See, the Gripen-A’s Volvo Aero RM-12 engine provides 2 kN more thrust than basic GE-404. As per some websites such as this site and this site, the Gripen C weighs only 5,700 kgs although it is not plausible.

As per a Souh Africa document dated Oct 20, 2008, the empty weight of Gripen-C is 6,600 kgs and a thrust of 80 kN. Top speed is approx. M 1.9. Thus, upon addition of even the improved Kaveri engine (85-90 kN), Tejas will achieve over M 1.8 and 9G.

Currently Tejas has achieved 1.6 M and 6G.

Reference :

1) Gripen fact file.

Back in 2005 or so, after IAF placed the order for first 20 LCA (+8 LSP) there was talk of an imminent order of another 20 (exercising the option of 20). Has that materialised yet? When does the 12th plan period start…if im not mistaken, one plan period is 5 years?

As per the interview of the Chief of Air Staff of IAF, M. Fali Major, 1 squadron of Tejas would be ordered by 2010 when it achieves IoC. Further orders will be given after it achieves FoC (in other words, with the more powerful engine). He said that IAF is hopeful that Tejas will achieve its objectives fully.

Ravi Sharma’s report “hinges” only on this one statement, and “paints a bad picture”. His report does NOT state anything unknown or new. You may be aware yourself that a “hunt” for a new engine has been ongoing since over a year now.

Yet Gripen did not need GE-F414 to achieve those goals.

See, Gripen needed the more powerful Volvo Aero engines to achieve. Like Tejas, it too had to ‘abandon’ the GE-404.

Now as pointed earlier, a 100kN engine is the IAF’s own guesstimate only — its view is not shared by ADA. Earlier reports stated that ADA did not approve of GE-414 due to the significant re-engineering involved. It hopes to re-engineer Kaveri itself with a Snecma core to provide 85-90 kN thrust to enable Tejas achieve IoC.

This is what a lot of ppl are saying. Induct the fighter for the role it was intended for. But IAF appearing to raising the bar all the time (for whatever reason).

In my view, the IAF is singularly at fault for the delays in Tejas, because it keeps changing “goalposts” every time. As it kept demanding for more avionics and more technology, Tejas’ weight “swelled”, and thus the current engine failed to provide adequate thrust.

F-16 (and probably Gripen too) can do all sort of manuevers with its normal load, can go to 9G. Can Tejas do the same? And Im not all that sure whether Tejas will have the same radii as other MMRCA contenders in normal loadouts.

As per F-16.net. F-16 is limited to 5G upon normal weapons load.

The simple fact is the LCA has been in development for nearly two decade and has yet to enter squadron service. Nor is it likely to in the forseeable future……….:p

As per the statement of Chief of IAF, Mr. Major, 1 squadron service of Tejas is guaranteed.

The LCA is a total failure…………you pretending its not hardly makes it so.;)

As Tejas project is still ongoing, concluding the above is ‘fallible’.

I think all of us would agree that a few years ago, it was generally accepted that LCA project started in 1983. Over the last couple of years many other dates/funding-related issues have started to creep up, and to be honest they do make sense to an extent.

See, the figures have not started to “creep up”, because they were clarified by none other than the official authorities on Tejas, like Mr. Rajkumar and Dr. Natarajan. In fact, the the ‘1983’ figures were “bandied about” by the media since past few years.

In 1983, a paper commitment and token funding was given only. PD design was frozen in 1988, and construction of Tejas began in end-1993. The latter was to begin in 1990 itself, but for an IAF delay of 3 years to give the ‘go-ahead’ (as per Mr. Rajkumar).
In 1995, the first prototype was completed but it was grounded due to lack of FBW. This was being developed with consultancy from Lockheed Martin starting 1996. However, after the nuclear tests of 1998, Indian engineers were expelled from LM’s facilities and they completed the remaining work indigenously under the guidance of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam.

With the digital FBW thus completed, Tejas made it’s maiden flight on Jan 4, 2001.

Ok. So what was happening between 1983 and 1993?
Its totally understandable that FSED started in 1993, but wasn’t any work done on LCA’s design prior to that? One only has to go through some flight global articles to see that.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%200080.html?search=LCA
According to this (Jan 1990), by 1986 ADA had assembled a team of 300 engineers (around 600 by 1990), PD completed by 1988. So what were those 300 engineers or 600 engineers actually doing?

A 1/7 scale model was constructed and tested in 1990. Full-scale production was to begin the same year, but due to IAF’s delay in giving the necessary clearances, it could begin in 1993. By 1995 the first prototype was rolled out.

In the following post, I have cross-posted my views on the news report posted by Scooter. This was earlier posted in the thread, “IAF News & Discussion”.

IAF insists on changes to Tejas

Ravi Sharma

The then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said a decision on an additional 20 aircraft was under consideration. But that plan has come a cropper since the overweight, under-powered Tejas does not meet the IAF’s minimum air staff requirements (ASR).

