AbhimanyuGripen has lower wing loading (flies at lower alpha) than f18, lower wing aspect ratio and overall smaller silhouette, all of which contributes to lesser total drag. Drag generated in such manner influences SFC, range and acceleration, directly.
As for the top speed, Gripen is faster than F18 mainly due the ramduct (intake) volume/layout.So in the end, when you take a look at range tables for both aircraft, it seems that although Hornet’s F414s theoretically haul almost half of drag per engine in comparison to NG’s F414, Hornet has about double total drag in comparison to Gripen.
Such larger drag then induces all other sort of performance reductions and in the end faster airframe fatigue buildup, as well.
I agree drag is not directly proportional to size. It’s true Gripen is smaller and has lower wing aspect ratio. This might be the reason why even though Gripen’s engine has to handle all the drag, it must be half the total drag of the F/A-18, even though the latter’s engines manage half the total drag.
You mean, the post that includes this little gem?
“the above will not apply, or be minimized, if an external fuel pod is also carried. So, Gripen -NG and F/A-18 EF will have nearly the same fuel fraction if they carry external fuel tanks.
Of course, Gripen will have to carry a “larger” fuel tank than F/A-18.“Now please tell us, why wouldn’t the F-18 be able to also carry a “larger” fuel tank and achieve a better range?
An F/A-18 Super Hornett can carry fuel tanks of capacity 1,300 litres, whereas Gripen-NG can carry fuel tanks of capacity 1,700 litres. Thus, the assertion holds.
Hence, when loaded in the normal config., a Gripen will have an equivalent combat radius as an F/A-18 Super Hornett.
AbhimanyuAbsolutely not. Fuel fraction cannot be compared if you don’t include the payload (and external fuel).
I have replied to your post only a minute before you posted, so you can read my post just above yours.
Are you for real? Ever heard of the Rafale M?
I was talking of a Rafale-like jet for the US Navy, and not France. They developed a Category 3 jet, the F/A-18, which weighed over 11 tons, and was powered by 80×2 = 160 kN thrust.
AbhimanyuEmpty weight, thrust & fuel fraction only give an indication of no payload (internal fuel only) range/combat radius.
Once you star putting payload (weapons, pods, ADDITIONAL external fuel) the fuel fractions change…
Smaller/lighter aircraft are MORE effected than larger/heavier aircraft.
pfcem, the above will not apply, or be minimized, if an external fuel pod is also carried. So, Gripen -NG and F/A-18 EF will have nearly the same fuel fraction if they carry external fuel tanks.
Of course, Gripen will have to carry a “larger” fuel tank than F/A-18.
The internal fuel capacity of the Eurofighter Typhoon is LESS than that of the F/A-18A-D. Actual capacity is still classified but from what I have seen it is in the 4300-4750 kg (~10,000 +/- 500 lbs) range.
Actually, the figure is based from this website, which states that 50% internal fuel of Typhoon is ~6,500 lb. This translates to 5,800 kgs of total internal fuel.
Now, the MiG-35 is the one which only now has 4,800 kgs internal fuel capacity — after lots of improvements in the original MiG-29. This, according to Mikoyan is a stupendous achievement.
It is very interesting to note that this was the same internal capacity of the original F-18 (which was in Category 3), but was deemed less by USN. So it was transformed into a Category 4 jet, by increasing size, weight, and engine power to accomodate 2,000 kgs more internal fuel.
F414 in NG must pull the whole drag on its own. F414s in F18, divide that drag.
So, if NG has exactly half the fuel of F18, it should have shorter range, despite half the fuel.
Cola1973, the above is accurate and a valid point. It is true that although F-18 Super Hornett has twice the weight, internal fuel and engine thrust as Gripen-NG, it obviously does not have twice the size.
Now, twice the engine power would definitely be needed to propel a fighter that is twice the weight. But I don’t know how to factor drag.
However, we must note that Gripen’s top speed is actually greater than F/A-18’s.
Abhimanyu2) They won’t have the same radius. Even if we assume identical engine performance the fuel fractions are completely different.
Please note that the internal fuel of Gripen-NG is exactly 0.51 times that of F/A-18. This maintains the 0.5 empty-weight and 0.5 times max. thrust.
The fuel fractions of all other contenders are also nearly similar between 2.9 to 3.0 only. Thus, all the 6 contenders will have the same combat radius when loaded in a typical fighter config. of 6 A2A missiles, 4 A2G munitions, and pods.
