How is the IAF happy with the Gripen which has the same engine…I guess the Grioen has a better aero design?

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. IAF must’ve given full impetus to Tejas Mk.1 and Mk.2 instead of entertaining foreign jets.

And besides, see these photos of Tejas at Leh trials. According to reports, it performed excellently, and where even a few MRCA contenders failed.

acceleration is significantly less at “sea level ” ,it nothing to do with air frame design ,it because Engine is not flat rate , and Tejas MK-1 will be posted in Sulur first and then to Border air base near Indo-pak border , it has already carried its full weapon load , only testing is left for which LSP-3/4/5 are all geared up

coldfire2005, the above is very accurate. The only reason why a tender for new 90-100 kN engines has been called is because the current GE-F404-IN engine is not flat rated, because of which it can’t give the expected thrust levels at low altitudes and higher temperatures (like at sea-level or deserts).

However, a positive effect of installing a new engine will be that Tejas Mk.2 will have greater payload capacity, greater range and possibly even supercruise ability. This will undoubtedly match it with the Gripen-NG/Demo/IN.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/tejas-boosts-test-programme/397143/

To me it seems like the LCA is more or less a MiG-21. The radar and such may be top notch but not the performances. But the MiG-21 can be upgraded, and it has been done, even by India. Do you think that the IAF prefer the Bison to a inferior (in performance) LCA or one of the MRCA contenders?

Maskirovka, the older JA 37 Viggen in the Swedish Air Force has a max. service ceiling of 59,000 ft. as compared to only 50,000 ft. for the newer JAS 39 Gripen.
Its top speed is mach 2.1 at 11 km altitude, whereas Gripen is known to only touch mach 2 at it’s lower altitudes.

So, pray tell us when the Gripen flies lower and slower than Viggen, why did Sweden develop an inferior Gripen fighter after all ? Don’t say simply because it carries better payload or has better avionics — even the Tejas beats the MiG-21 in that.

———

“The Tejas Mark I is already as good or better as the light fighters in the IAF,” declares ADA chief, PS Subramaniam, referring to the MiG-21 BISON. “The air force should order at least 60 of them.”

I fully concur with Dr. PS Subramaniam on the above. IT is very clear that Tejas Mark 1 is more advanced than all except Su-30 MKI in the IAF. Thus, IAF must increase the present order from just 1 squad to 60 jets. It must definitely exercise its option of 20 extra jets (its actual order book is just 28 presently, with 20 optional).

The debut flight of LSP-4 is excellent news (of course, totally unreported by ToI and Indian Express. Beacons of selective journalism).

What was even more pleasantly surprising was the satisfaction reflected by Barbora, coming a few weeks after ACM Naik said he was “disappointed” by Tejas in a TV interview. If I’m not mistaken, Barbora is the senior most IAF officer till date, to have expressed praise for the Tejas.

The American military complex is a classic example of what the private sector in defense can do…there is no govt organization like the DRDO capable of matching the Americans in this world and in the foreseeable future. If anyone wants to catch up with the Americans then you have to let the private industry do the job.

See, American private industry runs on good dollops of US taxpayer money. Like for example, you may remember the YF-22 vs. YF-23 competition. USAF chose YF-22 of Lockheed, and which later became F-22.

But what about the godzillions wasted by Northrup on the rejected YF-23 ? Had Northrop spent it’s own monies on YF-23 only to be rejected, it would have gone bankrupt. And it didn’t get a chance to creatively spin it off into another project, just like how YF-17 became the F-18 after failing against YF-16.

Remember the Spiderman-1 movie, in which Peter Parker’s best friend’s dad is CEO of a military products firm ? In one scene, a top Pentagon general threatens him that if the R&D on his new hardware doesn’t work, Pentagon will cut his company’s funding. Then under pressure, Mr. Osborn takes an untested chemical to become the villain, and all hell breaks lose. And the whole world learned, “…Pentagon’s power can induce great irresponsibility…”…Er….I mean, “..with great power, comes great responsibility..”

