AbhimanyuHow exactly do you think India should replenish the NE if the land link is broken…one C17 carries almost 2 times what a IL-76 does.
As already mentioned before (and missed by you), by flying 2 Il-76s and if during wartime, by adding even a civilian airplane. Everyone knows that C-17s “can carry twice the payload” of Il-76. We’re talking of cost-efficiency metrics. C-17s are Not necessarily war-time planes. Just intercontinental airlifters. C-17 is cost-effective, if flown from, say, Pune to Somalia and not from Pune to NE.
Besides, coming to your original question, why do you think we’ve recently bought C-130J’s then ? They’re slightly “worse” than Il-76s.
AbhimanyuSwerve, I think that if any Air Force (if that ever happens) is interested in the LCA, they would simply have to take it up with the IAF or the MoD and they would be able to connect them with the right people in the Ministry of Defence, IAF and DRDO..
The above is inaccurate. If any Air Force expresses interest in Tejas, then they’ll directly approach ADA or HAL via diplomatic channels of GoI. IAF will never be in the loop at all. IAF for example, doesn’t contact the Russian Air-Force to purchase Su-30s. Instead, Sukhoi (or UAC now) is contacted via government channels.
but I personally believe that its unlikely that the LCA will get any export orders..its been made out to be such a massive failure by the press that unless one interacts with those who actually work on it or with it, there is a negative image associated with it, even abroad..and most air force personnel are getting their reports from the press only, so until the IAF gets the LCA in service and dispels the type of negative reports that constantly float around the LCA, nobody else will be interested.
I disagree with the above. Actually only 1 or 2 newspapers, most notably Times of India and Indian Express have been instrumental in negative reportage about Tejas. Any positive event (like LSP-3 flight) is either not mentioned, or given a “staid” report at most. ToI’s Rajat Pandit writes advertisements in the guise of news reports, something like, “..the roar of the F-18 above Bangalore defeaned one and all…”. But surprisingly, he never has such words for Tejas. Like when LSP-3 flew, the ToI carried a “plain” PTI report sans the praise-laden adjectives Mr. Pandit has for foreign jets. Indian Express didn’t even bother to report it.
The Hindu and DNA are improving, and so is expressindia (the online version). rediff is also quite pro-DRDO. But by far, Col. Ajai Shukla and to an extent, Shiv Aroor have been the best. Of course, the momentous support Col Shukla gave for Arjun, coupled with huge support from BR has totally “decimated” ToI’s anti-Arjun tirades.
BR must avoid posting ToI snippets on their home page. Col. Shukla rightly called the ToI a rag, where newspace is up for sale.
For me, the Tejas seems to be a smarter design
A small airframe with high wing and without additional controls, like canards or tailplanes, are such controls that relevant for such small airframe? with the advancements on aerodynamics and FBW research?
The wing is more complex, it topology is interesting, while is using very conventional intakes, it’s me or the gripen ones are larger?
overG, Tejas’ wing is much evolved from Mirage-2000’s simplistic delta wing. It is compounded and is also slightly cropped i.e. it is actually a trapezoid, and not a simple right angle. Also, the leading edge close to the root has a 5 degree downward bent that helps in vortex creation over the wing. I think all these combinations are definitely a world-first.
It has one of the largest wing areas, despite being the world’s smallest modern fighter jet. This helps it to carry high amount of loads for a jet of its size.
Tejas’ designers once tested a mock-scale model with canards in the wind tunnel. But as they were not found to add any advantage, so they were dropped.
AbhimanyuThe US Congress note on C-17 is just a notification of a possible deal. It doesn’t mean that India has signed the purchase agreement, or that India is obliged to purchase it in the future.
It may be hoped that “good sense prevails” and the C-17 purchase is dropped. This “flying ship” has NEVER been used for operations other than intercontinental ops, and India doesn’t have such ops at all. Even for domestic relief ops, more Il-76s or Il-78s if purchased, can serve the purpose more cost-effectively than a few C-17s and equally well if not better.
This deal is clearly being pursued only because the government wants to create employment in the US. The US economy runs that way — Arabs export oil in return for F-15 Strike Eagles, Burj Dubai and C-17s (even tiny UAE boasts C-17s !!). China exports lead-toys in return for Boeings, hi-tech construction equipment and other industrial equipment (GE, et al). India exports cheap (but good) software for P-3 Orions, C-130 Ks etc.
