LokeThe same logic can be put back at you…the LCA is enough for any Pakistani threats and does not cut it against the Chinese. Some of the MMRCA is total overkill against the Pakistanis but still do not cut it against the Chinese. So why buy a foreign aircraft at all as both are not going to cut it against the Chinese?
However the truth is that there will not be 1000 J20’s to face against..however there will be close to thousand flankers and J10’s to face and there the IAF would IMO rather take a heavier aircraft in the MMRCA than a Gripen/F-16.
You are missing the points.
First, NG will be able to handle any flanker or J10. Tejas is simply not in the same league.
Second, and more importantly, there is a real and significant step change from 4.5 gen to a true 5. gen.
A true 5. gen platform is superior to any 4.5 gen platform, including SU-30mki and Typhoon. Thus, heavy investment in 4.5 gen platforms the next 10-15 years may not be very clever if a potential opponent is developing a 5. gen since the value of those 4.5 gen fighters will drop.
China will soon overtake the US economically and nobody knows what they plan to do with their economic powers. If they decide to mass produce a 5. gen platform then they will be able to do it. AFAIK the US is planning to introduce some 2400 F-35. If China wants to match or perhaps even overtake the US militarly and not just economically well then there is your yardstick 😉
LokeBasically, yeah ok, so you like the Gripen & want it selected for the MMRCA. I get that, but its also equally true that the Gripen does fall rather into an uncomfortable place which in procurement terms is between the heavier plus more capable MMRCA competitors, and the Indian lca… And its also true that given the threat perceptions India faces, Gripen may not actually be the best choice in terms of combat capability, even if its cheaper and what not.
Teer sorry I need to revisit this statement of yours, since I think it touches upon something important! What potential threats may India see in the future?
China is becoming a formidable super power economicaly, industrially and militarly. They may have J-20 ready by 2020 — What if they decide to build several assembly lines, churning out, say, 100 J-20 a year? By 2030 they could have 1000 J-20. Not a very likely scenario, but not impossible!
What will be India’s response to such a scenario? Build 500 MMRCA and 500 mk2? I am sorry but it does not matter if you choose Mig35 or Typhoon in such a scenario, neither will cut it!
In a conflict with Pakistan, any of the MMRCA will cut it. But for China you will need 5. gen fighters, and sooner rather than later.
So instead of wasting money on expensive twin-engine 4.5 fighters that is “overkill” in scome scenarios and will not survive in other scenarios (and those J-20s are merely 10 years away!) save your money to develop FGFA and for purchasing F-35 when (not if!) the AMCA becomes too delayed….
Loke10G ? no way. the FCS will not allow that.
Yes there is a way… As Signatory pointed out you’re referring to peace time settings. See also my post 993 above:
Fredrik tells me the Gripen NG can easily be touted a 10g fighter, since it can pull those loads without any real difficulty.
radar blockers for a single engined aircraft with a Y-shaped intake? never heard of that before. got a source for that ?
I think Signatory mentioned that on mp.net in his news thread. Google and thou shall find… 😉
Those are really old F-16s. the Block 52 would be a much harder beast to outclass.
Those are heavily upgraded F-16. And the NG will be far above and beyond the current Gripen.
LokeYou have to be joking if you believe that…several countries apart from US have an understanding of stealth concepts and systems, only they dont have the funding or reason to pursue expensive full operational systems. And Russia, by far, is one of the nations, which has understood many aspects and things about radar cross sections, other signatures, and how to minimize them. Look at their investment and understanding in the allied engineering domains, and its clear they have a fairly extensive set up and infrastructure on the topic
you have to be joking if you believe than any other country is close to the US when it comes to VLO — theory is one thing, making a real-world implementation is something entirely different! Russia is far behind the US, consider when the F-22 first flew, and compare that to where PAK FA is today.
LokeAnyway, this wasn’t the first time that I had flown on the Gripen. A few years ago, I had flown out of Linkoping, the Gripen development facilitity, in the JAS-39 D but the difference in the two jets was obvious to even me, a novice. With its new GE414G engine, the Gripen strains at the leashes on the runway, edging forward despite the brakes and blasts off more than takes off once the brakes are released. In handling too, the jet is care-free pushing the 9 g threshold quite easily. Fredrik tells me the Gripen NG can easily be touted a 10g fighter, since it can pull those loads without any real difficulty.
Supercruise on this flight took place at about 23,000 feet. Our jet, carrying 2 IRIS-T wingtip mounted air to air missiles accelerated through the sonic barrier. Fredrik quickly came off the heater and air speed stabilised well above Mach 1. Fredrik tells me he can sustain this till fuel runs out at this altitude and can travel faster without burner if we are at a higher altitude. Denying that super-cruise can’t be achieved with a warload, Fredrik says they do it all the time with 4 air to air missiles, a pretty standard fit for air superiority operations. He also points out the NG prototype is overweight, and once it loses a few hundred kilos, the supercruise performance of the fighter will appreciably improve.
