LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D

[sancho]

Can't we attach missiles or bombs there? As it is a wet station.add some carrier to hold it.

Of course, but the payload must comply to the size and weight limitations of that station. You can take the EF for comparision too, that can carry a 1000l fuel tank on the centerline, just as a targeting pod, but width limitations restrict it from carrying a cruise missile or even an GBU 10 LGB (2000lb).

 

[narcon]

Which still is pointless when you don't have the space to carry large weapons.

My point was general rule of thumb. And this principle is Universal.
If you do not have a capable MKI, you do not need to denigrate the Aerophysics.
Same goes for other aircrafts, its relative.

Similarly, in Rocket science, there is a universal constant = "Bounce to the ounce (fuel)"

 

[narcon]

but width limitations restrict it from carrying a cruise missile or even an GBU 10 LGB (2000lb).

Which world you are living in partner?

What you think these TERs serve for?

Width elimination solution!
Safe ejection!
Comes with sway braces!
Release by gravity or ejection!

 

[SQ8]

Are you kidding?????

1) Gripen C/D carries AESA????

2) Gripen Carries Engine F-414?????

3) Gripen-C/D Carries Fuel 2,268 kg - Tejas MK-I carries Fuel - 2,400 kg (Internal Fuel)????? (Note: Internal fuel of
Tejas MK-II will increase to 3200 Kgs.) (Add 0.5 meter in fuselage to smoothen the cross section increase between
4 and 5 meter lengths in fuselage and retain the same design)

4) AOA of Tejas MK-I is extending to 27 Degrees. Yes 27 Degrees. What is the AOA of Gripen-C/D? (I can bet with you
finally AOA of Tejas MK-I will extend upto 28 Degrees!)

5) What is the TWR of Gripen-C/D???? And what is of Tejas Mk-I ?????

6) Weapon Load for Tejas MK-I 4000 Kgs. same for Gripen C/D???

You are very senior poster! I kindly request you to equate Tejas Mk-I and Gripen-C/D on the above mentioned parameters and post a reply why Gripen-C/D is better then Tejas MK-I.

Tejas MK-II will seriously competing with GRIPEN-NG in all spacs HEAD-ON!!!

If not why dont you post a comparison between GRIPEN-NG and TEJAS-MK-II !!!!!

It is precisely because I am a senior poster that I find the comparison frivolous and rather baseless. But just to entertain your overenthusiastic desire for the Tejas.. Ill do you some basic while correcting inaccuracies in your assumptions.

1) there is no AESA on the Mk.2 either(at the first batch)... So that point is a total fail. The Gripen NG which you try to compare it to has developed AESA from day 1. AESA retrofits are already on offer to pre-existing Gripen C/D users.

2 & 3 &5&6). The Tejas Mk.2 carries the F-414IN6.. a higher thrust engine than the F-414 to power the Tejas..it is a 22000lb class engine. The Gripen C/D carries the Volvo RM-12 which is a 18000lb class engine(although volvo aero is looking to increase it inhouse to around 19000-20000). But the Gripen weighs less than the Tejas Mk.2 and still carries more payload... because it is a mature fighter while the Tejas is still gestating. .. as can be seen by your rather emotional attempt to compare the Mk.2 (whose airframe is yet to be laid down) with the Gripen C/D(which is at the peak of its development and ABOUT to be replaced in service by its primary operator). The Thrust to weigh ratio of the Tejas Mk.2 in with take-off clean is reported to be around 9800kg from a ADA soure and assuming 10000kg(from the GE site stating engine class around 22,000 lbs..which is really not always the max thrust available as thrust various from altitude to altitude) as the thrust of the F-414 variant to be used in the Mk.2 ) works out to be around 1.02.. for the Tejas Mk.1 (from the Tejas.gov website).. the Clean take off weight is around 9500kg and with the Ge-404IN20's max at 8667 kg the T/W is 0.91. . For the Gripen C/D with 9070kg in Clean Take off comes to around 0.91. However, the gripen is still able to take more combat load at 5000 Kgthan either the current Mk.1 or even the proposed Mk.2 ..

4) AoA of the Gripen C/D has been "LIMITED" to 26 degrees. The limiter exists to ensure that the aircraft does not depart from controlled flight.. the Tejas was initially limited to 23-24 degrees during its test program. The F-16 is limited to 25.5. Hence there is little difference nor any bragging rights in your brining up the AoA.. other than for self satisfaction. As the Mk2 has YET to even get its first part cut.. any discussion regarding its AoA is pointless.

