LCA news and discussion

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 15 Mar 2009 01:18

whats is the effective(with/without drop tank/bombs) RCS of lca , and how it could be reduced?

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Mar 2009 04:10

Himanshu wrote: CG etc at various altitude and weather conditions.. for these two aircrafts..

Gosh, Armchair Marshals !. I have to agree with Shivji. With the mood he is in, I wouldn't show up at his clinic and when he asks you to step on his weighing machine to take your weight, suggest that he is being wrong because, being with him being in Bangalore which is at a much higher altitude and milder weather (humidity and heat) than say Chennai, your weight will be wrong. Or for that matter, if Shivji visits Chennai, you insist that he doesnt take your weight in an air conditioned room for the same reason.

I know you talked about CG and not weight . But think of it, when you travel from Chennai to Bangalore, will say your arms /legs grow longer/shorter , something happens to your weight distribution for your CG to change ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Mar 2009 05:54

Prasant wrote:
Wickberg wrote:
Please don´t compare Gripen to LCA. They are two different aircrafts with two totally different designs. Gripen is a a successful design and have no drag issues...
Are you implying that the LCA isn't a successful design, and had issues with drag?

I am still waiting.. to hear on this more.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 15 Mar 2009 08:26

whats is the effective(with/without drop tank/bombs) RCS of lca

42.

and how could it be reduced

1) Plasma Stealth
2) Paint it black
3) Invisible ink
4) Scratch the name off and write "F-16 Falcon" to fool the enemy
5) Harry Potter's cloak
6) Hide it in a hangar. No one will know where it is.

Or, inversely, why do you want to add stealth features to a program that is supposed to be low-cost, mass produced?

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 15 Mar 2009 09:58

42

Aditya, I suspect a whole lot of questions being asked/views being expressed on the Tejas by some of our esteemed friends have only one answer: 42. Let me try to be helpful, why don't folks check this:Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything
Sorry for being OT...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 15 Mar 2009 10:14

nelson dias wrote:With all due respect to Mr.NRshaw, presumably he can furnish facts to back his claims.

All figures were taken from Wiki..

Srivastav wrote:its futile it to compare LCA with any other aircraft

I understand Tejas still has lot of envelop to test and that is the reason why i believe we should be comparing it with successful aircraft of its class so that we can weed out the inefficiencies

I hope ADA / HAL have access to MRCA specifications and they also are part of technical evaluations / Field evaluation so that they can make tejas even more beautiful

-Nitin

Himanshu · Post by **Himanshu** » 15 Mar 2009 12:28

vina wrote:
Himanshu wrote: CG etc at various altitude and weather conditions.. for these two aircrafts..

Gosh, Armchair Marshals !. .....
I know you talked about CG and not weight . But think of it, when you travel from Chennai to Bangalore, will say your arms /legs grow longer/shorter , something happens to your weight distribution for your CG to change ?

Ok Ok.. you caught me on the wrong foot.. agreed.. take out CG but at least other parameters would matter for the aerodynamic behavior naa..

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 15 Mar 2009 15:44

Prasant wrote: Are you implying that the LCA isn't a successful design, and had issues with drag?

I´m not implying anything. All I can say is that Gripen has no problem with its engine flying +2 Mach while the LCA is underpowered with virtually the same engine. Even if they are about the same size and weight please stop comparing the two. They are two different air crafts and different designs... That´s all I have to say about that...

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 15 Mar 2009 18:23

Aditya_M wrote:
whats is the effective(with/without drop tank/bombs) RCS of lca
42.

and how could it be reduced
1) Plasma Stealth
2) Paint it black
3) Invisible ink
4) Scratch the name off and write "F-16 Falcon" to fool the enemy
5) Harry Potter's cloak
6) Hide it in a hangar. No one will know where it is.