After a sortie lasting about 45 minutes, in which we also flew in formation with a JAS-39 D which was filmed by camera people on an SK-60 trainer , Fredrik and I turned away for some low altitude runs after which he handed me controls. Throttle and stick response on this fighter is instantaneous and the set-up of the man-machine interface in the cockpit is truly impressive. Though the Raven AESA radar which forms the heart of the NG’s weapon system had been removed ahead of this sortie since the NG goes into an extended modification period, I was able to appreciate and understand the symbology on the multi-function displays.
The Left hand MFD had been configured to provide a repeat of the pilot’s head up display symbology over a wide-angle video underlay of the skies and terrain around us. SAAB’s artificial horizon symbology is quite distinctive and extremely intuitive. The plane you are flying is figuratively placed at the centre of a hemisphere along a dotted line if you are in straight and level flight. Once you pull up, the symbology changes and the dotted line forms a reverse `U’ as you progressively climb. On top of the `hemisphere’ a large `X’ appears atop the pole and if you fly down, the dotted lines form a `U’ till you pass the straight dotted line which you allign yourself to if you want to regain level flight. Its tough to explain in words but very easy to understand when you see it.
Soon enough, it was time to land and Fredrik asked me if I was confident enough to land the jet. He had stick and throttle priority up front so there was no real danger. Engaging ILS, we flew towards Linkoping in pretty marginal weather. With no HUD at eye level, I kept my focus squarely on the left hand MFD where a targeting cue linked to the ILS appeared. With gentle inputs on the sensitive control stick, I had to place the velocity vector (essentially the plane) directly over the targeting cue and keep it there. As we lost altitude progressively, and turned into finals, Fredrik engaged autothrottle and, in a little while, lowered the undercarriage prompting a change in the HUD symbology. The targeting cue became a tiny dot now and the runway appeared in the distance, the threshold marked by a small U. Steering inputs needed now were more pronounced to keep the cue at the centre of the velocity vector. With a few hundred feet to go, the cue disappeared and Fredrik told me to place the velocity vector on the spot I wanted to touch down. He also, repeatedly told me to keep looking down at the MFD, not get distracted by the terrain coming up on all sides ! Now gliding over the runway, I attempted to flare to which Fredrik said `don’t flare, just touch down” which I did. Touchdown was at about 140 knots. Fredrik said “mine” and manually engaged brakes, the Gripen coming to a halt in a few hundred metres.
It was as simple as that, an incredible feeling to do the real thing, for someone who spends hours landing jets on Microsoft Flight Simulator X on my home pc. But the Gripen sortie was not over yet. We refuelled in a few minutes without switching off the engine, returned to the runway and blasted off again for another sortie, quite similar to the first one.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1650176&postcount=482
LokeI said LCAs – I didnt break them out by Marks, since neither did Loke.
Obviously I was referring to mk2 only — the mk1 is useless in particular if you consider the “high threat perception” that you yourself is referring to. The mk1 just doesn’t cut it in a high-threat scenario. Then you need something more powerful like Rafale F3++, Typhoon 3B, or Gripen NG :diablo:
LokeComing to what the IAF really wants to order, on the one hand you try to support the Gripen NG for the IAF while trying to downplay its threat perception, which more and more consists of heavy fighters – several hundred Flanker airframes & the PRC now has its own J-20 design to productionize as well.
OK perhaps my mk2 predictions were too pessimistic — OTOH perhaps not, let’s wait and see. First mk1 needs to succeed. on verra.
I am not trying to downplay the threat perception — if you talk about a2a, the NG will be second to none.
The NG will be the most modern and state-of-the-art of all the fighters in the MMRCA. Typhoon and Rafale are both older than the NG which is being developed as we speak. Kinematically it will compete with any of the others, pulling 10g without breaking a sweat. The current Gripen has a very low RCS, the NG will have further RCS reduction. You do know that the current Gripen has radars blockers in air intakes, in addition the engine is not visible through intakes. The radar radome consists of RAM material that only lets the radar frequencies through. etc, etc.
Norwegian F-16 pilots have admitted that the current Gripen outclasses them; in BVR Gripen is completely superior, and also in TWR it has a clear edge. Surprisingly it “rises faster” than the Norwegian F-16, in spite of having a measly RM12 engine compared to the 27,000 lbs engine in the F-16…. Think about what that implies….;)
The NG will have numerous improvements that will lift it far above and beyond Gripen C. Improved HMI, improved data fusion, swashplate 1000-element AESA, improved EWS, improved HMD, 20% increase in thrust, w. 4% increase in empty weight; SC; MAWs, IRST, satcom, etc etc. Icing on the cake is Meteor and IRIS-T. The NG will be an amazing a2a platform!