Your reasoning is based on some idea that all planes are designed with the same missions and combat/strikeradius in mind. That’s utter nonsense.
See, the point is not that the jets have been designed keeping combat radius-payload in mind; it is aerodynamics itself that has resulted in the F/A-18 being exactly twice a Gripen-NG in all 3 areas : empty weight, engine thrust and internal fuel.
Of course you can strap a nuclear bomb under any plane but the Rafale is the only plane in your example that has been designed from the onset to carry nuclear strikes. So your statement that F-18 & Typhoon are heavier because of nuclear needs is BS pure and simple.
See, there are different requirements. Why wasn’t a naval F-16 developed, or why not a naval Rafale-like jet ?
We may recall :
Category 2 : 10 tons with 145 kN thrust. Can easily be met with 2×73 kN Eurojet engines.
Category 3 : 11 tons with 172-180 kN thrust. Can easily be met with 2×90 kN Eurojet engines (in fact, strictly proportionately, the thrust should be ~160 kN. This may explain why Typhoon is able to supercruise).
Now the original F-18 was in Category 3 : 11 tons empty weight, and 2×80 kN = 160 kN thrust. But for some reason, it’s internal fuel was “abysmally low” at only 4,900 kgs, compared to over 5,800 kgs of the Typhoon. This was a major design deficiency in the original F/A-18.**
Thus, it’s internal capacity was increased by nearly 1,500 kgs in the F/A-18 Super Hornett. This in turn led to increase in size –> in turn increase in weight –> in turn increase in thrust, which now became 2×98 kN = 196 kN. With this, the F/A-18 SH firmly came under category 4.
As far as nuclear payloads are concerned, I maintain that leaving aside Gripen, all others have nuclear capability.
** This is a deficiency in the MiG-35 also, which inherited this from MiG-29. The original MiG-29 also had very less internal fuel, that led to a very short range. The MiG-35 has come to the internal fuel levels of F-18 C/D only now i.e. 4,800 kgs (this is actually equal to a Category 2 jet like F-16). Most missions still require a droptank to extend it’s range.
AbhimanyuNo they don’t. For example try putting 9.5 tons of external load on Typhoon (MTOW 23 tons) and you can’t fill the internal tank anymore.
Try using realistic mission profiles (e.g. 2x cruise missile + 4 AAM + external tanks, 6-8 AAM + supersonic tanks…) and you’ll quickly see these planes have quite different capabilities.
Blue Apple, I disagree with the above. This applies to all the jets in all categories.
We may consider a category 2 jet, the F-16 and a category 4 jet, the F/A-18. Both advertise 8 tons max. external payload, but weigh 10 tons and 14 tons respectively. If both are loaded as per your loadout (without speicial heavy loads like cruise missiles) i.e. 4AAM + external tanks, 6-8 AAM, then combat radii are the same. The only difference is, that since F/A-18 weighs 4 tons more, it’s internal fuel will be more to “lug” the same loadout for the same distance as the F-16. This translates to more operational cost for the F/A-18 to execute the same mission as the F-16, as it has 2 engines and needs more fuel.
The Gripen-NG also carries the same loadout as an F-16 in the normal config. Being 3 tons lighter, and using a less powerful engine, it manages the same top speed and combat radius. Thus, it will have the least cost of operation amongst all contenders.
FYI Rafale is the only one of these planes that can be tasked for nuclear strike mission…
The above is inaccurate. Pakistan’s F-16s ar ereportedly nuclear capable also. If I’m not mistaken, barring Gripen-NG all others are nuclear capable.
AbhimanyuI think the categorization must be based on empty weights and not on single-engine vs. twin-engine. Their engine power is proportional to their weights.
Category 1 : 7 tons
Gripen-NG, uses 1×100 kN engine
Category 2: 10 tons
F-16 1×143 kN = 143 kN
Rafale 2×73 kN engine = 146 kN
Category 2: 11 tons
Typhoon 2×90 Kn = 180 kN
MiG-35 2×88 kN = 176 kN
Category 3: 14 tons
F/A-18 2x98kN = 196 kN. Exactly twice the empty weight and thrust of Gripen-NG.
Of all the above, Gripen and F/A-18 are the 2 extremes, with F/A-18 simply being Gripenx2 in terms of empty-weight and thrust also.