So, the moral of the stories of YF-17, YF-23 and Spiderman-1 is that unless we don’t want to ruin perfectly good R&D firms, the goverment has to step in one way or the other. Between USA and India, the only difference is that R&D is carried out by government owned firms, whereas in USA R&D too is carried out by private firms. The similarity is that R&D in DRDO, as well as Lockheed / Raytheon are financed by the government (though US firms spend a chunk of their own budget too).

Curious, the so-called MRSAM / LRSAM are nothing but the same Barak-2. Both have 70 kms range. The only difference is the nomenclature :- MRSAM is for IAF, whereas LRSAM is for Navy. That’s all.

Some other aliases of the same missile :- Barak-NG, Barak-II.

Now, the 100+ km ER-SAM mentioned is likely to be based on the indigenous AAD. This was revealed in a presentation given by Dr. Saraswat himself in a seminar. The AAD will be modified to be an anti-cruise missile defence at ranges over 120 kms.

Sea Hawk, your post explains it very well.

The whole issue is basically this :- A top most person, who actually headed the Tejas project remarked in his superb and ground-breakig book, that ADA’s choice of a full digital FBW (as opposed to a hybrid solution) may have led to delays because he opined that a hybrid solution may have been faster to implement.

Now, another top scientist, who also headed the FBW development of Tejas, made no such suggestion. He said that both Dassult and LM were approached in 1992, and the contract was awarded to LM because, a) F-16 was “proven” and b) they preferred a full-quad FBW. Also from what I know, an analog backup line does Not seem to accelerate flight-testing in any way. It too would’ve taken the same time to test. (it’s just that : a backup).

Don’t make remarks like “surely you missed it like always”. Its not for nothing that people’s opinion of you is so abysmal on this forum as well as BRF from where you were kicked out.

Like as though I care for anybody else’s opinion, and least of all yours. Please go through the archives some 4 or 5 months back, and we’ve discussed this very issue earlier very extensively even with vikasrehman. Someone posted Rajkumar’s book excerpt, and I’d posted Dr. Kalam’s speech on this very FBW issue. At that time too I’d said that I humbly did not find support with AM Rajkumar’s suggestion, that a hybrid FBW is easier or faster to implement than a full quad solution.

I think you may have joined after the discussion took place.

Anyway, on the topic, the choice for an all-digital FBW was NOT made by the IAF as you claim. it was made by the ADA team. stop spreading lies about the IAF being responsible for the digital FBW on the Tejas and hence delaying the project. It is exactly the opposite ! they wanted the Dassault offer to be accepted and not the US Martin Marietta one which was eventually accepted.

Please understand that I said that as per Dr. Kalam’s speech, a digital FBW was needed because the requirement was for an unstable aircraft. He said, unstable aircrafts need digi FBWs. ADA’s choice came after that i.e. in choosing which FBW solution :- hybrid vs. full quadruplex.

Kalam said, LM’s solution was chosen because I quote, “..it was proven on F-16..” (not exact words, but to the same effect).

of course it would’ve have resulted in a faster development ! Dassault pretty much pulled out of the Tejas project after it realised that it would have no control over the FBW system on the Tejas. Till then, they were involved in the PDP phase with a dozen or so Dassault engineers working from Bangalore itself. When Dassault pulled out, ADA had to look for consultancy from BAe and Martin Marietta and this was nowhere near the scale of participation that Dassault had. AM Rajkumar clearly states that Dassault was VERY interested in being a part of this fighter program but due to these differences pulled out and we lost out on a very capable and experienced design house supporting us throughout the program.

Like I said earlier, this is a bit at odds with Kalam’s version. ALL these companies were simultaneously approached in 1992 (and I said this in the my previous post too, but alas…). Starting from the same year, there is no indication that a hybrid solution would have been tested and integrated faster. LM was simply chosen over F-16’s record and because ADA just preferred a full-digital FBW for whatever reasons.

