LokeKongsberg has made its show debut at Japan Aerospace, promoting its Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for use by the Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) and Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-aerospace-kongsberg-pitches-jsm-to-tokyo-430339/
LokeIn an essentially clean aircraft, at its optimal supercruise aircraft, and without the full avionics fit/weight that will go with the full Gripen E.
This was a publicity stunt which has clearly worked on some audiences. It doesn’t represent a useful real world capability.
Even if the full Gripen E could sustain M1.2 with the same wingtip missile configuration as the Gripen NG… that still only applies in straight and level flight at its optimal altitude. Any maneuvering, or a useful load, etc, would result in the aircraft having to resort to AB.
Agree, the SC is more a publicity stunt than anything else.
The main selling points of Gripen E will be:
* Advanced EWS, based on GaN modules
* Improved sensors including IRST, AESA radar, improved IFF, improved RWR
* Sensor fusion
* significantly updated computer hardware and computer networks, facilitating sensor fusion
* Reduced RCS, facilitating more efficient EWS
* Beamed data links
* Increased internal fuel by 45%
* Increased number of pylons, MTOW
* Improved MMI
* Separation of flight critical and tactical SW, allowing for very rapid updates w.o. having to re-validate the whole system.
* Increased usage of off-the-shelf components, leading to cost reductions.
SC is really on the bottom of the list…
LokeActually the Mk1A will arrive earlier than any other MRCA fighter can. By 2020 it should be in production. No chance of any MRCA fighter being in production by then. But the big shortfall that will occur starting 2020 will still happen and HAL alone won’t be able to produce the Mk1A fast enough to replace them.
Sigh.
As stated previously: The mk1a seems to become something that is somewhere between the Gripen A and Gripen C in some important performance measures. Even if we assume that it becomes quite close to Gripen C in performance; it is not really something that a country like India would like to induct in 2020, in particular considering the threat environment.
As stated previously: too little, to late.
If mk1a arrives in 2020: when will mk2 arrive? mk2 should be Gripen E analogue. By 2030? What kind of a/c do you think China will introduce by 2030?
Again, too little, too late.
Learn as much as you can from the LCA, and move on to the AMCA the sooner the better. In the meantime, fill the gaps with either F-16 or Gripen E, whatever the IAF fancy the most.
LokeThe problem is if you treat LCA as a learning project for India than that’s all it will turn out to be, a technology demonstrator in numbers and a side project with no utility for IAF.
The only way LCA and Indian aviation industry will move ahead is if there’s some skin in the game. The progression to AMCA will require on-going investment in the LCA program.
No one has ever moved direct from high school to masters degree even with a lot of hand holding and extra tuitions.
Well, building and operating 100 fighters it seems to me that would be enough of a “skin in the game”!
Those fighters would need to be upgraded for the next 30 years or so.
When is the mk1a development supposed to be finalized? What are the current estimates for producing, say, 40 mk1 and 60 mk1a?
LokeI am not saying they should abandon the LCA alltogether, but instead build and operate a smaller number. Learn as much as possible from the experience but don’t base your security on it. You need to move on.
If you build, say, a total of 100 Tejas mk1/mk1a; that should give you more than enough to learn from! Then don’t waste more time on it, and start development on the AMCA instead of the mk2. The mk1a is too little too late, but the mk2 will be even later.
I may be wrong of course, and perhaps the jump from mk1a to AMCA will be just too big a jump for India. However if you need to develop mk2/mk3 before you are ready for the AMCA then you do have a big problem, since the rest of the world is rapidly moving to 5th gen.
Lokeit is reported from norway/sweden mockfights that gripen got the upper hand over their f-16,
i couldnt find that link but i did find this link“I still haven’t lost a dogfight to a US fighter in the JAS39 (although I haven’t met the F-22) ” *referring undoubtedly to norway & finland f-16/18
“I can only claim the first six words.” (I still haven’t lost a dogfight) * referring undoubtedly to an envious self confidence
https://twitter.com/wisemanswisdoms/status/698244471033565188
It is correct that the Swedish pilots are very happy with the Gripen C performance today, in particular in a2a, but also for some other missions. The main limitations are related to its small size, which gives it a smaller range and less carrying capacity, in particular compared to Rafale, Typhoon, the SH and the Hornet.
It did very well against the Typhoon when they tested the HMD in combo with IRIS-T:
LokeProof please. The Swiss evaluation certainly didn’t seem to back up anything you’re stating.
The F-16 was not even short-listed in Switzerland.
The Gripen C did not compare well to Rafale, Typhoon and Hornet in Switzerland. Gripen C is a very light-weight fighter, with all the constraints that entails. It is simply not in the same class as much larger twin-engine fighters.
Gripen E will be somewhat closer to a “medium” size fighter, but it is still a light-weight fighter, no doubt about it. It will not meet all requirements of all airforces; for some, Rafale or F-35 may be a better choice.