What is the most interesting is that Category 2, 3 and 4 have the same advertised max. external payload i.e. 8-9 tons. So, why the gradual increase in weight ? Why isn’t an F/A-18 or Typhoon the weight and thrust class of a Rafale ? This is because they have increased size to accomodate specialized payloads like nuclear weapons & more fuel to increase range while carrying such payloads. However, while carrying normal loadouts (and in this case, Gripen equals F/A-18 and none are greater or lesser than others), their combat radii are the same, because as we saw above the proportion of empty-weight, thrust and fuel carried is similar.
SAAB claims that it meets the specs laid out in IAF’s RFP. If that is the case, we may safely assume that nuclear capability may not be mandatory in the requirements laid by IAF (Gripen reportedly is not nuclear capable). Thus, if it meets conventional specs, it’s cost of operation will be the least amongst all the 6, and it may be the “favourite” to win the competition.
When one can deliver 4 A2A missiles, 2 A2G munitions in a combat radius with a 7 ton Gripen that has ONE GE-414, why need a 14 ton F/A-18 with TWO GE-414 engines ?
AbhimanyuThe F/A-18 weights about 14.5 t empty, the Typhoon ~11t and the MiG-35s empty weight hasn’t been disclosed, but is likely to be in the range of 11-12t. So you basically put 3 aircraft of different sizes and with different empty weights in the same class.
The above is accurate. I mistakenly referred to the specs of F-18. This indeed explains why the F/A-18 needs 196 kN thrust, whereas MiG-35 and Typhoon make do with 172-180 kN only.
Thus, we may add a 4th category to the ones mentioned earlier. Only F-18 would be present in it i.e. weighing 14 tons and needing 196 kN thrust. So, this is met by 2×98 kN GE-F414.
We may appreciate the perfection here. The 1st category was Gripen – NG which weighs 7 tons and needs 1×100 kN GE-F414. The F/A-18 weighs exactly twice as much, and needs 2×100 kN GE-F414.
It may be “amusing” to note that the IAF considers both to be in the same class !
What’s the loaded weight and fuel load of the Tejas?
Tejas Mk.1 loaded weight is 10.5 tons in “normal” or “fighter” config. Internal fuel load is 2,500 kgs.
AbhimanyuI just have to add my $0.02 to the discussion…
What 3-4 transformations? Do you think more fuel, higher MTOW, new engine and more stores are the only differences between Gripen C/D and Gripen NG? Think again.
Radar, EWS, Data link, MMI, weapons, avionics suit etc etc… Areas where the Gripen C/D are superior to the Tejas Mk.1 and where the Gripen NG will be superior to the Tejas Mk.2…
See, we were discussing range-payload comparisons only. Avionics can be taken for granted because Tejas has been a test-bed for the avionics of the Su-30 MKI. The EW suite, jammers, Litening target pod, HMDS etc. of Tejas Mk.1 are equivalent to Gripen – NG. Weapons on it are also contemporary.
Mk.2 will have greater sensor fusion, and IRST. EADs had earlier offered an AESA radar for the Tejas, however it is not under consideration presently.
AbhimanyuMr. Som, your point that Tejas-is-not-ready-and-so-can’t-be-compared has already been taken very well. This point has been raised by others also. What I’m discuss is that a) since Tejas Mk.1 currently (i.e. as it flies today), already has range-payload specs that rival the IAF’s serving MiG-29s and equate the Gripen C/D, and b) the Mk.1 will undergo the same 3-4 transformations towards Mk.2 that the Gripn C/D did for NG, it is very likely that the Mk.2 will equate the NG.
You may read this article written by two distinguished people, who’ve had a major say in India’s defence matters. They have stated that the Tejas equates the Mirage-2000 in capabilities. Considering that the Mirage-2000-V was the original choice for the MRCA before Dassault shut production, the Tejas could’ve been pursued by the IAF much more vigorously instead of the “fanfare” that is the foreign MRCA.
Once again, as your point that Tejas can’t be compared with Gripen has already been registered, you can cease discussion then & there. I’m further discussing Tejas Mk.2’s undoubted equivalence to the Gripen-NG, and it’s competitiveness to it.
AbhimanyuMr. Som, thanks for replying and clarifying your position. I thought that you would be aware that IAF sources (unnamed) themselves have stated that Tejas can replace the entire MiG fleet, and not just MiG-21s.
