AbhimanyuDon’t know if its already been mentioned but there are two aircraft with similar specs. The JAS-39 Gripen and the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, both have been flying for years and are powered by the GE F404 engine.
So, is the Tejas Mk.1 It has the GE-F404 IN-20 engine (IN stands for India). 8 units flying since 9 years. 2 production units have already flown.
AbhimanyuFT-5 is being replaced mostly by K-8. FT-6 is I have no official link or statement to answer your last question but this is what i think. There are three options for meeting AJT/LIFT needs. It could be
1) JJ-9 (if they stay very conservative)
2) L-15 (Depends on how soon it’s problems are solved and it is inducted in PLAAF)
2) Twin seater JF-17. The reason i am mentioning this is because in one of the IDEAS it was indicated that Pakistan does want to pursue this option for industrial interests it has in project. However there has been a long silence since then and it seems most of the effort is going towards the single seater at this time.
A twin seater JF-17 is inevitable for training purposes on the JF-17 (almost every fighter jet has a trainer version also, ranging from F-16 to MiG-29s).
If the credit taken by PAC Kamra taken from China eases, Chengdu and Kamra can begin the marketing of JF-17 to potential customers, atleast as a trainer. Even as a cheap fighter, it may find acceptance in third-world nations that want a “workhorse”.
AbhimanyuAs usual you have no idea of what you´re speaking about. Why do you even bother to post when you clearly don´t have a clue?
No, the Swedish government has not given any tax-breaks etc. towards the organization behind the Gripen-project, namely IG-JAS. IG-JAS consists of companies that are privately owned, of which the largest one is Investor AB (well Investor is behind a few of the companies in IG-JAS). Even if there should be such a thing as a “government”-controlled company behind Gripen it would be against Swedish law to give tax-breaks.
See, I think that I may not have phrased my post properly.
The Gripen’s exports to Hungary, Thailand etc. would have had an export-duty overhead like any other goods or service attract, when they leave a country’s shores. This would’ve easily have added many millions of dollars to it’s unit cost (along with life support, spares etc.). However, sales to Swedish Air Force would’ve been much cheaper simply because it is not an export.
Again, as mentioned earlier, the Swedish government has a say in the affairs of SAAB, like when the Sedish government had to intervene when GM found no buyers for SAAB auto. It is an important arm of Sweden, and not merely a “profiteering” company for whom Sweden and Thailand are equidistant.
Abhimanyu…or with twice as many strings attached.
The “political strings” of conflicting parties (Russia and US) will cancel out, and only the monetary benefits will be accrued by both nations. Suppose it had US engine, US weapons and avionics then maybe US wouldv’e seized the opportunity to leverage. But here with so many stakeholders, they’d only think of profits on the one made-in-US component it has : the engine.
It’s only that sales to arch foes will be prohibited : for example it won’t be sold to Iran or Venezuela because US won’t approve; and it cannot be sold to Georgia or Kazakhstan, as Russia won’t approve.
Yes, but what has been explained dozens of times in this thread alone is that there is a difference between a fly away cost and buying an entire new system of aircrafts that incorporates everything from spares, training, infrastructure, simulators etc to simple things like new tank trucks etc. SAAB also includes a life-cycle costs, a commitment, of 20-30 years in those deals.
Do you understand?
Buying new fighters to your airforce is not like you buying a pair of new shoes and you go around and compare prizes, it´s a bit more complicated then that…
See, the Swedish government must definitely have given incentives, tax-breaks etc. to induct the locally made Gripen into their own Air Force. This company alone is a major component of the Swedish economy as a whole, and the Swedish government is itself a major stakeholder in the affairs of SAAB.
It is extremely unlikely that Swedish Air Force paid the export price along with export duties and other charges to buy a locally made fighter jet. It is unlikely that the Thai Air-Force paid the same as the Swedish Air Force (including spares, simulators, and life-time support).
AbhimanyuDo you even read any other posts before you write your comments? Or do you just read them and think they are simply lies?
Edit: Just as you understand. I just wrote that the cost of the last batch of Gripen C/Ds was $30 mil./unit. Not 60, but perhaps missed that part.
(And offcourse Gripen just comes close. We all now how superior the LCA is, specially that Mk3. version that is coming in a couple of years…)
See, for the Home Air-Force the price is likely to be much cheaper. The discount of 1,500 million SEK is only over and above all this. You can try to find the export cost to say, Thailand, Hungary or the Czech republic. It will be much higher than $30 million.
AbhimanyuIf the Tejas is exported, it may go down in history as the ONLY weapons hardware ever, to have both Russian and US components i.e. Russian weapons and US engine.