Later on Martin Marietta was bought by Lockheed Martin and LM WENT VERY SLOW ON CONSULTANCY. Go read the book again. He clearly mentions that after Martin Marietta was bought by LM, their consultancy was slowed down and ADA was not at all happy. If they’d stuck with Dassault instead of going to the US, the entire process of building, testing and integrating the FBW would’ve been over faster than the drip-feed consultancy that LM provided later on.

OK. If this is indeed a reason, then too ADA is not at fault here. They didn’t anticipate the sanctions after the nuke tests, and they also couldn’t have possibly anticipated delays due to an unforeseen corporate mergers & acquisitions. Had someone forcasted the future to ADA, I’m sure Dassault would’ve been chosen.

Please understand that these were extraneous events beyond ADA’s control. But so far as the choice per se of the FBW solution is concerned, ADA was not at fault — in contrast to AM Rajkumar’s suggestion. There is nothing to suggest that a hybrid FBW is faster to implement.

Again, you are not sure about what you’re talking. I took offence to your laying the blame on the IAF’s door step for having asked for a digital FBW (which is a lie ! the IAF didn’t ask for that, the ADA decided on it despite the IAF supporting a European solution). Nuke sanctions caused delays, but it was precisely this kind of sanction-happy behaviour of hte US that the IAF was very wary about and which is why they asked ADA to go with Dassault and not Martin Marietta.

Arey baba, once again :- the requirement of an unstable fighter (presumably the ARS) implied a digital FBW. This was a given and ADA had no say in this. ADA’s say was only on the choice of digi FBW solutions.

More rubbish. The requirement was for an unstable jet, which could’ve easily been even an analog FBW if that was all that ADA could come up with. Turns out, the IAF was perfectly happy with Dassault’s offer of a digi-analog hybrid FBW.

The above is totally inaccurate. I said previously that Dr. Kalam clearly spelled out that a digital FBW was necessitated precisely because the requirement was for an unstable jet. Now go and argue with Dr. Kalam on, “..why you didn’t choose an analog solution..” Besides, usage of analog FBWs didn’t last too long, before they were all converted to digital.

And stop this insinuation that someone as distinguised as Air Marshal Rajkumar “seems to suggest” as if he’s lying. His word will any day carry far more weight than some internet poster whose sole aim is to malign the IAF by spreading lies. He spells it out clearly- that the choice for the digital FBW was that of the scientific community, not that of the IAF. YOU SAID IT WAS THE IAF THAT FORCED THEM TO DO SO CAUSING DELAYS ! that is a patent falsedhood.

The above is pristine nonsense of the first order. Like I said even in my previous post, the requirement for an unstable jet necessitated a digital FBW. ADA’s choice was limited to only choosing which FBW solution.

And goodness, are you touchy ! If all that you wanna do is shout, “..lies, slander !..”, then please do it somewhere else. So, far as I’m concerned, I underline and highlight that I humbly disagree with Rajkumar and that I choose to incline with Dr. Kalam on the FBW issue.

And “Seems to suggest” is just seems to suggest, and is NOT a lie indication. You read way too much into anything.

bacche, I know guys that worked on Autolay at ADA including some of the top guys..My company is directly involved in its sale or distribution in India. Anyway, no need to preach to the choir. I know what all the benefits of the Tejas program were and what spin-offs there have been. the all-digital FBW itself wasn’t that bad a decision– it was the fact that they put all their eggs in the US basket and went ahead with the development that pretty much screwed the schedule.

Uncle-ji, please don’t throw names around. This will not make ANY cut for you whatsoever.

Besides, the bolded portion is all that I’ve been consistently saying since the last few months, and which you blurted out yourself, much to my ease. And this is exactly what Rajkumar seems to suggest against.

you seriously need a break from thinking too hard because your thoughts are getting all fuddled up..do you have some comprehension problems ? One para you state that the Tejas has always been meant to be a MiG-21 replacement- then the next para you complain that the IAF thinks of the Tejas as a MiG-21 replacement..