Hence, the inference that Tejas Mk.2 would equate the Gripen-NG in range-payload specs. Since you did not specifically mention so, I thought you endorsed this view (this is a very very widely held view; you may have seen many times in BR members say that Mk.2 is “quite close” to Gripen-NG. Your colleague Mr. Ajai Shukla in his blog mentions this as a “con” of the Gripen-NG).
Tejas Mk.1 is already the weight class of Gripen C/D i.e. 6.5 tons. It will undergo exactly the same transformation that Gripen C/D underwent to Gripen-Demo :-
1) New engine of thrust of 90-100 kN from the current GE-F404.
2) Undercarriage redesign.
3) Multiple weapon stations on some pylons.
Thus, it is for a given that Tejas Mk.2 will equate the Gripen-NG.
I may kindly request you to inquire from SAAB, whether they see a “threat” from the Tejas in the fighter market.
AbhimanyuAbhimanyu … you seem to have misunderstood my post on BR on the Gripen NG … I thought it was clear enough … any how … let me spell it out …
I do not, AT ALL believe the Gripen NG can be compared with the LCA Mk2. I have never suggested, anywhere that they can be compared. How can they ? … one is an advanced prototype … in the process of final avionics integration and testing while the other (LCA Mk 2) has not yet been developed.
In simple terms …
1. The Gripen has several thousand hours of in-service operation. The LCA does not.
2. The Gripen NG is already flying. The LCA Mk 2 is not.
3. The Gripen NG has different design characteristics … ie … man-machine interface, avionics, radar, short-landing capability, data-links, possibly engine, life-cycle costs etc. Comparing the two is simply not possible.
Mr. Som, from your post I understood and stated earlier already that the only reason for your preference of the Gripen – NG as the MRCA is because of it’s greater flying hours and experience.
I think (and correct me, if ‘m mistaken) you do hold the view that Tejas Mk.2 (whenever it comes) and Gripen-NG will have the same capabilities as far as range-payload specs are concerned. You did not oppose this to the posters at Bharat Rakshak, who suggested that Tejas Mk.2 and Gripen – NG will be matched in nearly all respects.
Can the LCA Mk 2 and Gripen exist together? Hypothetically, yes. “Hypothetically” since the Air Force may not want either of the two birds, or may want only one of the two.
As you mentioned on your post at BR, there must be no debate on the selection of close matches Tejas Mk.2 and Gripen — the final call must be the IAF’s alone. Your talks with IAF officers also revealed that they too are in no dilemma over Tejas vis-a-vis Gripen.
It is only to this that I say that when Tejas Mk.2 is introduced in the IAF (per schedule in 2014), and if IAF selects Gripen-NG which will also roll out in IAF colours by 2014, the IAF must at least “ponder” over selecting the Tejas Mk.2 because it’s capabilities are likely to match those of Gripen-NG.
I personally believe its far far too early to judge the capabilities of the LCA Mk 2 when in fact LCA Mk 1 is yet to enter service with the Indian Air Force.
On the other hand, it is quite possible to make statements on the Gripen NG.Why?
*Because its flying.
*Because its baseline performance characteristics exceed those of the Gripen C/D by a large measure (and remember, the C/D meets the RFP in everything but range and radar). Not sure the LCA Mk 1 does.
See, when I compare the capabilities of Tejas Mk.2 and Gripen-NG, I compare range-payload specifications only. This is because, it’s rp specs match not only that of the MiG-21, but the MiG-23/27 and the MiG-29 of the IAF also. Avionics like AESA radar etc. can be bought off the shelf, besides Tejas’ avionics are already state-of-the-art.
Please note that Tejas Mk.1 can already carry upto 3.5 tons of external payload, and has a significant range as commented by various test-pilots. At 6.5 tons empty , it is in the class of Grpen C/D. More flight tests remain to
validate upto IoC level by 2010. These sir, approach the range-payload specs of the IAF’s serving MiG-29s.
Your latest argument is based on an estimate that the LCA Mk 2 will be a fully evolved product by the time the first MMRCAs enter service but, as you yourself state, the process of developing the LCA is being delayed for several reasons. Therefore, it would not be incorrect, for anyone, to believe the LCA Mk2 would not be fully developed by the 2014 timeline you describe.