Personally I would rather have 200 NG than 126 Typhoon, in particular if a2a is the main focus. Instead of just stating “heavy is better” you should look at requirements and the offered capabilities.
As for the J-20 — if it succeeds none of the MMRCA will be able to handle it, then you need the PAK-FA/FGFA.
Loke“126 or 200 twin-engine MMRCA,
and a tiny number of lca and some old Mirage.”LOL – the IAF plans for the same number of LCAs as it does for the MMRCA. Both have ~126 aircraft planned with rest options!
The mk2 is scheduled to fly “in 2015 or 2016” link.
Allow for some delays and then some years of flight testing. Let’s say it becomes introduced in 2020 with production of 10 a/c a year — by 2025 there will be 50. OK, perhaps not “tiny”, but still a rather smallish number.
I think it will be an open question if IAF really wants to order much more than that given that by 2025 focus will be on 5. gen and UCAVs…
LokeThe point is, they stated these in the initial requirements as well, that’s why I said that their aim was the Mirage 2000-5, but for several reasons the competition is not based on these requirements anymore. We went from light fighters to medium, from multi mode radar to AESA radar, from an simple Mig 21 replacement, to a focus on strike capabilities as well (possibly even with a naval side note), not to mention the high ToT and offsets, as well as strategic / diplomatic benefits.
You simply can’t see it anymore just on basis of the earlier IAF requirements anymore, this is such a big competition and India wants big stuff in return as well. If politics will not decide alone (and I don’t give much on statements of politicians in front of a TV camera), the best package of advantages must win!Actually he said that LCA MK1 is not yet a 4th gen fighter, but that it will be one when it gets FOC, when all remaining issues will be solved. But as I said earlier, besides of specific techs and weapons, the base specs are very comparable between LCA and Gripen, but with an obvious gap to Rafale.
Gripen C / Tejas MK1 / Gripen NG / Tejas MK2 / Rafale F3+
Empty weight: 6.6t / 6.5t/ 7.1t / ~7t / 9.5t
Internal fuel: 2.4t / 2.5t / 3.4t / 3.x t / 4.7t
Dry thrust: 54kN / 55kN / 62kN / 62kN / 100kN
AB thrust: 80kN / 85kN / 98kN / 98kN / 150 kN
TWR: 0,91 / 0.96 / 0.95 / ~1 / 1.08
MTOW: 14t / 13.5t / 16.5 / 15.x t / 24.5t
Payload: 5.3t / 4t / 6t / 5.x t /9.5t
Weapon stations: 7+1 / 7+1 / 7 to 9 + 1 / 7 (9?) + 1 / 9 + 2 (12 + 2 possible, depending on config)
Then why has IAF told Saab that they have done so well in testing, if (according to you) Gripen does not meet the requirements?
As for your figures, many of them are wrong! You have wrong figures for Gripen, and you have no idea what the figures for mk2 will be. Even your mk1 figures are wrong!
Look at the composition of the IAF in 2025 if they go for a twin-engine MMRCA:
large number of Twin-engine SU-30,
growing number of twin-engine PAK-FA/FGFA,
126 or 200 twin-engine MMRCA,
and a tiny number of lca and some old Mirage.
IAF will become extremely top-heavy in such a scenario.
LokeFor the 1000th time, you can’t space the modules closer than lambda/2 (i.e. a half wavelength) or it will seriously screw up your emission pattern.
Only first generation modules were larger than that limit.
So if this goes down to 8 GHz we are talking a wavelength of 3.75 cm, half of that is 1.875 cm.
Now I may be completely off here but according to my calculations if you have a surface of ca. 2827 cm2 (i.e. a disc of 600 mm diameter) then that would fit some 800 units 1.875 cm apart (rough estimate!).
Anyway this does not quite add up, either the Gripen radar does not go down to 8 GHz or the diameter is larger than 600 mm or Lokes calculations are completely wrong (I’m guessing it’s that last option… 😮 )
Comments from the experts?
LokeExecutives from these companies say they are baffled by Naik’s announcement. Asked in late-2010 to rework their offset bids, and with no date yet given for resubmission, the MoD does not have a key element needed to decide a winner.
“Is the MoD going to decide the contract winner without examining the offset bids?” asks a bemused executive, from one of the competing aircraft manufacturers.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/iaf-chiefs-googly-on-wrapping-mmrca.html
MMRCA — what a mess…!