This would be a personification of sorts, that Tejas is indeed neutral and does not come with political strings attached !
AbhimanyuThird world nations and developing nations will look for a fighter jet, that can “pack a punch” by way of sophisticated avionics and weapons suites, and yet be very affordable. Moreover, it’s country of origin, India is NOT a “power center” unlike USA or China that can attach geo-political strings with sale of such fighter jets.
As Spitfire9 rightly mentioned, Tejas is the ideal and the only candidate in the forseable future.
Gripen comes close in capabilities, and Sweden will also export without any political ‘strings’. But it’s price is likely to be much higher. At over $60 million per unit, it will be “shunned” in favour of Tejas, which at only $30 million can “steal the cake”.
Even Tejas Mk.1 can find lot of favour with South American and African Air Forces. At mach 1.8, 8g, an avionics suite from Su-30 MKI and 8 weapon stations holding sophisticated missiles and pods, it would be a very attractive proposition.
AbhimanyuPAF want a better engine, if not they will continue with RD-93. There is no issue here. Your Russian friends are happy to provide us with plenty of engines but we want better.
See, the any Air-chief will ask for newer engines if and only if the current engines lack performance, or if the next version will be bigger and weightier than the present one. There is clearly no Mk.2 version in sight for JF-17, and so the conclusion is for the former.
By your twisted logic, if no oneknows anything about US Black projects that means no work is being down secretly?
PAF’s “behind-the-scenes” activities are very well known. You may read further below :-
1) MAR-1
Did you know about DRDO’s PAD-AAD, before they were tested “one fine day” ?
2) F7-PG
MiG-21 Bis
3) Project ROSE
ROSE upgrades to PAF Mirages were very well known.
4) Testing of RAAD, BABUR, H-4
The news about Babur was posted in Pakdef fora by an Indian called Arjun k.1 1 month before the Babur was first tested on Aug 2005.
5) New Harpoon batches
PN has been operating the Harpoon for a very ong time now. New batches do not pose any unknown threat to IN.
6) DSCA notification of AMRAAM,JDAM etc.
This came after forfeiting millions of dollars already paid to the US in the 1990s for F-16C batches that were withheld due to a Congressional decree.
It really is time to take a hard look at what you post on this forum….
That advise, you must take.
Face it, in the previous posts you said to Insig “no negotiations with Europe for avionics”.
You have been proved wrong,no use changing subject. Have some grace to admit when you are wrong, or you will never learn from any experiance you have in life.
Arey uncle, here see this :-
Pakistan nears FC-1 avionics decision DATE:18/10/1995
In 1995, PAF was “very close” to deciding on an “uber” European avionics suite for the JF-17. But like all such reported negotiations, it came to naught. I have similarly posted numerous news reports about PAF wanting Selex AESA, this & that and all the “European heavens” for the JF-17. All these came to nothing, and 14 years after the above talks, the JF-17 still flies with Chinese avionics.
As mentioned earlier, PAF has been airing these “negotiations”, “talks” etc. since the past 14 years to bluff only. It may possibly be a psy-op strategy.
AbhimanyuSouth Asia
Oct 10, 2007French arms deal with Pakistan risks US ire
By Federico BordonaroThe news last month that Pakistan is likely to get French air-to-air missiles (AAMs) and radar for its JF-17 fighter aircraft has raised some eyebrows in the US.
The reason is that MICA AAMs produced by MBDA and RC-400 multimission radar built by Thales may enrich China’s rapidly growing military capabilities if sold to Pakistan, since Islamabad is developing its fighter plane jointly with Beijing. The JF-17 is a lightweight multi-role fighter co-developed by Pakistan
Therefore, the key variable here is how many MICAs and RC-400s France sells to Pakistan. Of course, if Islamabad buys new series of them after the first acquisition, it is conceivable that China could get its hand on them in the future, independently of the JF-17 development.
Rumors of the deaL
It is certainly no secret that France has eyed Indian and Pakistani defense markets as a great opportunity to expand its strong military-industrial sector. For years, French companies have provided weapons and systems to both Delhi and Islamabad. However, the deal regarding the JF-17 has been a difficult one, mainly for political-diplomatic reasons. This explains the lack of information from France and the extreme cautiousness in all aspects of the current arrangements.Back in September 2004, Jane’s Defence Weekly’s special correspondent Robert Sae-Liu reported that the choice of a multimode pulse-Doppler radar for the JF-17 fighter was reported in 2003 as “involving a competition between Phazotron of Russia with the Kopyo system, Galileo (FIAR) of Italy with the Grifo S-7, and Thales of France with the RC 400”.