Whats more, the final arbiters of this (at least the technical aspect of selections) is the Indian Air Force … and they are very clear … they want a fully evolved product from a maufacturer which meets the RFP, meets ToT clauses, and cost specifications. As far as they are concerned, the LCA, or LCA Mk 2 does not meet these requirements … so why debate this point at all?
See, as per the statement of Dr. P S Subramanyam as recently as Feb 2009, the Mk.2 would be delivered by 2014.In the same mnth, CAS fali Major also expressed that the MRCA would be inducted by 2014.
If, by 2014 the Tejas Mk.2 (with an FoC) meets MRCA specs, the IAF would be “hard-pressed” to explain it’s selection of a foreign fighter.
Besides, most of the 6 contenders have experimental AESA radars and the Gripen-NG itself is actually Gripen-Demo — a quickly “cobbled” version solely for the MRCA contract. Same goes for MiG-35 and it’s radar. Typhoon was “scrambling” for some certifications till late last year. These jets too don’t fully qualify the definition of an “evolved platform”.
AbhimanyuSee, most fighter jets from the single-engined F-16 to the F-18 advertise 8 to 9 tons of max. payload capacity. This is only because they can carry heavy nukes and cruise missiles. Only Gripen-NG has 5.5 tons of payload because it can’t carry nukes and cruise missiles.
In all practical cases, in the fighter config, a Gripen – NG carries the same number of missiles and pods as an F-18 i.e. 12-13 nos. Similarly, F-16, Rafale & Typhoon also carry 12-14 missiles & pods. Their 8 ton max. load is rarely used, if ever.
However, all the 6 contenders have different empty weights and hence, different engine-power.
–*——*——*——*—–
The following categorizations.
1. 7 tons empty weight :
a. Gripen – NG.
At 7 tons, it needs only 100 kN thrust and manages with a 1×100 kN engine of GE-F414 / Volvo. Incidentally, the Tejas Mk.2 weighing marginally lesser at 6.5 tons, also has floated tenders for 90 kN Eurojet and 100 kN GE-F414.
2. 10 tons empty weight :
a. F-16
b. Rafale
Since both weigh the same, both need the same thrust, which is 145 kN. While F-16 manages with 1×143 kN Pratt-Whitney turbofan, the Rafale is forced to attach 2×73 kN Snecma M-88, that generate a total of 146 kN.
3. 12 tons empty weight :
a. F-18
b. Eurofighter
c. MiG-35
In this category, there is significant variation. These jets weigh the same, but have thrusts ranging from 172-196 kN. So, F-18 has it with 2×98 kN GE-F414 engines to give 196 kN, and Typhoon has 2×90 kN Eurojet engines that provide a total 180 kN thrust.
However, the MiG-35 has much lesser thrust at 2×88 kN RD-33 engines, that give a total of just 172 kN thrust. This explains the MiG-35’s much lesser external payload capacity at only 6 tons compared to over 8 tons for F-18 and Typhoon. It also has no supercruise capability.
–*——*——*——*—–
We may, for brevity, safely assume that all 3 categories have the same combat-radii while loaded in the “normal” or “fighter” config, because the fuel capacity and engine power increase roughly proportionately with increase in weight.
Mr. Vishnu Som has reported that SAAB claims that even Gripen C/D meets the MRCA requirements except range and AESA radar. These can be fulfilled by Gripen – NG.
As we have already seen, the Gripen-NG can carry the same number of weapons & pods that the F-18 does in the “normal” or “fighter” config. Thus, the IAF’s requirements do not stress for the capability to deliver nukes or Brahmos-like cruise missiles.
Given that the Gripen-NG can carry the same number of weapons & pods as the other 5 contenders and that it’s single engine of 100 kN will garner the least cost of operation and maintenance, the IAF will select the Gripen-NG as the MRCA.
Now, as we have again seen, the Tejas Mk.2 falls in category 1 i.e. of Gripen-NG. It may get 1×98 kN GE-F414 or 1×90 kN Eurojet. It’s payload and combat radius are also likely to be the same.
Abhimanyuvikasrehman, the estimated dates for the introduction of the Tejas Mk.2 (with FoC) and the MRCA into the IAF is the same, i.e. 2014.
Only the IAF has to show the will to take Tejas Mk.2 to it’s conclusion. As per this news report, a shortage of test pilots has severely delayed Tejas’ sortie rate, which may impact it’s IoC deadline of Dec 2010. Besides sending pilots on “joyrides” on the 6 MRCAs, the IAF can depute some pilots to complete the flight-testing of the Tejas also.