Or, inversely, why do you want to add stealth features to a program that is supposed to be low-cost, mass produced?

low cost/mass produced,? how can you say that INSpaceship-LCA(rcs=42) is low cost and could be mass produced?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 15 Mar 2009 19:19

^^ That was meant to be a joke. Read Douglas Adams for further knowledge. Besides RCS does not decide whether it can be mass produced or not. And what do you mean by INSpaceship? What is IN?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Mar 2009 02:18

nrshah wrote:Gripen

# Empty weight: 5,700 kg (14,600 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
# Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
# Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
* Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
* Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)

LCA

# Empty weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
# Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb (in fighter configuration))
# Max takeoff weight: 14,500 kg (32,000 lb)

# Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
* Dry thrust: 54.9 kN (12,250 lbf)
* Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN (19,000 lbf)

GTX-35VS Kaveri
* Thrust:
o Military thrust (throttled):11,687 lbf (52.0 kN) Goal 13,500 lbf (60.0 kN)
o Full afterburner:18,210 lbf (81.0 kN) [Goal: 20,200 lbf (90.0 kN)]

All data from wiki

Pardon me if already discussed.

I am not able to understand how is LCA underpowered. Gripen with almost same specs is using a 80.5KN engine. Kaveri already delivering 81Kn of thrust.

-Nitin

LCA's empty weight is right now at 6500 kg, not 5500 kg. There is a good interview with PS Subramanyam here, where he very honesty accepts that the designers and stress analysts on the Tejas program, since they didn't have prior aircraft design experience of this kind, were very conservative and built in added safety margins in the design to be on the safe side, because they didn't want a failure at ANY cost.

I had always suspected this from the time that there were reports of weight problems on the LCA and I'd mentioned it on BRF as well that their Margins of Safety would've been high just to be on the safer side..I'm seeing it on another major program elsewhere, where a company that has been mainly manufacturing for decades, is now entrusted with Design and Analysis and they've built in a lot more weight than even previous designs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Mar 2009 08:57

was reading an article on Keypub, which was originally written for Flight International..its on the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle..this particular part caught my eye

Basic operating empty weight for the production T-50 is 6,620kg, but the additional test instrumentation took our maximum all-up weight to 8,870kg, with a centre of gravity position of 35.5% mean aerodynamic chord. Limitations on the prototype include a maximum speed of M1.3 (M1.5 for the production T-50) and ceiling of 42,000ft (12,800m 55,000ft for the production version). In all other aerodynamic and control respects the prototype was identical to a production aircraft.

so its empty weight for the production variant is slightly higher than the LCA, for almost similar dimensions and similar engine. and note the 2250 kg EXTRA all-up weight..now I'm not sure whether the empty weight and all-up weight are different due to some fuel, or whether the test instrumentation weighed that much..on the LCA, we do know that there is extra weight due to instrumentation, but how much would it be ? a few hundred kgs ?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 16 Mar 2009 09:27

Kartik wrote:was reading an article on Keypub, which was originally written for Flight International..its on the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle..this particular part caught my eye

Basic operating empty weight for the production T-50 is 6,620kg, but the additional test instrumentation took our maximum all-up weight to 8,870kg, with a centre of gravity position of 35.5% mean aerodynamic chord. Limitations on the prototype include a maximum speed of M1.3 (M1.5 for the production T-50) and ceiling of 42,000ft (12,800m 55,000ft for the production version). In all other aerodynamic and control respects the prototype was identical to a production aircraft.
so its empty weight for the production variant is slightly higher than the LCA, for almost similar dimensions and similar engine. and note the 2250 kg EXTRA all-up weight..now I'm not sure whether the empty weight and all-up weight are different due to some fuel, or whether the test instrumentation weighed that much..on the LCA, we do know that there is extra weight due to instrumentation, but how much would it be ? a few hundred kgs ?

IMO, based on the numbers provided, the all up weight includes fuel. Cannot see how it could be otherwise...

-Vivek

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 16 Mar 2009 16:35

A Russian article on the Tejas

original
http://www.aviaport.ru/news/2009/03/16/168741.html

translated
http://www.online-translator.com//url/w ... 68741.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2009 15:20

Flight Intl. says that the LCA is going to have the Israeli Elta 2052 AESA radar,as we've decided to equip the aircraft with an "off-the-shelf" one instead of trying to develop our own much delayed version.