And so it continues…
AbhimanyuRegarding NG, who told you its been certified? Unless im mistaken, it still only exists as demo, & 1st PT will appear next year. Its almost a new design from C/D with a lot of improvements, unlike PT4 where certain modifications were introduced to addres certain issues such as smoke.
The above is inaccurate. The Gripen Demo was held up due to certification issues in Sweden, and in lieu of which the older Gripen D model (Tejas Mk.1 equivalent) was sent to India to undergo hot & cold weather trials.
But now Gripen Demo is being sent by Sweden, presumably because it has been cleared by authorities there. Still, it has taken 2 years since work on it first began.
Even though the Demo/NG houses a new engine, and has a compact landing gear, it hasn’t had to change the fuselage as such, no new intakes or the rest of the airframe. Wing shape was not modified, though it’s root was strengthened. Even then, its taken 2 years of testing and certification time.
JF-17 went external changes of DSI intakes and lerxes and would undoubtedly have undergone many other internal changes as well — dsi and lerx can’t just be “slapped onto” an airframe. Yet, we see SBP machines flying in Pak immediately after PT-04 flew in Chengdu.
Besides, you have “skirted” the rest of the questions asked.
AbhimanyuRemember the main reason the Tejas project is moving forward now is the decision to decouple the engine development from the airframe and go for a foreign engine. I can’t see Japan taking the risk on what has been an underperforming engine with a lot of development ahead before it can be accepted into service.
See, IAF wants more thrust from the Kaveri than it’s current limit of 81 kN. Japan just wants 76-80 kN only, judging by the engines the RFI has been sent to. Hence, Kaveri having been thoroughly tested upto 81 kN, must “fit the bill”.
first you are not reading my posts, or your just to stubburn to take in any information thats not that much comfort for your agenda.
second the design is Volvo aero´s of the subparts, so they will get there share in any way.
Sign, it has already been mentioned that Volvo Aero may get some “leftover” contracts if GE wins, given that they make 20% of the ancillaries for all of GE’s products. Your contention that Volvo Aero will be sent an RFI in it’s own right, is Not likely to be true.
Besides, the GE-F404 IN-20 for Tejas provides greater thrust than RM-12 developed for the Gripen. So, for the F404 series, GE is going to be approached anyway and India will also have a share of the revenue if it is selected.
Proven..you mean ground tested surely…please tell me which single engined aircraft has the Kaveri propelled?
Kaveri has already been test-flown 2 or 3 times in Russia’s Il-76 plane. Of the 4 engines of the plane, one is removed and Kaveri is replaced with it. It’s performance during flight is monitored. As per DRDO, the last flight-test in Russia was very successful.
surely you don’t consider the F-2 to be a Japanese effort purely ? It was Lockheed Martin through and through..the design was nothing more than an enlarged F-16, so they didn’t really do anything ground-breaking in that field. the FBW was mostly carried over from the F-16 anyway and again was mostly done by LM engineers. They ended up producing a fighter that was costlier to produce in Japan than it was to import F-15s directly from the US..
I recently was speaking to a Serbian design engineer who is very experienced in aerospace design and who has worked for Boeing, Embraer, Airbus and Bombardier and he was talking about how he was offered a position in South Korea for the T-50 program..apparently he said that almost 70% of the engineering effort on the T-50 was done by LM and its contractors. a similar effort to the F-2.
I agree fully with the above. Mitsubishi F-2, S. Korea’s T-50 and Taiwan’s Ching-Kuo are infact called F-16 “clones”. Lockheed Martin was the lead designer in all these projects, and it simply “tweaked” the original F-16 to come up with this east-Asian triumvate. Also note that all these nations are under the US military ‘umbrella’.
AbhimanyuA small statement in the media can put MMRCA in the back burner for atleast a decade. Thats nothing but “MOD received bribes from some MMRCA contenders” period.
And MMRCA will be history……lol
The above would be the “sweetest” thing to happen to “scuttle” the MRCA. Tejas should “chug along” at it’s pace demonstrating it’s radiance steadily.
AbhimanyuAbhi, see it wasnt all that difficult. Most of the refs i gave, you could have found them on net. I just cant copy/paste on the phone.