The integration of digital flight control computer and air data computer was delayed, as ADA was manufacturing some equipment in it’s labs due to the lack of a production line. Earlier there was a reported “glitch” in the software integration of the Israeli Elta radar, which has already been resolved. However, these are separate issues but the more “pressing” issue remains the lack of test-pilots.
matt, PLAAF also has airbases of it’s Su-30 MKK jets in Tibet, close to the border with India. Besides, Indian Army also has built missile silos along the Chinese border.
AbhimanyuIt would suite recent IAF move to base aircraft so close to the north
matt, the reason to base the first squadron of Tejas in Sulur, Tamil Nadu, is unclear.
Unless a definite threat is faced from the “moribund” Sri-Lankan Air Force, there is no reason to base the first squadron of a 4.5 gen. fighter jet in Sulur. It must be based in the frontline airbases along the border with China, or Pakistan. If Sulur has to be absolutely populated, then some ageing MiG squadron may be transferred there, where they can “live their last days” in little or no action.
The argument that Sulur is close to Bangalore, where HAL can provide technical servicing, is not valid. Tejas does not need a “nanny” in “close quarters”; it is primarily meant to be an immediate replacement for all the MiGs, which are “soldiering” on well past their retirement age. Instead, the technical support facilities must be based in all airbases, and fighters need not “limp” all the way to Bangalore or Nashik to get much needed service.
AbhimanyuTell me, does the above even require interpretation ? How can the ” I would suggest we just accept the fact that the Gripen is in a very different league” even remotely mean what you are constantly peddling, i.e. “Tejas Mk.2 to be the equivalent of Gripen-NG” ?
See, you have confused technical specifications with timelines, which actually are entirely separate matters. Your entire argument rests on past record of Gripen vs. Tejas and availability. This “foggy” line of thought led you to misread BR’s posts, and Vishnu Som’s post also.
Do not merely equate the technical specifications of both, but also compare their timelines to achieve the claimed specifications,
.
Please note that the timelines of IAF’s MRCA introduction and the Tejas’ introduction in the IAF are nearly the same. The first MRCA will be inducted in the IAF by 2014, as mentioned by ex-Air Chief Fali Major himself, in Feb 2009 (interview here), whereas Tejas Mk.2 will be introduced by 2013-14. There is no need to spend billions of dollars for a foreign MRCA.
It is interesting to note that one of the main arguments (read:excuses) to purchase the MRCA was the supposed “delays” in the Tejas programme. But now that both are expected to be inducted at nearly the same time, what argument does the IAF have now ?
Tejas Mk.2 will come when it comes, but work on it can seriously commence only once Tejas Mk.1 is in FOC.
The above is inaccurate. The final bidder for the Tejas Mk.2 will be chosen in 2010 after which work will begin on Mk.2. Just as in addition to MK.1 for the IAF, a naval variant and a trainer variant are also being developed in parallel, the Mk.2 shall commence soon after the bidder is chosen between EADs and GE.
Let us look at where the Mk.1 stands with regards to it’s IOC. Till date the Mk.1 has completed 1173 flight tests. A recent data point was mentioned by Ajai Shukla in his blog, which roughly yields 33 minutes per sortie, atleast uptil February of this year. Assuming the above approximation to be correct, it results in 657 hours of flying time for the Mark 1, till date. This rough calculation puts the Gripen at three orders of magnitude higher in operational maturity than the Tejas currently. Perhaps this does not register as a big factor in your calculations, but in real life and for any airforce, this difference in maturity is huge.
The above is inaccurate. You are once again incorrectly equating operational hours with test-flight hours. To achieve the equivalent of an IoC, Gripen too would have undergone as many hours as Tejas has today, and no more (of course, not before 2 crashes). The excess hours of Gripen are in service (with 3 more crashes). Similarly, when a squadron of Tejas + 8 LSPs enter IAF in 2011, they would achieve FoC in just 2012 or thereabouts because their service hours would increase much more than current rates.
Also, depending on whom you choose to believe there are different estimates for number of hours / sorties for LCA Mk.1 to achieve IOC: 2000 hours, 1200 hours , or 1000 hours . Choosing the most optimistic number of hours (i.e. 1000 hour estimate) as the number required for IOC, it translates to 343 hours remaining for IOC, or 613 more sorties (at the average of 33 minutes per sortie).