OK fine, I’ll rephrase that just for you. MiG-21 has always been a MiG-21 replacement …… for the IAF. Alright ?

Get this- the Tejas WAS and IS meant to replace the MiG-21 fleet. It was conceived as a direct replacement. What is wrong if hte IAF calls it a light jet meant to replace MiG-21s ? Media all over says that the MRCA was meant to replace MiG-21s..is that taken as an insult to the MRCA candidates ? Romania replaces MiG-21 Lancers with either F-16, Typhoon or Gripen then should these manufacturers be ashamed of themselves ? What on earth is your point at all if the IAF calls the Tejas as a MiG-21 replacement ??????

Arey bhaisaab, you bluffed big time when you claimed that Tejas was designed in the 1980s to be a replacement for the then brand new Mirages, and like always, you threw around a conversation with an IAF pilot to buttress your joke. True, it belongs to the Mirage pedigree (due to Dassault consultancy), but even at that time, it was meant to replace the MiG-21……by the IAF. Even as recently as 2007’s Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Defence, Tejas is described as a light MiG-21 replacement (the Report is a publicly available document widely available on the internet).

Since the past 2 decades, the Tejas has far outgrown the MiG-21 box it was originally thought to have fit into. But the IAF still fails to see it without the MiG-21 blinkers. This is very unfortunate as it would seriously undermine it’s potential, besides a setback to the long term goal of indigenization.

Simply because the GOI decided that the competition was to be opened up to every major global manufacturer who had a product that was selling at that time. They didn’t want any allegations of corruption or favouritism to be raised later.

Or should I say, GoI wanted competition to be so high, that that the underground Bribes & Commissions Regulator had it’s job easy. The competition would attract the top dollar on it’s own.

The time when the Gripen C/D was included, the list included Mirage-2000-5 Mk2, F-16 Block 50 and the MiG-29M2 (the one that had MRCA written on its tail). None of these were heavy-hitters like the SHornet or Typhoon. All were medium sized and the MiG-29M2 fell in the heavier category and the Gripen in the lightest. The reason they included them was because they were flying at that time and all were relatively new. the Tejas had just about began its test flight program and more than a 1000 hours of flight testing was still required so another 6-7 years or more would be required before it would finally enter service. the IAF wanted a quick induction of a MRCA at that time.

All that is ok, now I’ll add to that. When Tejas started shaping up well in 2007, the MRCA became the M-MRCA. Why ? Refer to the Standing Committee Report 2007, and an interview with Shri. Tyagi, in which he said, …”MMRCA will be between the light LCA and heavy Su-30 MKI…”

One more thing :- IAF sent the RFI for the Gripen- C/D. Shocking, because even at that time, it was easy to see that Tejas was shaping to be a Gripen C counterpart. Yet, IAF chose to ignore it and entertain Gripen C. It’s excuse of Tejas-is-in-development-still was also gone, when it entertained Gripen C in lieu of the Gripen-NG, which was desperately clamouring for last-minute certifications in it’s own country.

And F-18s have competed with Su-30 MK-X in Malaysia. It is clearly no M-MRCA. And IAF should know better if it intends to use “medium” F-18s to complement “heavy” Su-30s.

If the LCA Mk2 was included, could it have flown during trials by this May 2010 ?

The above is the last line of defence. No it wouldn’t have flown the trials. But then again, the Tejas Mk.2 is expected to be introduced by 2013-14 timeframe, as per ADA’s chief, Dr. Subramanyam. ADA is already meeting Subramanyam’s target of Dec. 2010 for IoC, and I’m sure it will meet the Mk.2 deadline also.

Now 2013 is also the estimated time for the very first of the 18 MRCAs to start flying into IAF. So, why not Tejas Mk.2 ? Instead of spending godzillions into importing the MRCA, a little effort will make Tejas Mk.2 a Gripen-NG equivalent — and an MRCA.

