level altitude, b) desert climes c) high and extremely cold altitudes like Leh. All relevant news reports already posted here, and discussed ad nauseum earlier. No such tests data available for Gripen-D.

At sea-level tests at Goa last December, it clocked 1,350 km per hr, which is equal to Gripen’s known level cruise speed. It passed flutter tests by diving to 900m from 4 kms altitude (source 1), (source 2).

Dumb bombs, guided munitions tests extensively done at Rajasthan desert (please search news reports). R-77 fired once. Radar integration will be completed by December, when it shall get it’s IoC. The Elta is comparable to the one in Gripen-D.

RCS should be lower than Gripen-D, because :-

a) Smaller size than Gripen
b) It doesn’t have 2 huge canards “jutting out” right in front.
c) RAM coating done extensively, and it boasts of a higher percentage of composites by are and weight than even Eurofighter Typhoon (from official websites of both). So, RCS should be quite low.

Both Tejas Mk.1 and Gripen-D use the Litening target pod. All other avionics of Tejas Mk.1 are derived from Su-30 MKI like core avionics computer, RWRs, jammers, Integrated Comm suite INCOM 1210A, HMDS, etc. Tejas Mk.1 has a quad FBW, whereas Gripen-D has triplex+analog FBW. Cockpits of both are contemporary.

As regards datalinks, Gripen is “renowned” for it; even Su-30 MKI does not reportedly match it. But that is probably the only criterion where Gripen-D is superior to Tejas.

i have still not seen any specs comparison else than hardpoints etc.

the only known fact of speed with gripen C/D at sea level is more than mach 1. So i dont know how you make Tejas a winner or equal in this field.

Official data on RM12 have been 80,5kN since the dawn of time(last 20 years or so). dont know what you got 79kN from. this output is set for safety not high output (130000 flight hours without a single failure) in war its different.

Gripen C has a less than 0,1m2(not 0,1) and NG lesser. If Tejas got lesser show me the source..

Still this is a comparison thats you not able to do, due to no data availible. You still say a system never been in service or produced in numbers, and without any international exersises or data that is equal to a mature system that been proven against the best.
In my book this is pure trolling.

See, as per a news report EADs will consult in making the following changes to develop Tejas Mk2 :-

1) Re-design of undercarriage.

2) Addition of a more powerful engine of 95 kN class.

Besides, EADs consultancy will help in the following : “The consultancy will be for two phases and the salient areas of work will be Flight Envelop Expansion, High Angle of Attack (AOA) flight testing and aero-data validation and upgrade, External Stores Carriage and Release and Flight Tests with emphasis on stores separation modelling and testing, Wake modelling and Wake penetration Flight Tests and Refinements to existing Real Time Simulation models/stools.” (source).

Now, we already know that Tejas Mk.1 is equivalent to Gripen-D, as far as range-payload specs are concerned (please don’t bring “proven fighter” argument now; we’re discussing demonstrated specs. By 2013, a squadron’s worth of Mk.1s too would’ve “earned their spurs” in the IAF).

Now, here is the important part :- The Tejas Mk.1 is undergoing the very same transformations to become Mk.2, that the Gripen-D undertook to become the so-called Gripen-NG.

a) A new engine from a GE-F404 variant, to a 95 kN Eurojet or 100 kN GE-F414.

b) The undercarriage is being redesigned, that will undoubtedly result in more internal fuel and thus more combat range. It will also help in addition of greater weapon stores under the fuselage.

Now, from the above, Tejas Mk.2 will have greater thrust and greater range and payload capacity, it will come in the Gripen-NG class or even the F-16 C/D class. It will finally shed it’s “LCA” tag, defined as per antiquated specs dating back to 1986, when Tejas was meant to be no more than a local MiG-21 (even now it is a complete fallacy to call Tejas Mk.1 as “LCA”, what with it’s specs equalling MiG-29, MiG-27 and Jags, as per a senior IAF source himself).

So, that’s that. Now instead of taking 6 different joyrides, if the IAF takes part in the engine selection process, if it gets down to the workshop with ADA and EADs, then this can be done by the 2013-14 timeframe. Alas, in its 77 year history, IAF has been loathe to do this. It finds signing a cheque for billions easier than “pulling up its sleeves” and working with the defence research establishment.

There is also no danger of fleet dwindling by that time frame. IAF has already ordered 40+42 more Su-30 MKIs, navy has ordered more MiG-29Ks. So, all the more reasons for IAF to take up the Mk.2 project with ADA and give up the MRCA circus.

