and? whats your point?

The point was simply that Tejas’ GE-F404 variant has greater thrust. Now, you know.

??!! why not? Now you start sound a bit stupid..
4gen multirole was better than 3 gen, and STOL/low cost flight suited sweden. Sweden have like france,

130000 flight hours i quite mature in my book.

See, you are Not comprehending posts properly at all.

I said, that if the IAF were to use the logic of “proven fighter” and order the Gripen, why didn’t Swedish Air Force in 1996 use the same logic to reject a fresh “unproven” Gripen to opt for a much more “proven” Mirage-2000 or F-16 ? And this, when a Gripen had crashed during testing. The 130000 flight hours have come long after being inducted and flown extensively by the Swedish Air-Force.

In 1998, the F-16 C/D and Mirage-2000-V were 4th gen. jets and not 3rd gen.

As for STOL, if that is THE capability much wanted and vaunted by Swedish Air Force, then the immunity from foreign sanctions, immunity from contractual arm-twisting is what the Tejas brings to the table that none of the 6 contenders have (Gripen for example, comes with a plethora of US-origin components).

You didnt even ask for a source?!
Its official for gripen A and its all over, FOI papers (research institute in the defence and security) it cant be more offical than that.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1

The above source does NOT mention any figures or even estimates for the RCS. It makes the same comparative assertion and guesstimates about its RCS on the basis of “conductive paints” and “fuel ducts”. The similarly comparative ones that I made for Tejas, namely it’s very small size, extensive RAM coating, and composites.

I will not respond any futher on this nonsense.

Sign, your “source” too doesn’t have any RCS numbers. It only gives “signs” as to the comparitive RCS with the F-16 C. Arey, even that JF-17 will have lesser RCS than F-16 Cs in the PAF, what with smaller size and DSI intakes.

Maybe they are scared of the jets HAL produces…or the timelines they promise to have them flying by.

Actually, Hansa is produced by NAL (National Aeronautics Limited), and not HAL. Besides, it is already in use by almost all flying clubs in the country for civillian airline pilots (that fly you too). NAL also made the Saras 14-seater. It is indeed India’s Embraer in the making and a future client of HAL’s, which will happily make doors, panels and foot-rugs for NAL’s next project (like they do for Boeing and Airbus now) : the 90-seater RTA, which looks like this.

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

They are all available on wikipedia that are very well referenced from official sources.

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.

Tejas is known to have cruised faster than Mach 1.1 at sea trials at Goa, last December. I posted the news report in my last post. Since it says “it clocked it’s fastest speed of 1,350 kms per hr”, and given that Tejas has clocked M 1.6 – 1.7 earlier, theis must be the speed at sea-level.

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.

Tejas’ GE-404-IN 20 engines is rated at 83 kN.

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

There no official source for Gripen either, only speculation. In any case, no definite conclusion that Gripen’s RCS is lesser.

Now, as mentioned earlier, the Tejas is likely to have a lesser RCS because it is the smallest combat jet globally (smaller than even Korean T-50 trainer), uses extensive RAM coating and has one of the highest composite percentages (higher than Eurofighter, as per the official websites of both).

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, the argument of “proven fighter” is a very “hollow” one. If it is indeed the case, one is tempted to ask why did Sweden induct Gripens in the mid-1990s, when there were Mirage-2000s from France and F-16s from USA ?

I don’t know the reasons why PAF needs a French avionics and weapons package.

If I’m not mistaken, then the J-10’s KLJ-10 radar was chosen over the Russian Zhemchug radar and a possible Israeli radar also, due to superior performance. KLJ-10 is supposed to be a phased array radar rumoured to be developed from Russia’s NIIP company’s Pero radar.

If KJL-7 is indeed a “watered down” derivative of the KLJ-10, it is likely that it is a phased array radar also, and must be quite good for a smaller fighter like JF-17. I think PAF might specifically want the Mica missile, and hence is asking for avionics from Dassault.

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.

#####Last warning, stick to the topic!#####

Its about the volume of the aircraft. C-17 has a fuselage diameter of 6.8 meters versus Il-76 having a diameter of 4.8 meters.
C-17 specs.
IL-76 specs

Arey, who denied that C-17 is not bigger, or that it can carry much more cargo than an Il-76 ? I’m saying that for relatively shorter intra-India distances, a C-17 would be less economical than a couple of Il-76s, or a couple of C-130Js. Say, if cargo/troops have to be supplied to the northeastern front : better use two Il-76s or two C-130Js, than a single C-17. As a civilian example, airlines that have bought the A-380 wish to operate it on long-hauls. Our own rotund Mallya, who has ordered 5 of these, wishes to operate them in the Mumbai-London or Bangalore-London circuit — and not Mumbai-Delhi, although it can be loaded at all times in that busy route too.

Try to understand C-17 is an intercontinental airlifter. It’s economy of operation is best leveraged at ultra-long hauls, and never at local hauls. That’s why US and UK use it extensively for transportation to their ops in Iraq and Afghanstan. They don’t use multiple C-130Js for that, even though it too can fly the distance. So, if you’d bothered to read the African coup example I gave earlier, IAF can use a single C-17 than multiple Il-76s or C-130Js in such a case. But since, India does Not have ops at intercontinental distances — and won’t in the foreseeable future — a C-17 is near useless.

Our Il-76s and new C-130Js can do the job for now.

Basically that implies that some stuff which cannot be transported on IL-76 without dismantling can be done by C-17.

OK, the dismantling angle now. I don’t think IAF ops require no dismantling of aircraft parts; they carry entire choppers and tanks on their Il-76s (and will in the spanking new C-130Js too). Unless they’re carrying fuselage parts a la Volga-Dneper, the Indian armed forces won’t need the C-17.

Anyway, I have never been sure how you make these judgements on what IAF needs and what it doesn’t….:rolleyes:

Sirji, I don’t understand how you accept whatever IAF seeks to purchase, without questioning the originally intended utility of a particular hardware in it’s country of origin. I’ve said (if you’d bothered to read earlier) I am all for C-130Js and P-3 Orions, but definitely against C-17s and Aegis.

Landing on roads and highways is something IAF needs very urgently too, given the worst-case scenario of a 2-pronged war against China and Pakistan. I don’t think any current fighter jet has this capability, though maybe in the future Tejas should have it (given it’s huge delta-wing).

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..

See, I’m not aware of the aforementioned “international experts” that you quote, but Indian experts sure do feel that Tejas will make for a good MRCA candidate. These include Mr. Parthasarathy & Mr. Puri (ex-advisors to MoD) and the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Their articles have been posted here earlier.

Everybody got the right to there opinion until proven wrong.

Fully agree. Also tell that to your “International Experts”.