Actually it’s “difficulty” never arises, because I’m not here to prove anyone wrong in the first place. I accept referenced facts, and say so frankly.
As for IOC, remember the whole starting point was whether it has or not? No one was sure, & we were just playing a guessing game. Then you jumped in, & based on flimsy evidence made a firm conclusion.
I disagree with the above. As mentioned earlier, I gave you referenced reports for each assertion I made, and not “jumped to conclusions”. Only when you produced the PAF Chief’s statement, did I agree that the earthtimes article may have gotten it wrong.
And besides, the main questions still remain :-
When was IoC granted ? Which agency granted it ? How come SBPs were handed over just a few months from PT-04’s first flight, when the other 3 PTs before it were “disastrous” ? Even from PT-01’s first flight it had been just 3.5 years since maiden flight (in PAF chief’s own words). So, has it been tested properly at all given that Gripen, Rafale and Tejas have taken a decade since maiden flight till IoC ? PAC Kamra has never done anything beyond MRO before being handed over the 8 JF-17s. So is it equipped to even test the JF-17s and make changes for the goal of certification ?
Finally, PT04 had a redesigned intake, Lerx, and larger fin as its main structural modifications. Doesnt mean they had to repeat everything they had already done with PT1 & 3. But mainly those parameters that were causing problems in the first case. First SBP made its first flight around 11 months after PT4, meaning CAC & PAF were satisfied with the basic design parameters. It was not rushed or dumped.
Gripen-NG has taken nearly 2 years to get certified from Sweden, and as pointed out earlier, so will Tejas Mk.2. But here we’ve seen SBPs bein handed over to PAF after just a few months of PT-04 taking to the air. What was the “tearing” hurry ?
Abhimanyu🙂 So you didnt no that?….Ge-404 IN 20 have Volvo components, so its licence the other way around.
You are really out there all the time….doesnt it getting awkward?
Volvo’s contribution to GE F404 is 20% outsourced components only. So, obviously Japan will reach out to the company which makes the remaining 80% — GE, and not the outsourcer Volvo. Besides, GE is the lead designer of the 404 series, whereas Volvo being a licenced outsourcer, has no say in the design. Hence, it makes all the more sense to approach GE (Volvo might get some “throw-over” sub-contracts, if GE is selected by Japan).
So the Kaveri still have a loooong way of prove itself..
It’s already proven itself in tests upto 81 kN. IAF wants up to increase thrust upto 85-90 kN, that’s why the further development. For the Japanese requirement, it fits quite well.
AbhimanyuIt will not be selected because it is still very much under development, and the Shin-Shin project is likely only looking for an interim engine as there is a domestic Japanese engine under development. Last time I checked, the Kaveri was the main culprit behind the LCA delays, and GTRE will be receiving aid from SNECMA just to complete the engine.
Err..kokite, like I explained earlier, IAF needs more from it and that’s why it’s being upgraded. Given the other competitors of 75-80 kN thrust, it has already been well tested upto 81 kN.
And no, Kaveri has infact NEVER been any reason for Tejas delays because since that past decade, GE-404 engines have been used. A couple of years back, GE designed an India-specific engine called GE-F404-IN 20 that has been used in all prototypes from that year onwards. 28 units of the same engine have been ordered to power the first squadron of Tejas, to be delivered next year.
4 months back, GE and Eurojet responded to the RFP for 100 engines for Tejas Mark 2.
as allways, you are a indian salesman..
the standard RM12(since 1989) have the same rate as Kaveri 81KN, this can be altered easily.
Even Kaveri is being worked upon to increase thrust upto 85-90 kN. Besides, it is flat-rated also.
There were a upgrade stage proposal to at least 90KN to Saab gripen. But it was cheaper for the gripen to go F414, so they went this way.
So, RM-12 is halted now at 80.5 kN. And they’ll probably go to GE directly, because RM-12 is just an enhanced GE-404 made under licence. They’ll probably ask for the GE-404-IN-20 designed for Tejas, which is rated higher at 83 kN. They’ll not even approach Volvo Aero.
The M-88 have also defined upgrades at least to 90KN(M88-3), and i would not count on it stays there.
No, but the Japanese are not considering M-88 3 as per the news report. It’s the M-88 2 they considered, and that has lesser thrust than Kaveri.
I firmly believe both Volvo and Snecma is way ahead.