One may easily add Selex’s Vixen AESA radar also to the above list. As with the above, nothing came of it, although it had (supposedly) been in the offing since 2006. Those days, there was some “flutter” in Indian fora about the prospect of an AESA radar on JF-17.
But as with Vixen, Grifo, RC-400 etc. nothing came of it, once again demonstrating “hot air” only. All 8 protoypes with PAF as well as the next 40-50 productions units will fly with a derated Chinese radar (the KJL-?) and only Chinese avionics.
And the prize for the most incorrect sweeping statemnet goes to…..
Looks like even your Russian “super duper, long-time, best mate, ally thingy” wanted to get in on the radar deal….
The FC-1 is a fully Chinese product (albeit funded by Pakistan). Russia has had significant contributions in it’s development (like it has with many Chinese products), including design consultancy by Mikoyan, the RD-93 engine and the possible sale of the radar. Part of the profits from the sale of FC-1 by China to any export customer must require Russian consent and possibly part of the profits also.
AbhimanyuPoint is it has an engine, even if PAF do notgo for European engine they can get more with current engine. This is not the same as not having an engine selected. I am sure you can get your head round the concept.
The above is inaccurate. It does NOT have a chosen engine for the next batch betond 40 jets, otherwise it’s performance is sub-par should PAF decide to continue with RD-93. Obviously, choosing a new engine is a time-consuming process with modifications required in the fuselage. At least Tejas Mk.2 has it’s new engine set — and even with the current GE F404-IN 20 engine, it has reached IoC specifications already in recent tests at Goa.
PAF are often silent on alot of things. You will not hear media reports in every outlet for years going on about selection and tenders as in India. We do the job quietly and crack on. After its done we announce prject completion. It is a lot less embaressing for us when things are delayed or go wrong. Maybe a few countries can learn form these things.
“Silence” is a red herring for no action taking place. By being “silent” Pakistan likes to create an impression that a lot of behind-the-scenes activity is taking place, when in fact none at all is taking place. This bluff will be called at some time.
I’ve already posted news reports about how many times PAC Kamra’s JF-17 manufacturing facility has been inaugrated/opened by Musharraf with a lot of “fanfare”, and then by Gilani/Zardari since 2005-06. Production began only in 2009.
I am not going to get into a debate about what “you read in Chinece fora” as I could say the same and we can be here all day.
You may bring a single instance where FC-1 has flown in Zhuhai airshow (news reports are all public), or it has participated in formations along with the (then) experimental J-10 B and J-11 B.
OK, Finally. Lets take a slight holiday from reality and pretend, just for a few minutes, LCA is anything close to what the Gripen is. I will ask you one simple question. Its very simple, but as with your mob, I dont expect a simple answer.
Why is Gripen a contender in MRCA contest and LCA not?
Because, as I’ve argued earlier, the IAF is totally mistaken. The Tejas Mk.1 is equivalent to Gripen C/D, and the Mk.2 will be equivalent to Gripen NG. There is a firm belief that Tejas Mk.2 should be the MRCA, and the IAF must not entertain the Gripen NG, or ANY other fighter jet.
My signature itself expresses the above.
AbhimanyuInsig, there have been no negotiations for JF-17’s avionics whatsoever with ANY European company. There have been only speculations about JF-17 opting for the Grifo radar or the Vixen AESA radar, since the past few years nothing concete.
In contrast, Tejas’ Mk.1’s avionics have been laid out, with most of them being in common with the Su-30 MKI. Tejas Mk.2 will retain the same avionics as Mk.1 with possibly fewer LRUs.
AbhimanyuAgain, this is not place to start a JF-17 V LCA debate, but dont want to be accused of not answering! :p
See, you initially brought thie issue of JF-17 on the first page of this thread.
Please, lets notstart making up reasons why China is not inducting JF-17. You dont actually know. It was primarily PAF that wanted it and China have JF-17. If you have firm reasons then share,but that is your opinion.
PLAAF has no stated need for JF-17, and has no announced any intention to induct it. It is solely for export only. As per Chinese fora, it is not allowed to even participate in official air-shows, and tests along with other jets like J-10 or J-11.
France is offering avionics package as is Italy.
I’ve been hearing “been offering” since 2006. These countries always have avionics for retail sale, be it for Su-30 MKI, Gripen, Mirage-2000 upgrades for middle-east countries etc.
However, for JF-17 there has been nil progress on any front, except a press statement by ex-PAF chief that European package and European engine will be considered beyond the current batch of 40. He didn’t specify exactly which engine and what avionics package PAF needed.