If you analyse the recent trend of sortie generation for the LCA Mk.1 test program, you will notice that it currently stands at approximately 1 sortie per day. At this rate IOC would be achieved by May 2011 for the most optimistic (read lowest) estimate of number of hours for IOC (1000). Infact the estimate of 1 sortie per day as the recent sortie generation rate itself is an optimistic one because if you consider Ajai Shukla’s article quoted before, then till date 173 sorties have been generated over a span of 221 days, the rate thus being approximately 0.78 sorties per day.
I believe that ADA plans to increase the sortie generation rate to attempt a currently stated December 2010 deadline for IOC. At the same time ADA is seeking EADS’s consulting help to cut down the number of hours for IOC by 15-20%. I definitely hope that ADA achieves that date, but it will happen when it does. Till then, nothing is written in stone because earlier dates like 2005,2006, 2007 have been suggested for the IOC, but as we know now, they were untrue. No wonder then that there have been recent reports which mention that IOC of Mk.1 maybe pushed beyond December 2010 (the current target IOC date for Mk.1).
Around the same time (i.e. Feb 2009) that CAS Fali Major gave the timeframe of 2014 for MRCA’s induction, Dr. P S Subramanyam in an interview (also in Feb 2009), expressed confidence about meeting the Dec. 2010 deadline for IoC. The current rate of testing is slow because HAL is not able to depute more pilots for flight-tests. The issue about delay in radar integration in LSP-3 is independent of the flight-tests, as flight-tests are the single most important vehicle towards achieving IoC.
Similarly, the number of hours quoted for FOC after IOC have been stated at 1500.
28 Tejas units in IAF will achieve that in a year’s time, by 2012.
Ofcourse I had read the topic (where else did you think Vishnu’s post which I posted came from)? BTW, the part bolded in the quote above is, for the nth time, your goddamned opinion, and this has not been mentioned within that sub-topic.
The above is inaccurate. The sub-topic of discussion was Gripen’s equivalence to Tejas Mk.2 in capabilities. Mr. Som did not disagree with this; he said that Gripen is preferable only because of a “proven” history. He opined that there should be no “moral dilemma” over Tejas and Gripen despite their stark similarities, because the final say should be the IAF’s (but I disagree and say that the IAF is obliged to choose Tejas Mk.2 over Gripen, if Gripen is the winner of the contract).
This growing acknowledgement has been properly demonstrated in the posts quoted above. Furthermore, your claim of growing acknowledgement in BR needs to be quantified, by a proper poll of BR members which I assume you have already conducted, or by a list of posts which you have readily referenced to make such a claim. Please do not hesitate to present the results of such a poll, or a list of referenced posts from BR the next time you make such an assertion.
I cannot conduct a poll on BR, because I’m not a member there (I was banned). However, though not a “list of posts”, I gave you a sub-topic on BR (to which you navigated back & forth), as per which some senior members have expressed that Tejas Mk.2 will be the equivalent of Gripen-NG. There have also been posts as per whom, the Tejas Mk.2 will nearly equate the F-16 also.
Yeah right ! This one takes the cake. All of the above would be very nice except for the minor detail that it is not you but ADA which is making the Mk.2 and they expect the Tejas Mk.2 to fly [url=http://by 2014[/url].
The fact that you mentioned that Mk.2 may achieve FOC in 2013, before the organization making the Mk.2, expects to make it’s first flight is truly stellar. Kudos to a true fanboy. 🙂
I think this is where you’ve been spectacularly wrong. It is surprising to note, nay even “astounding”, that people still think that Mk.2 will have to undergo the same number of tests all over again to achieve IoC and FoC.
You may be informed that FoC is certification by the Air-Force and IoC by the manufacturer. For Tejas, the process toward FoC will begin with 28 Tejas Mk.1 in the IAF, from 2011 itself. This will take upto 2012-13 only, with just few of the tests repeated in prototype Mk.2 units. The Mk.2 in final form with FoC will be introduced in IAF by 2014 for active service.
You should apologize to Vishnu for unnecessarily and incorrectly associating his name with your opinions. Thank you.
I think you are agitated unnecessarily. Tejas is not a commercial product, whose endorsement I “rode” on Vishnu’s or anyone’s name.
Besides, if Mr. Som or anyone has any objection, he can contact me. You needn’t be the “unsolicited advocate”.
Sign In