 

[Gandhara]

1) there is no AESA on the Mk.2 either(at the first batch)... So that point is a total fail.

LCA Mk2 will for sure carry AESA, don't shoot any arrows in dark. IAF wont accept any new fighter in service around 2020s without AESA which will be a very standard radar on fighters by then.

 

[SQ8]

Isn't it just logical than an upgraded versio (MK2, E/F, Block 2) is more capable than the earlier one? So where is the surprise in IAF opting for the more capable one, rather than opting for more of the old once? Isn't that the reason why PAF did not bought additional JF 17 block 1s and waited for the Block 2 upgrade to be finished? According to your logic that would mean that the Block 1 is not capable and no comparison either to other fighters in that class either wouldn't it?

Unlike the Tejas Mk.2 .. the Block-II is NOT.. again.. NOT.. once again.. NOT.. a "new" fighter with changes in dimension and engines. All the Block-II is.. ends up summarised as an avionics upgrade with the addition of IFR. NOTHING MORE. The Block-I will be upgraded on a rotation basis to Block-II sans the IFR(even thought that TOO can be done if required). The differene between the Block-I and Block-II is the same as the difference between the F-16 Block-15 and the F-16 Block-20. and the PAF is happy with the (essentially) same aircraft.The PAF did not STOP with the Block-I.. the confusion you all have with blocks has to end too. The Blocks mean production batches.. NOT a different aircraft.

The same CANNOT be said about the Tejas Mk.2 The Tejas Mk1 CANNOT be made into a Mk.2.. nor will it ever have the performance of the Mk2. The Mk2 is the definitive Tejas. It is not the next production batch.. and the IAF is on record testifying to that fact.

Had the Tejas Mk.1 been the fighter the IAF was looking for..there would have been more orders rather than the 40 odd and NO MORE as the IAF itself has stated. It still however has potential to be exported.

 

[Gandhara]

Had the Tejas Mk.1 been the fighter the IAF was looking for..there would have been more orders rather than the 40 odd and NO MORE as the IAF itself has stated. It still however has potential to be exported.

total LCA MK1 Indian armed forces will buy will be close to 80-90 (Indian Navy will also order Mk1 40+)

 

[SQ8]

LCA Mk2 will for sure carry AESA, don't shoot any arrows in dark. IAF wont accept any new fighter in service around 2020s without AESA which will be a very standard radar on fighters by then.

I am not the one shooting arrows.. go right here then.
Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?

 

[narcon]

Lockheed Martin F-16's Capacity for Smart Weapons Is Doubled With New... -- re> FORT WORTH, Texas, April 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --

 

[Gandhara]

I am not the one shooting arrows.. go right here then.
Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?

here check this comment from an Indian poster

Title of the article says AESA won't be ready for batch but the actual article states AESA won't be on the first prototype (considering it is set to fly a early as 2015 that isn't surprising) which is entirely understandable. What prototypes come in final spec from day one? Did the LCA Mk.1 come with LDP, HMDS etc etc all integrated from day one?

In fact the Mk.2 being ready for flight trails by the end of 2015 and production of it by 2016 is actually GREAT news. Even if the first lot of MK.2s arrive without AESA radars that can always be added at a later stage quite easily, the priority is to get as many LCAs in service as quickly as possible.

Source: Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?

 

[Raul_AD]

It is precisely because I am a senior poster that I find the comparison frivolous and rather baseless. But just to entertain your overenthusiastic desire for the Tejas.. Ill do you some basic while correcting inaccuracies in your assumptions.

1) there is no AESA on the Mk.2 either(at the first batch)... So that point is a total fail. The Gripen NG which you try to compare it to has developed AESA from day 1. AESA retrofits are already on offer to pre-existing Gripen C/D users.

2 & 3 &5&6). The Tejas Mk.2 carries the F-414IN6.. a higher thrust engine than the F-414 to power the Tejas..it is a 22000lb class engine. The Gripen C/D carries the Volvo RM-12 which is a 18000lb class engine(although volvo aero is looking to increase it inhouse to around 19000-20000). But the Gripen weighs less than the Tejas Mk.2 and still carries more payload... because it is a mature fighter while the Tejas is still gestating. .. as can be seen by your rather emotional attempt to compare the Mk.2 (whose airframe is yet to be laid down) with the Gripen C/D(which is at the peak of its development and ABOUT to be replaced in service by its primary operator). The Thrust to weigh ratio of the Tejas Mk.2 in with take-off clean is reported to be around 9800kg from a ADA soure and assuming 10000kg(from the GE site stating engine class around 22,000 lbs..which is really not always the max thrust available as thrust various from altitude to altitude) as the thrust of the F-414 variant to be used in the Mk.2 ) works out to be around 1.02.. for the Tejas Mk.1 (from the Tejas.gov website).. the Clean take off weight is around 9500kg and with the Ge-404IN20's max at 8667 kg the T/W is 0.91. . For the Gripen C/D with 9070kg in Clean Take off comes to around 0.91. However, the gripen is still able to take more combat load at 5000 Kgthan either the current Mk.1 or even the proposed Mk.2 ..