In my view, the reporter Mr. Ravi Sharma fails to mention above that the increase in weight (and hence underpowering) of Tejas was due to the IAF’s constant demands to add newer avionics in the Tejas, besides the already present telemetry equipment that are scheduled to be removed in any case.

Recently, the IAF even made a few suggestions on improvements in Tejas Mk2, including a more powerful engine, optimisation of the aerodynamic qualities and weight of the aircraft and “dropping and replacing” certain parts to take care of obsolescence.

In my view, the above phrase that IAF “even made a few suggestions” is totally misleading because it implies inaction on part of ADA. As reported in the media, the ADA already has made efforts to get the more powerful Kaveri engine instead of a totally new foreign engine.

The only difference is that while the Kaveri is of 85-90 kN thrust, the IAF estimated on it’s own that it would need a 100 kN engine like the GE-414; one which the ADA had rejected on account of it’s requiring significant modifications to Tejas’ frame.

It is still unclear as to how the IAF unilaterally estimated on it’s own that Tejas would need a 100 kN engine, without the aid of test-flights, modeled data or the like. Mr. Sharma has ignored that the media has already reported that as per DRDO, a Kaveri engine with a foreign core, or even the improved Kaveri engine (next year) would be sufficient to power the Tejas to sufficiently meet ASRs.

One thingThe IAF decision though is not the end of the road for the Rs. 6,000-crore LCA programme. It will consider acquiring 125 more Tejas when an improved — Mark 2 (Mk2) — variant is developed. As indicated by an IAF committee in 2004, any further order will be subject to the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the designer and developer of the LCA programme, showing “firm visibility that the aircraft will meet the ASR.”

It may be noted that the above recommendation cited is from 2004, which forms the basis of Mr. Sharma’s report. Thus, he has stated nothing new in this report, and we must only take the commitment publicly made by Mr. Fali Major that the IAF is scheduled to induct the first 2 squadrons of Tejas on time.

21Ankush, it is true that as per Mr. Prasun Sengupta’s report, Su-30 MKI is equipped with TIDLS system. Now, although ‘TIDLS’ per se may be proprietary to SAAB (as mentioned by Sign), he may probably have meant a similar system to TIDLS, because after all it must be noted that a ‘cluster’ of Su-30 MKI are known to ”behave” like a virtual AWACs.

Who are Mr Parthasarthy Mr Puri?

Please note that as per the article posted earlier, Mr. Parthasarathy was the Science Advisor in the Indira Gandhi government. Vice-Admiral Puri was, and I quote, Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006.

Since he was the top weapons procurement head for India as late as Feb. 2006, his is not merely an opinion — what we read in the article is the “inside stuff” of India’s weapons programme, and not a mere opinion piece. He has detailed what the MRCA originally was, (Mirage-2000 upgrade) and what it eventually “metamorphozed” into.

Thus, his statement that Tejas is nearly equivalent to a Mirage-2000 holds ‘unquestioning’ authority, and is not a personal an opinion. He probably said that because he knows it is so, having witnessed it in his official capacity.

Dont the two also propose for the inclusion of LCA into MMRCA competion? Has that happened?

Unfortunately, currently there are no reports of their proposal being considered by the IAF. However, it may be hoped that it indeed is, and the Tejas can be the 7th contender for the MRCA contract.

Has IAF or Indian defence ministry agreed to go ahead with such a thing? If yes when? If no, is IAF/MoD mistaken on this account?

Not only in my view, but many observers of the MRCA “drama” from retd. officers, to defence analysts and even the vice-president of Dassault Aviation, Mr. Chabriol have questioned the IAF’s rationale for inviting lighter single-engined fighters along with heavy twin-engined fighters for the same MRCA contract.

The following was stated by Dassault chief Mr. Chabriol on Nov. 5, this month :-

The Rafale, as a twin-engine aircraft, is a heavier jet and is in the same class as the (Boeing) F/A-18 Super Hornet and the (Eurofighter) Typhoon. The other three aircraft are in the lighter variety’

‘The IAF’s RFP (request for proposal), in the first analysis, in terms of performance, is not extremely demanding. We don’t want a situation where the other three aircraft are compliant with the RFP but we lose out on the price differential,’ Chabriol added.

The IAF has to decide whether it wants a heavy aircraft or a light aircraft.

It must be noted that the Gripen NG weighs only 500 kgs more than the current Tejas’ configuration, and each of the “trio” of F-18, Rafale and Typhoon can carry the same weapon-load and fuel-load as the serving Su-30 MKI under normal/fighter configuration. Hence, inviting any of these aircraft would be redundant (AESA radar can’t be an ‘excuse’ to buy entire fighters).

But as per the IAF, the single-engined Gripen and the twin 100kN engine F-18 Super-Hornet, belong to the same category.

In my view, it is not only a “banality” of the first order on IAF’s part, but it also may hint at possibe corruption also. The “rainbow” of on-paper 4++ gen competitors that IAF has invited, that too in lieu of a mere Mirage-2000 upgrade, is totally inexplicable.

Reference :-

1) MRCA deal : Dassault seeks ‘level’ playing field