Here's a brief description of the 2052.

http://defense-update.com/features/du-1 ... r_2052.htm

EL/M-2052 AESA Radar

The Israel's Aerospace Industries (IAI) subsidiary Elta is developing an AESA version of its airborne fire control radar family designated EL/M-2052. This radar utilizes an array of transmit/receive solid-state modules designed to dynamically shape the radiation pattern using ultra-low side-lobe antenna. The radar supports pulse doppler and two axes monopulse guard channel, providing all aspect, look-down shoot-down performance, operating simultaneous multi-mode air-to-air superiority and advanced strike missions. The radar is based on solid-state, active phase array technology enabling the radar to achieve a longer detection range, high mission reliability and a multi-target tracking capability of up to 64 targets. It can also support high resolution target identification and separation, performing raid assessment at long range. as well as surface moving target detection and ranging. In the anti-shipping role the new radar provides long-range target detection, classification and tracking.

With high peak power the radar support simultaneous multi-mode operation. It can detect targets at very long range while tracking up to 64 targets, and, simultaneously engaging several targets with missiles. In ground attack missions the radar supports mapping, navigation and high resolution imagery (SAR), supported with Real Beam Map (RBM) and Doppler Beam Sharpening (DBS) modes. The EL/M-2052 is designed as a modular system, with built in growth capability, computation and memory reserves. Its weighs about 130 - 180kg and consumes 4 - 10KVA, depending on the design configuration.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 17 Mar 2009 15:45

Good!! LCA needs all the leg up it can get. If EL-2052 Astra and python-5/R-73 can be integrated the atleast Air to air variant will be ready for induction. PGMs and AShM later.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Mar 2009 16:26

Philip wrote:Flight Intl. says that the LCA is going to have the Israeli Elta 2052 AESA radar,as we've decided to equip the aircraft with an "off-the-shelf" one instead of trying to develop our own much delayed version.

Probably an over zealous reporter.. I think rakall and K prasad laid this one to rest..

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 17 Mar 2009 17:11

at this moment it looks that the israeli AESA EL/M-2052 is better that indian fighter radar in next five years,
fighter radar hai israeli,
engine americani,
wing me laal missile hai rusi[r-73]
par apna TEJAS LSP HINDUSTANI

kudos to raj kapoor who by his song predicted the great indian indigenous fighter predicament 50 years ago,,,ANYWAYS,kudos to indian scientists for developing A fighter which will serve as a way to reaching FIFTH GENERATION [mca] indigenously in future

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Mar 2009 18:31

Admins>> Flamebait attempt

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 17 Mar 2009 19:08

saptarishi wrote:at this moment it looks that the israeli AESA EL/M-2052 is better that indian fighter radar in next five years,
fighter radar hai israeli,
engine americani,
wing me laal missile hai rusi[r-73]
par apna TEJAS LSP HINDUSTANI

kudos to raj kapoor who by his song predicted the great indian indigenous fighter predicament 50 years ago,,,ANYWAYS,kudos to indian scientists for developing A fighter which will serve as a way to reaching FIFTH GENERATION [mca] indigenously in future

There is no doubt that DRDO over estimated it's capabilities while designing many weapon systems because of which it often gets bad press. However, it must be kept in mind that even these weapon systems have helped India gain vital experience and expertise in many critical areas which otherwise will be impossible. In simple terms we cannot and should not depend on foreign weapon systems all the time, it is just too expensive and risky. That a lot of critical parts for Tejas is of foreign origin is a fact and we must accept it.

wig · Post by **wig** » 17 Mar 2009 21:05

there is nothing wrong in using and of course integrating the best technologies available worldwide.
it helps us leapfrog the intermediate steps. that saves time and money. and if we can persevere i feel certain that these technologies can be optimised with respect to the peculiar conditions - environmental and otherwise- that we operate in.
it is rather simplistic to say thus, but there is no need to reinvent the wheel. out mission to develop the latest and best technologies has to start somewhere!
cheerio

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Mar 2009 22:23

saptarishi wrote:at this moment it looks that the israeli AESA EL/M-2052 is better that indian fighter radar in next five years,
fighter radar hai israeli,
engine americani,
wing me laal missile hai rusi[r-73]
par apna TEJAS LSP HINDUSTANI

kudos to raj kapoor who by his song predicted the great indian indigenous fighter predicament 50 years ago,,,ANYWAYS,kudos to indian scientists for developing A fighter which will serve as a way to reaching FIFTH GENERATION [mca] indigenously in future

wanna try doing that one for the Gripen ? Amriki engine, videshi weapons, and possibly French Thales ya phir Selex radar..dance boy dance.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 17 Mar 2009 22:49