Anyway; as stated before Saab has been told by the IAF that they have done very well in the tests, and Saab believes they meet all requirements.
Now if the mk2 should become comparable to the NG then logically it would mean the also mk2 would meet the requirements.
If that would be the case it would not make sense to purchase 126 expensive foreign a/c — then it would make much more sense to buy, say, 60 or so MMRCA as an mk2 stopgap, and increase the number of mk2. However this has not happened. I therefore believe that the mk2 will not be comparable to NG and not meet the requirements.
I recall reading old postings from when the mk1 was still in development, how enthusiastic all the Indian posters were and how convinced they were that it would not just be comparable to Gripen but far superior. Well that did not come to fruitition. Why should the mk2 suddenly become an astonishing success? The changes seems minor to me.
LokeCompared to airframe size, the US fighters have pretty small radars, esp. the F-22.
I bet they and the French know what they’re doing. Increasing capabilities to fuse data from several jets might be a reason why radome size isn’t that important anymore.
So you are saying that if you put a big radar on a bigger plane the RCS will still be small? I don’t understand that at all. Could you elaborate?
LokeIt seems the first Gripen NG prototype will fly in March.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUKPSrb4YlI
Thanks to Signatory!
LokeYes, that quote seems tailor made for the Gripen. At the same time, it is quite possible that the IAF is now looking at slightly heavier and more capable birds. The jump in ASRs for the tejas – from the original MiG-21 replacement to the current bird and the near future Mk2 is indicative of this. The very fact that the M2k-5 was at last discarded perhaps further emphasizes this. IOWs, the Gripen might be considered now as an LCA type low end bird by the IAF, and it therefore is looking for something bigger.
The Rafale is only about 2 tons heavier empty, and even lighter than the single engined Viper blk 60! Maybe, just maybe it fits into the “medium” role a lot better than the others!
Damn it though – its nose is rather small, and that itty-bitty AESA sure does not make it seem menacing. But then, could it actually be that them Frenchies do know what they are saying – and with an AWACS or even MKI type acting as mission commander, the emphasis on passive sensors might be just the right combo?!
USS.
With a max payload of 7200 kg the NG seems closer to the F-16 than to the Tejas, IMHO. Gripens empty weight puts it in the “light” category, but max payload puts it in the “medium” category.
Rafales empty weight puts in the “medium” category but Rafales max payload (and price!) puts it closer to the “heavy” than the “medium” category. The Rafale can carry a bigger payload than the SH!
The question remains though, does the IAF need another a/c with such capability when it already got the SU-30MKI?
As for the passive sensors of Rafale — Gripen will also have some advanced passive sensors, newly developed and therefore state-of-the-art.
LokeLike the Mirage 2000-5! 😀 Because that is what IAF was aiming on in the initial competition, but like the article says also:
So A, neither is Gripen E/F a fast track introduction choice, simply because it is unavailable for several years and because IAF never operated a swedish fighter before. Fast induction is only possible with French, or Russian fighters.
And B, the competition has progressively changed and besides the new fighter capabilities, it’s about diplomatic and strategic (which includes also the industrial side as well) benefits for the coming years!Gripen is in the same class of Mirage 2000, but so is Tejas and IAF now searches for more (MoD possibly also for a useful carrier fighter) and the value of Sweden and Saab in terms of diplomatic and strategic advantages is more than low.
:rolleyes: On the other side, just a demo radar available for Gripen which is even reported to have issues in Indian and Brazilian evaluations.
More impressive are Rafales passive detection and weapon guidance capabilities, which are quiet unique capabilities in the competition and seems to have worked quiet well against fighters with bigger radars (ATLC).
1. The quote describing what IAF should have was recent it was not related to the initial request.
2. Sure IAF wanted originally a quick introduction of the new a/c however that has not happened and it will not happen. It will still take quite some time before the a/c is chosen! The competitors have not even delivered their updated offset offers yet, they don’t even have a deadline for doing so!
3. Politically the “similarity” with the Tejas may be seen as a problem for the NG in some quarters however in reality this is not a problem. First, there is a huge gap in performance between the Tejas and the NG, in terms of TWR, agility, range, drag, and payload just to mention a few things. But also in terms of maturity there is a huge difference. However perception may be more important than reality so therefore I believe this is an issue for Gripen.
4. I don’t think that IAF has never operated a Swedish fighter before is that significant. The Typhoon is very different from the current UK fighters, and what US fighters are they currently operating? Only Rafale may have an advantage here — however Gripen would have the advantage of having the same engine as the Tejas.
5. AESA radar is as mature as the Typhoon, if not more so. And the Rafale is not that far ahead.
Sign In