RD-93 is good but you are right, PAF want better engine with more power and less TBO. However point remains, engine integration is done. With LCA MK2 this is not the case.
Arey bhaisahab, where is the engine for the next batch of JF-17s after the current 40 is ready by 2013 ? The PAF chief was silent on which European engine will be adopted for the next batch of 40, to be constructed starting 2013.
Atleast in case of Tejas Mk.2, the choice of engines is clear : 100 units of either Eurojet or GE-F414. Both companies have submitted their RFPs last month to ADA. Bidding winner will be announced in a few month’s time.
Right now China and Pak can have conversations about JF-17, both on wespons, prices, delivery timetables etc.
LCA is a long way from this point.
Weapons on Tejas have been decided. Delivery timetables too have been decided (IoC certificate by next year, First squadron by 2011).
Please,lets got over obesession with my backside hey? 😉
I am right in assuming that LCA MK2 is the one IAF will be inducting and India looking to exprot? Yes or no?
No, because IAF has committed to inducting 40 Tejas Mk.1 jets also. Depending on a customer’s requirement, even these can be put for export, just like Gripen C/D is. You are aware that Tejas Mk.1 as it flies today, is equivalent to Gripen C/D (same engine thrust, empty weight, weapon-stations, litening target pod, HMDS, internal fuel, RWR etc.)
It, currentky has no SELECTED engine. Surley even you can comprehend this?
The Tejas Mk.2 has no selected engine, just as the JF-17 too has no engine “in sight” after the first batch of 40 are inducted into PAF.
Abhimanyu1) In June JF-17 will be in frontline operational service with a relatively large,we equipped air force
The JF-17 has been rejected by the primary manufacturer, China. It has been purchased by PAF on an outstanding credit loan of a few hundred million dollars from China. Since PAC Kamra itself cannot make any profit on this, considering it has “bankrolled” it’s development, exports are out of question for the forseable future.
2) Has a fully integrated and functioning engine.
Note that it’s engine emits smoke, and the current PAF chief is on record saying that a European engine will be sought for JF-17 (news report posted much earlier) in future batches. It is clear that PAF is not satisfied with the RD-93.
3) Wespons systems and integration practically completed. Choice of Euro/Chinese systems
PAF chief has only expressed that a European package may be sought in the future batch beyond the current batch of 40. There have been no negotiations for any European package so far, bar for the speculated Italian pulse doppler radar.
5) Price is known
The price of JF-17 has very recently been estimated to finally cost $20 m to $23 million, and not $15 million as conventionally believed.
6) China/Pak already in talks with potential customers
A fighter jet, which is not being inducted in the original Air Force (PLAAF), will have little export prospects. Please note that nations like Algeria, Nigeria, Myanmar and Morocco are purchasing Su-30, MiG-29 and Rafales. It is hard to see a low-medium fighter like JF-17 compete with such jets.
Abhimanyuwait wait..while the part you wrote about the start date and all is correct, this part is not at all correct- whats your source for your claim that it was the IAF which kept demanding a fully digital FBW ? it was the ADA that was offered the analog FBW system by Dassault and AFAIK, it was their decision not to take it up and instead go for the more advanced fully digital FBW. the IAF wanted them to go with a Euro solution because they felt it was less sanction-prone. ADA believed that the American fully-digital FBW was the technology that was the technology of the future and they wanted it for the LCA.
The above is totally inaccurate. Firstly, there is no basis to suggest that a full-digital FBW offered by Lockheed, was “more advanced” than the hybrid digital-analog FBW offered by Dassault. This is because, the digital-analog FBW system is still used by Rafale. Originally developed in 1987 by Dassault, it has remained unchanged.
Secondly, ADA had to choose a digital FCS, not because of it’s own choice, but because Tejas was meant to be an unstable jet from the time of setting the ASRs. Unstable jets perforce require a digital or digital-analog FBW.
Thirdly, I have to humbly point out a factual inaccuracy in AM Rajkumar’s comment that had Dassault been chosen as contractor, the Tejas would’ve been in service in 1990s itself, and wouldn’t have been “delayed by a decade”.
Dassault, Lockheed, Lear Astronics and Bendix were all approached in 1992. LM was chosen over Dassault, as it offered full-digital FBW and had implemented it in the F-16. The $40 million contract was supposed to get over as early as 1998 itself, had it not been for the nuclear tests and the subsequent expulsion of Indians working at Lockheed’s facilities. This delayed the Tejas project by over 2 years.