LokeThe conversations on Indian forums is the exact opposite. The biggest question being asked is how to get the industrial eco-system in India to be able to step up Tejas production. Far from being a failed project, it is obvious to most people who are willing to actually understand the entire issue, that it is vital that even more support needs to be extended to the Tejas.
Another way of thinking about this would be: The Tejas is a very important program for India, on many levels. However the mk1a will arrive rather late to the party, and it will be too little, in particular considering China’s massive investments. One has a few options:
1. Ignore that it’s “too little too late” and introduce Tejas mk1a in large numbers, ending up with something that is not quite what the IAF wants in a 30-40 years perspective.
2. Bite the bullet and do an mk2 that will be introduced ASAP (to minimize the number of mk1a); unfortunately looking at HALs track record it would take quite some time for this to happen.
3. Accept that whereas the Tejas program is a great enabler and offer great many learnings, it will not be able to match what China is doing right now. So instead of “wasting” time on developing mk2, do the following: Finalize the mk1a; introduce in modest numbers; complement with either F-16 or Gripen E; and instead direct fundings towards the AMCA.
To me it seems the Tejas mk1a will be somewhere between Gripen A and Gripen C in terms of performance; avionics will be newer and better of course, but a “Gripen C class” fighter is simply not what you want to fly in large numbers in the 2030s; in particular not if your neighbour is China.
Learn as much as you can from the Tejas program, and move onto the AMCA as soon as possible.
As for Indian forums; I still remember how extremely cocky many Indians were regarding the Tejas a few years back; that it would soon be ready, and that it would be much, much better than not just the Gripen C but also any future Gripen NG.
Oh well.
In all fairness the Gripen NG has also seen some delays, however those delays have been because it was a challenge to find a partner that could fund the development. Now Sweden has a partner in Brazil, the first Gripen E has been built, and it should fly later this year. Long before the mythical Tejas mk2 (which could potentially become comparable to Gripen E, at least in theory — but I struggle to see that an mk2 could become anything more than a “Gripen E class” fighter).
LokeLACK OF MATURITY!?!
So far nobody has asked LM to add 1/2 the price of the plane for improvments. Please to all poster here, this thread need to supercruise to reach an end sooner. I can sense A[d]IM-[in] closing in because of the arguments spiral.
Indian special requirements does not mean that the Rafale is immature.
Again, I refer you to the Swiss leaks. Already in 2008 Rafale was a mature product, much more so than e.g. the Typhoon.
LokeThe Hindu reports basically the same:
Sources told The Hindu that an RFI for a single-engine fighter to be manufactured in India with extensive technology transfer was issued this week to countries involved in fighter aircraft manufacture. Based on the responses, a detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) would be issued later.
LokeLOL that’s what Loke said repeatedly; twin-engine fighters are too expensive for this new competition; therefore it will most likely be between F-16 and Gripen.
(Unless the US is willing to offer a F-35 assembly line to India, that could possibly change things quite a bit)
Lokewell there were people who chose the rafale: halloween, loke, nikola, topheat, or in other words all the french guys, chose it over the f-35. and msphere, who is generally anti-us aircraft
all the ones who chose the f-35 are: starscream, obligatory, mig-31m, basically all the Americansfor me personally, I like both and still on the fence over whose cons are larger than the other.
1. I am not French
2. I said that as of today, perhaps Rafale may still the best choice due to the lack of maturity of the F-35, but that in a few years this will change and then the best choice will be F-35 (although another qualifyier is still needed — that this is of course considering technical capabilities only, and not other factors like ToT, offsets, politics, etc. — if those other factors are considered then Rafale may still be the preferred choice as recentl witnessed in India)
LokeHow hopeful are you in selling the Gripen to India?
I think the Indian market is quite promising and it is our firm belief that the proposal we have, which includes ‘Make In India’ building indigenous capability in all areas and the product itself is very well suited to fulfil the operational needs. We are confident, we understand there will be competition of course but we have a strong belief that we have a good solution.
Gripen fighters lost the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) bidding in 2011 to French Rafale. What makes you optimistic now?
I think the Indian side has now evolved in their approach and they are also taking a more mature approach through the ‘Make In India’ campaign. I think that would make us more successful in this perspective regardless of losing out the last time. And of course, we have continued to develop the product.
India recently bought 36 French Rafale jets although the original MMRCA deal got scrapped. Do you see it as a setback?
No. I think there is demand enough for fighters in India.
Read more: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/logistics/economy/article9198612.ece
LokeI would be doubtful of some of those numbers.
Saab claims 810 n miles mission radius for Gripen NG in an a2a config.
The figures for Typhoon look about right though… 🙂
LokeThe French Dassault which clinched the biggest export deal with India for its Rafale fighter jet, is not in the running for now to manufacture the same fighters under the ‘Make In India’ Program.
The media keep spreading rumors as they were facts, but in this case I think the rumor may be correct.
On verra.
Sign In