Kartik wrote:
saptarishi wrote:at this moment it looks that the israeli AESA EL/M-2052 is better that indian fighter radar in next five years,
fighter radar hai israeli,
engine americani,
wing me laal missile hai rusi[r-73]
par apna TEJAS LSP HINDUSTANI

kudos to raj kapoor who by his song predicted the great indian indigenous fighter predicament 50 years ago,,,ANYWAYS,kudos to indian scientists for developing A fighter which will serve as a way to reaching FIFTH GENERATION [mca] indigenously in future
wanna try doing that one for the Gripen ? Amriki engine, videshi weapons, and possibly French Thales ya phir Selex radar..dance boy dance.

You fail miserably.. I don´t know what "videshi" means but the radar is´nt from France (some parts of the AESA radar on the Gripen Demo is but please for the love of god. Do some research before you open your fail mouth....)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Mar 2009 22:57

though ot, its important to smash this psyche..its in the raj kapoorian blood. many a desis i have met including my earlier indian boss, who went ballistic during our pok-2 tests, he went, oh my god.. and finally in the argument he just bluntly finishes off like : americans handle it yaar.. we are like that onlee.

its important to have cmm established with a tranche model. we need a concentrated boot camp to put in all raj kapoorians and smoke them, to get liberated.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 17 Mar 2009 22:59

fighter radar hai israeli,
engine americani,
wing me laal missile hai rusi[r-73]
par apna TEJAS LSP HINDUSTANI

Tejas is Hindustani. what matters is who is nodal agency, main contractor, who is assembling, who is building airframe. Amercani, israeli, Russi are all subcontractors. you can change the engine, integrate new missile or radar but not airframe.

You fail miserably.. I don´t know what "videshi" means but the radar is´nt from France (some parts of the AESA radar on the Gripen Demo is but please for the love of god. Do some research before you open your fail mouth....)

I think he was referring to either Thales or Selex. what other options SAAB has BTW?

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 17 Mar 2009 23:07

wanna try doing that one for the Gripen ? Amriki engine, videshi weapons, and possibly French Thales ya phir Selex radar..dance boy dance.

"videshi" means foreign. Which is true, the weapons on gripen are foreign, unless you are gonna tell me that overnight gripen has all swedish weapons, engine, and radar.

Wickberg wrote:You fail miserably.. I don´t know what "videshi" means but the radar is´nt from France (some parts of the AESA radar on the Gripen Demo is but please for the love of god. Do some research before you open your fail mouth....)

Have you seen anyone use this kind of lingo on BRF, BRF is not a forum where you leisurely come and spew childish comments at people. Instead of being rude to someone, why dont u try to understand that he wasnt deriding Grpen but stating the facts. Everyone likes to rip on LCA for having so many foreign components but forget that there are western aircrafts, tanks etc which do the same.
Iam not saying there is anything wrong in using components/weapons from a supplier, just that people need to get rid of the "holier than thou" attitude.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Mar 2009 23:38

Wickberg wrote: You fail miserably.. I don´t know what "videshi" means but the radar is´nt from France (some parts of the AESA radar on the Gripen Demo is but please for the love of god. Do some research before you open your fail mouth....)

fail miserably ?!

tell me if I'm not true-

the Gripen used a F-404 (licence produced by Volvo and customised to some degree to create the RM-12- but its mainly a F-404)

the Gripen NG uses a F-414. the option was the EJ200 (Neither are remotely Swedish)

The Gripen uses not even a SINGLE Swedish developed AAM. AMRAAM, IRIS-T, Meteor, Sidewinder, etc. etc...all VIDESHI (FOREIGN DESIGNED, FOREIGN MADE). most A2G weapons are non-Swedish.

Its PS-05A engine is indigenous, but for the AESA, they want to collaborate with Thales or Selex for the T/X modules and only retain the PS-05A's backend. so its basically a hybrid.