Now we’ve already heard that Gripen-NG passed the Leh and Adampur trials with flying colours. 4 of the other contenders failed badly. So Gripen-NG is sure to be selected to the next stage. Arey, instead of all this drama, just fly down to ADA Bangalore and make Tejas Mk.2 a force to reckon with the Gripen-NG — within the IAF as well as the international market.

dude, the IAF did not ask for all-digital FBW. They were more inclined towards the Dassault offer of an analog-digital hybrid FBW. It was the technologists at DRDO who were more interested in the more modern all-digital FBW that Martin Marietta was offering. ADA from the very beginning of the project underlined that 3 main technologies were key to the LCA-
1- FBW

The above has already been discussed earlier (and surely you missed it like always) and is based on the book, “The Tejas Story”, by AM P. Rajkumar. I had posted excerpts of a speech by Dr. Abdul Kalam, in which he had said that in 1992, the ADA team had simultaneously approached 4 companies for FBW consultancy. Among them were the Dassault (digital-analog hybrid), LM (full quad digi FBW), and two others (I think BAe was also one of them). They chose LM because they wanted a full-digi FBW and also because it was proven on the F-16 — whereas Rafale was still testing in 1992.

Now, AM Rajkumar is of the opinion that had the Dassault option been chosen, it would have been faster and easier to develop. But Dr. Kalam has hinted nothing of the sort. He clearly states that both companies were approached simultaneously in 1992, and starting from that year, he didn’t suggest that a hybrid FBW would have resulted in a faster development time than a full-quad FBW. * *

The delays happened more because of the nuke sanctions of 1998, because of which our team was asked to leave LM’s facilities, and less because of a conjecture that a hybrid FBW is somewhat easier to implement than a digital FBW. Again, Dr. Kalam came to the rescue, and under his leadership, we finished the remaining testing, validation and integration of the FBW on Tejas. It was this that really delayed Tejas by around 2.5 years.

And yes, Dr. Kalam does mention that the requirement (presumably IAF’s ASR) was for an unstable jet, which implied a digital FBW. Now, it is here that ADA chose a full-digi FBW instead of a hybrid one, whereas AM Rajkumar seems to suggest that ADA went along for a digital FBW on it’s own discretion.

Now a disclaimer :- I don’t intend to pit AM Rajkumar with Dr. Kalam. This is NOT X’s word “versus” Y’s word, like a sensationalist news channel. Both are equally competent and outstanding people, who have worked deeply on Tejas. However, on the FBW issue and it’s associated delays, I’m inclined more towards Dr. Kalam.

2- composites
3- glass cockpit and modern avionics

True, these were ADA mandated, but please don’t suggest that they’ve resulted in “delays”. Autolay is used by Airbus since few years, and most avionics were loaned from Su-30 MKI, Jags etc.

From the very beginning of the PDP phase itself, the aim was to build a fighter akin to the Mirage-2000 in capabilities, not a MiG-21.

That’s because of Dassault’s consultancy. But since beginning Tejas has and always been a replacement for the MiG-21, which were already 2 decades old in the 1980s, whereas Mirages were just fresh at that time.

Arey, what is even more unfortunate is that as recently as Standing Parliamentary Committee report on defence, 2007, it is clearly highlighted that Tejas is a “..light jet, meant to replace MiG-21s…” Why go 2 decades back, when IAF still thinks of Tejas as a MiG-21 as recently as 2007 ?

the IAF knows what the LCA’s capability level is.

Then please tell us why Gripen C/D was entertained as a serious MRCA contender (forget that Gripen-Demo had to repeat the tests later).

——

* * From what I’ve read, an analog line is just a last-ditch precautionary measure. It doesn’t seem that FBW testing is somehow shortened. You still have to undergo all the same tests. So, here I very humbly disagree with AM Rajkumar’s opinion.