4) AoA of the Gripen C/D has been "LIMITED" to 26 degrees. The limiter exists to ensure that the aircraft does not depart from controlled flight.. the Tejas was initially limited to 23-24 degrees during its test program. The F-16 is limited to 25.5. Hence there is little difference nor any bragging rights in your brining up the AoA.. other than for self satisfaction. As the Mk2 has YET to even get its first part cut.. any discussion regarding its AoA is pointless.

Engine Thrust for Gripen C/D
Volvo RM12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Maximum thrust:
  • 54 kN (12,100 lbf) military thrust
  • 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner
  Dry weight: 1055 kg (2326 lb)

Engine Thrust for Tejas MK-I
F404-GE-IN20
Dry Weight: 1,035 kilogram (2,282 pound)
Thrust: 20,200 pound (9,163 kilogram)

AESA confusion cleared by @Gandhara

Come again.

 

[SQ8]

here check this comment from an Indian poster

Title of the article says AESA won't be ready for batch but the actual article states AESA won't be on the first prototype (considering it is set to fly a early as 2015 that isn't surprising) which is entirely understandable. What prototypes come in final spec from day one? Did the LCA Mk.1 come with LDP, HMDS etc etc all integrated from day one?

In fact the Mk.2 being ready for flight trails by the end of 2015 and production of it by 2016 is actually GREAT news. Even if the first lot of MK.2s arrive without AESA radars that can always be added at a later stage quite easily, the priority is to get as many LCAs in service as quickly as possible.

Source: Aesa not on First Batch of Tejas MK-2?

Hence I am only proven right. Not sure what you would like to agree or disagree with?
The earlier posts notion that the Mk.2 would be comparable to the Gripen NG is then negated right there and then.. the Gripen E/F comes with a AESA from the first prototype.

 

[SQ8]

Engine Thrust for Gripen C/D
Volvo RM12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Maximum thrust:
  • 54 kN (12,100 lbf) military thrust
  • 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner
  Dry weight: 1055 kg (2326 lb)

Engine Thrust for Tejas MK-I
F404-GE-IN20
Dry Weight: 1,035 kilogram (2,282 pound)
Thrust: 20,200 pound (9,163 kilogram)

Come again.

Please go the the Volvo Aero website.. Ive already mentioned where the figures come from for the Tejas.

Thank you, Come again.

 

[Raul_AD]

Please go the the Volvo Aero website.. Ive already mentioned where the figures come from for the Tejas.

Thank you, Come again.

Link please.

Engine Thrust for Gripen C/D
Volvo RM12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Maximum thrust:
  • 54 kN (12,100 lbf) military thrust
  • 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner
  Dry weight: 1055 kg (2326 lb)

Engine Thrust for Tejas MK-I
F404-GE-IN20
Dry Weight: 1,035 kilogram (2,282 pound)
Thrust: 20,200 pound (9,163 kilogram)


Source: LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D | Page 20

Who is denying 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner thrust for Gripen - C/D???

Weight of Gripen C/D - Empty weight: 6,800 kg[296] (12,600 lb)

Weight of Tejas MK-I - Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)

Tejas weight is 300 Kgs less then Gripen - C/D

What is your point?????

 

[Gandhara]

Hence I am only proven right. Not sure what you would like to agree or disagree with?
The earlier posts notion that the Mk.2 would be comparable to the Gripen NG is then negated right there and then.. the Gripen E/F comes with a AESA from the first prototype.

Well in my view LCA Mk2 will be comparable to Gripen NG if not superior and I am sure as a pakistani you will never accept this even though facts will tell you that.
LCA MK2 will most probably get an AESA which will be derived from best of russian/french/israeli and Indian tech same is the case of EW suits and weapons.
Engine will be roughly comparable if not same.
Current LCA MK1 used higher %age of composites which will be more true for Mk2 also.