No. Volvo is not even in contention, because it is only a licence manufacturer. Besides, the RM-12 is NOT the most advanced GE-404 variant, but the GE-404 IN 20 for Tejas surely is.
AbhimanyuAbhi dear, AFM caption EXPLICITLY mentions PT-4. Happy? 🙂
See, I asked you to check whether it says a “file photo” or “PT-04 in China in 2008”. It could just be a file photo only. Now, we’ll leave that discussion for the time-being.
The first para (pp 36) states that first two machines were AIRFREIGHTED to pak and ASSEMBLED at PAC.
Ok fine. I agree with that now. Other news said that it was flown to Pak.
pp 39 has a table of CURRENT JF-17s & the dates of their first flights. It has 6 PTs with 4 of them for flight & 10 mar 07 as the first flight date for 07-101 & 07-102 (first 2 SBP machines). Remember PT-4 & 6 made their first flight in 2006.
Ok. I’ll agree with that.
But the most interesting piece of info (FOR YOU) is a direct quote from the chief himself. ‘we have produced six prototype aircraft since sept 03 – two of them are ground test and the other four are flying. In the three and a half years that have passed, WE HAVE FLOWN SIX AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING TWO FROM A SMALL SERIAL PRODUCTION BATCH.’ He goes onto say all EIGHT SBP machines (and a PT – this was PT4 which was stil in china in sept 2008) will participate in phase 2….. So what would you prefer. A DIRECT QUOTE FROM PAF CHIEF or SOME FLIMSY ARTICLE FROM EARTH TIMES?
Fine, I’ll agree with that too, though it still mentions that phase 2 includes a PT.
Atleast I did not post any conjecture, but well reference articles, like always. I also clearly recollect discussions on Pak fora that the jets arrived were in fact the PT series.
But yet, the main question remains unanswered :-
a) When did JF-17 recieve IoC (if at all it did in the first place) ?
b) If it was granted, then by whom was it given (Chengdu or PAC Kamra/PAF) ?
and most importantly
c) How and why were SBP machines delivered just a few months after PT-04 first flew ? Given that PT-04 was almost a new jet with new intakes, smokeless engine and strakes, it surely must’ve needed atleast 2-3 years of tests (never mind that only 2 prototypes had flown before it in just 2 years).
AbhimanyuI don’t know why you guys missed the “juiciest” part of the news report :-
“Its search even contains the Gas Turbine Research Establishment GTX-35VS Kaveri, still in development for India’s Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft.“
It’s quite plausible actually. All their options like M-88 and RM-12 are in the 78 kN to 80 kN range. Kaveri is 81 kN engine and moreover, it is a flat-rated engine. SO, it does have a good chance of being selected by Japan.
Now, the question arises how does Japan expect to buy Kaveri, which is still under development in it’s own nation ? The answer is that IAF wants more from the Kaveri i.e. upto 85-88 kN (approx). It has already successfully demonstrated 81 kN of thrust.
Hence, compared to the GE-404 and M-88, Kaveri stands a very good chance of being selected. It’s cost is also likely to be much cheaper than these western engines.
AbhimanyuAbhi..the IAF considers Tejas MK1 underpowered though it has the same weight and engine(even slightly stronger) as the Gripen..yet they think the Gripen is fine. Is it so out of world that maybe the Gripen has a superior aerodynamic design because SAAB has lots of experience in making aircrafts?
Arey yaar, Tejas has already opened it’s envelop to IoC requirements in flight-tests in Goa last year. At sea trials in Goa last December, it’s top speed was 1,350 at low altitude, which is comparable to Gripen.
The reason why IAF wants a new engine is because Kaveri is not ready. Kaveri was a flat-rated engine, meaning it could give good thrust with much lesser variation over all altitudes (though this comes at the cost of max. thrust). So, IAF has asked to evaluate new engines which, although not flat-rated, have a much higher max. thrust and so make up for the lack of this attribute by the “brute” of their higher max. thrust only.
Now, it is totally unclear that when Tejas Mk.2 will be Gripen-NG-ish and F-16 C-ish, why is an MRCA needed ?
Note that a mathematician was part of the design team that proposed a cheaper multi-role F-16 to the original F-15. Fighter capabilities do Not increase linearly with fighter weight and thrust. As an example, F-18 weighs 14 tons and Gripen weighs half i.e. 7 tons. F-18 has 2 GE-F414 engines and Gripen has only one. But that doesn’t mean F-18 can carry twice the payload at twice the combat radius of Gripen. So, the criterion of judging fighter capabilities on the basis of absolute weight is not a proper metric at all.