To summarize : There is nothing to suggest that Dassault’s offer was “inferior” to LM’s, and the proof of this is that Rafale still uses the digital-analog hybrid developed in 1987. There is also nothing to hint that a digital-hybrid analog would’ve been completed any sooner once begun in 1992; as noted, the LM’s collaboration too was to have ended in 1998 itself, but for the nuclear sanctions.
The planners at the AHQ got to work and issued an Air Staff Target (AST) for a cost effective replacement for the Ajeet and the Mig-21.
The aeronautical engineers and scientists did not agree with the approach and wanted to bridge the technological gap that had opened up between the advanced countries and India since the Marut (HF-24) programme of the 1960s. They wanted the aircraft to have four crucial new technologies which were the FBW-FCS, a glass cockpit, composite materials in the airframe and micro processors controlled general systems. They also decided to develop the jet engine to power the LCA as well as the MMR which would be the primary sensor aboard the a/c. The seeds for protracted programme delays and cost overruns were sown by these decisions. the IAF not wanting to sound overtly pessimistic went along with these ideas and took the 1st step of issuing an AST for a multi role fighter while expressing serious reservations about development schedule.
I think AM Rajkumar is mistaken that FBW-FCS was a “choice” by ADA. As mentioned just above, if the jet was to be unstable, there is no option but to go for a digital FBW. And the unstable requirement was thrust by the IAF.
AbhimanyuThis is the second part of the series of explaining various aspects about Tejas.
The Idiot’s guide to Tejas 102.
Q) The Times of India screams that the Tejas project is 26 years old. Is this true ?
A) No. The Tejas project is 21 years old.
Q) But.. but… I read that it began way back in 1983. My math tells me 2009 minus 1983 is 26.
A) No. Contrary to what the Times of India erroneously reports, the Tejas project did not begin in 1983. How can it, when the agency that develops Tejas, the ADA, was itself setup in a small building in 1985 ? In 1983, the government just sanctioned a token sum that included money to :
a) Study the feasibility of such a fighter, and study technologies like FADEC and advanced composites.
b) Setup the ADA itself by hiring staff, constructing a building and negotiating with foreign consultants like BaE, Smiths aerospace and Dassault.
All this was done between 1985 to ’87.
Q) Okay then. So when did work on Tejas really start ?
A) After the ADA was setup, studies done, and it’s personnel hired, the Project Definition phase began. After it was tabled, it marked the start of Tejas.
Q) When did that happen ?
A) In 1988.
Q) OK so it’s 21 years old. But didn’t ADA promise that the first production variant shall be ready by 1995, and inducted by 1996. It’s 2009 and we’re not there yet.
A) It’s true that the ADA had set a deadline of induction as early as 1996. But the belligerant IAF kept on demanding hitherto new and unknown stuff — like full digital FBW, that nobody had heard of in this part of Asia before.
Q) What else did IAF demand ?
A) It demanded that it should have the latest-est digital quadruplex FBW, that stumped ADA. Just searching for a foreign consultant like Dassault, Mikoyan and Lockheed consumed a lot of ADA’s time, before it “zeroed” on Lockheed.
Further, the IAF demanded that it should be ultralight, somewhere around 5.5 tons. So, the ADA developed lots of advanced composite structures, with as few rivets and joints possible. It even developed the software for it’s layout inhouse. This, at a time when even Russian jets were mostly metallic. That’s not all, the FADEC system for it’s GE engine was also developed in collaboration with Smiths, UK.
Besides, in 1998, the US imposed sanctions after the 1998 nuke tests. This delayed the project by another 2.5 years.
Q) But before the nuclear sanctions, you yourself just mentioned that ADA had all the help from across the globe. Dassault’s consultancy, composites from Italy, engines & FBW from USA, and FADEC from UK….
A) For a country that had done little else than assembling Vietnam-era MiG-21s from cheap Soviet tools, this was nevertheless a very big challenge to be surmounted.
Q) A Himalayan challenge ?
A) Absolutely.
Q) So how much of all this technology as been assimilated ?
A) ADA surpassed the Italians from whom they learnt composites tech. It sold Airbus Industrie the software for it’s layout, and which is used in the Airbus A380. After the nuclear sanctions, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam himself led the team that validated and integrated the FBW software in the Tejas — indigenously. Today, India is independent in developing quadruplex redundant FBW software. Note that in Lockheed’s facilities, our mathematicians were asked to develop their own laws; only the advanced equipment was used to integrate and test it on an F-16 Vista simulator. India didn’t have such advanced facilities in the 1990s.
Sign In