———

The good news is that as per ADA director Dr. Subramanyam, he is confident that Tejas Mk.2 will be introduced by 2013. Maybe then IAF atleast truncates the order of MRCA and orders more Tejas units instead.

References :-

1) EADs bags LCA Consultancy Project

2) Aero India : India unveils plans for LCA Mark 2 “The LCA Mark 2 will have a bigger and more powerful engine, the fuselage will be changed, it will have bigger wings, and the aircraft will be more aerodynamic,” says Hindustan Aeronautics chairman Ashok Baweja.

range and payloadspecs…:cool:
even thou gripen is better i both these fields, i rather opt for the good old B-29 to optimise for those specs 🙂
Please cool down a bit and please get down to real data and capabilities…not many people seems to follow your logic.

IAF will also realize the Tejas’ equivalence (or superiority) to Gripen, and may restore some faith in the indigenous industry. This may avoid future follies like PAK-FA and MTA.

Or maybe not…;)
If you ask any international expert on the subject i think they doubt youre opinion. But i dont want to go there, its a lot of national feelnings down that ally..
Everybody got the right to there opinion until proven wrong.

Anyway, cooperation between nations is the future of aviation. Europe´s nations are the most keen cooperators i think. Maybe russia as well.

The problems with coops is that its usually less efficient, (look at A400M, and in some way F-35)
I think its time to think about how to make big coops more efficient.

Australia should cancel JSF and opt for More FA18E/F and acquire Growlers. Say 50/50 ratio of E/F to G model. Say 40 E/F and 40 Growlers would be enough to see us to 2030 and beyond.

This talk about “PakFa” and “future chinese stealth” is gigantic BS perpetuated by LM crowd and lobby group. Which country in the region purchase Park Fa?? Malasiya and Indonesia have trouble keeping few squadrons of 4th gen fighters in the air. As for Chinese stealth.. that will be atleast 10 years behind Pak Fa.. and if LM fan boys claim Pak Fa is 10 years away from production min.. then hope of chinese 5th gen is beyond 2030.

Regardless is China is unable to retake island of its coast much less defended than Australia, what are their chances of coming half way down the globe? F35 project is a joke, and an example of pointless waste.

it still a stealth and a extremly good avioncs suit. But not the best Air-to-air out there…
Hopefully the price dont rise more than it already done…
If i was in the buisness for buying i would wait out and see what happens..
You still got a few the Superbugs in the wait.

It was never an USAF project in the first place. Which directly contradicts your claim that USAF don’t use canards because of stealth – and supports my claim that canard designs have been disregarded by USAF way before stealth became a priority.

If you had slightest clue what you’re talking about, then you would have noted the small “close-coupled” detail in your quote. But because I cannot expect you to know more than to copy&paste, let me explain that to you:

Close-coupled canards are nothing but fixed foreplanes, always located above and forward of the wing. Their sole purpose is to direct the airflow downwards over the wing which contributes to lift, reduces drag and minimizes turbulence. They are not even coupled to the control system and their use certainly does not require any “expertise” or redesign of the FCS.

. The only aircraft that has its canards as combined close-coupled and control canards is the Rafale.

Contrary to that, real control canards are all movable surfaces used to control longitudinal angle and are directly operated and controlled by aircraft’s FCS.
END OF STORY

No accually Gripens canards is the largest of moving controlsurfaces on the plane, even bigger than rafales, and is controlled by the FCS.

An the beauty of having a instable plane and controlled canard is the lever effect of the control is in the front and the main weight in the back.
this mean more effect with less flapping and bleeding, counter to the US control surfaces in the back closer to the center of gravity.

The closed coupled have also the effects you saying addin lift on the main wing, less drag, lower stall speeds etc.

Not if the answer is zero, which is the point he was making.

No….:)
they have flown Semi-stealth, gripen <0,1M2
and two UAV.
And at least 2-4 concepts..
So they have experience, please look it up before guessing.

i think you will find, as in all planes boats etc, the faster you go, the more drag, the more fuel you burn

actually its not linjear…a planing boat does consume less after it planing.
And the same logic can be used by planes in transonic speeds..it consumes less in higher speeds if the engine have the same efficiency under certain condtions.

what makes you think that…I would have thought the EF is the one who cleared Leh.

probably because of the MIG-29:s performance in Leh?

What makes you think its EF?