Anyway, as we’d seen earlier Air Forces across the world have 2 types of fighters i.e. deep strikers and multirole. There is no criterion of light-medium-heavy at all. Hence, Tejas Mk.2 can easily complement the Su-30 MKI and there is no need for an MRCA at all. IAF is “zabardasti” trying to “wedge” a so-called MMRCA in between Tejas and Su-30.
AbhimanyuAbhi, its fun. 😉 Huitong’s site also mentions that flight tests for J-10 were COMPLETED by the end of 2003. First unit was OPERATIONALISED around mid 2004. Hope it means something to you.
See, that is mentioned even by sinodefence and nobody denies that. But what tphuang was clearly mistaking for IoC is just so-called “design certification” (whatever that means). huitong also doesn’t say “IoC in 2004”, it merely says “certification” in 2004. So huitong is also probably referring to this “design certification” only.
IoC for J-10 came in 2006.
AFM Sept 08 issue (pp 68) clearly states that PT04 is still in china.
I’ve already asked you to re-read that article and see if it is just a file photo, or does the caption explicitly mention “PT-04 in China, (photo : 2008)” ? It could just be a file photo.
Your beloved wiki cites tons of articles mentioning that PAF received 8 SBP machines. The first two had tail numbers 07-101 & 07-102, and were Partially assembled at PAC.
I didn’t dispute that. What I’m saying is that the first 2 SBPs were in fact prototypes, passed off as SBPs. And no, they were flown to Pakistan, they weren’t assembled there.
Janes article (Jan 08) clearly states that JF-17 will receive IOC by end 2008-read before the start of serial production. PAF operationalises first in 2009.
But did it actually ? And how can it recieve IoC after just 2 years of PT-04 taking to the air ? Unlike Tejas Mk.2, PT-04 was an overhaul.
ps. Im still waiting for your opinion on how MK-1 would be turned into NG equivalent (your fav range-payload specs of courese) without considerable structural modifications, and receive certification within 4 years from now? Please enlighten us with your theories on this fav topic of yours.
A few posts above this one, I’ve already mentioned that as per Eurojet officials, the integration of their engine, if selected, will be done in “2 years flat”, in their own words. This is because minimal structural modifications will be needed to house it. It must also be remembered that EADs has already begun consultancy for Tejas.
AbhimanyuHa ha, I like the way you’re thrashing out against the PAF/PAC Kamra/JF17, I didn’t even mention all that. My original point was regarding you questioning the IAF and seeming to know better. But never mind lash away to your heart’s content if it makes you feel better.
Well, it was good advice and knowledge too about certification procedures. It’s up to you to take it or leave it.
Abhimanyualthough, even on sinodefence, I don’t see where it says 2006 was the ioc date. I see this.
that’s pretty much matches what I’m saying of certification in 2004.
I’m referring to the “J-10 history” page in sinodefence here :-
“November 2006: Chinese state media announced that the new-generation J-10 fighter had achieved initial operational capability (IOC). The aircraft was officially declassified. CAC / AVIC-I were planning to demonstrate the aircraft during the 2006 Zhuhai Air Show, but this was cancelled the last minute, possibly due to political concerns.
What you are referring to is “design certificate”, and that was granted in 2004 (per the same page in sinodefence). I don’t know what that means, coz I was discussing specifically IoC with vikasrehman. IoC means that the manufacturer deems it ready as per specs, and as per safety norms. FoC comes later by the user Air Force, which can suggest minor changes.
Usually, IoC comes just as the first squadron is formed and delivered. In J-10, it seems to have come after a regiment was formed and used by PLAAF (probably there was some urgency to deploy it ? and formally certify it later on ?)
Now there has been no report about JF-17’s certification. Also, given the speed with which the first 2 SBP units were handed to PAF (presumably PT-04 and 06), just a few months after PT-04 made it’s maiden flight seems “absurd”. This is because PT-04 was quite different from the earlier flawed variants and it definitely would’ve needed more testing by Chengdu. Pakistan currently has no skills beyond MRO, and it is unlikely to have continued testing at all.
Sign In