So point out what is wrong in this. if Sweden is so capable of doing everything on its own, why not its own engine, its own AESA T/X modules, why not its own weapons--except for the RBS-15, every weapon used on the Gripen is made by someone else.

as for your language, it goes to show that you're a "Fail Mouth" Gripen supporter who doesn't even know what is true about the Gripen. tujhe mirchi lagi toh mae kya karoon..

Anyway, my post was meant to show the inherent double standards even Indians have towards the LCA. all the "shortcomings" they point out on the LCA related to its foreign components, are seen on other "successful" designs like the Gripen, which of course they will never mention. and then we have smart alecs who'll suggest JVs or partnership with foreign companies as if that would result in wholly indigenous products.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Mar 2009 23:51

Kartik wrote:Anyway, my post was meant to show the inherent double standards even Indians have towards the LCA. all the "shortcomings" they point out on the LCA related to its foreign components, are seen on other "successful" designs like the Gripen, which of course they will never mention. and then we have smart alecs who'll suggest JVs or partnership with foreign companies as if that would result in wholly indigenous products.

Kartik,

I admire the time you spend refuting comments that include words like "you fail" etc. Personally, I wouldn't bother spending time replying to such comments.

We know where the LCA stands. The LCA will arrive despite the comments of people on this forum, the media and the world. After all, it has been doing the same throughout its development and today we are at the threshold of initial production. It is a tide, my friend, that cannot be stopped!

And those are not JMT!

-Vivek

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 18 Mar 2009 00:01

vivek_ahuja wrote: The LCA will arrive despite the comments of people on this forum, the media and the world. After all, it has been doing the same throughout its development flight and today we are at the threshold of initial mass production. It is a tide, my friend, that cannot be stopped!
-Vivek

satya vachan.....If we can wait for this long, a lil more time will be nothing.

sabra ka phal meetha hota hai

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Mar 2009 00:38

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Kartik wrote:Anyway, my post was meant to show the inherent double standards even Indians have towards the LCA. all the "shortcomings" they point out on the LCA related to its foreign components, are seen on other "successful" designs like the Gripen, which of course they will never mention. and then we have smart alecs who'll suggest JVs or partnership with foreign companies as if that would result in wholly indigenous products.
Kartik,

I admire the time you spend refuting comments that include words like "you fail" etc. Personally, I wouldn't bother spending time replying to such comments.

We know where the LCA stands. The LCA will arrive despite the comments of people on this forum, the media and the world. After all, it has been doing the same throughout its development flight and today we are at the threshold of initial mass production. It is a tide, my friend, that cannot be stopped!

And those are not JMT!

-Vivek

you're right Vivek. but I failed to see what I said made him lose it- those are all well known points about the Gripen.

earlier as well, this particular guy had posted that the Gripen and Tejas ought not to be even be compared, which was pure bombast, since they're in the same light fighter category as far as the IAF is concerned. Just because the Gripen has been in service for a decade doesn't make it some incomparable super fighter.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Mar 2009 00:50

imho, its too early to get into a contest with gripen. perhaps a nice showdown can be done in another thread, (mrca? since gripen competes there).

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 18 Mar 2009 01:40

Kartik wrote: Its PS-05A engine is indigenous, but for the AESA, they want to collaborate with Thales or Selex for the T/X modules and only retain the PS-05A's backend. so its basically a hybrid.

Anyway, my post was meant to show the inherent double standards even Indians have towards the LCA. all the "shortcomings" they point out on the LCA related to its foreign components, are seen on other "successful" designs like the Gripen, which of course they will never mention. and then we have smart alecs who'll suggest JVs or partnership with foreign companies as if that would result in wholly indigenous products.

That is just for the Gripen Demo, not the Gripen NG. The Gripen NG will have a 100% Swedish Aesa (a development of the NORA) Remember that Sweden was the 1st country in the world to have an airborne AESA radar (Eiryeye) . I have never said anything about the rest of the Gripen its weapons etc being foreign, as it´s a what the Swedish Air force chose. But you said the radar was french, and that is plain wrong so I corrected you. Since this is a LCA thread I will not go deeper into Gripen, but when someone say something that is completely wrong I think it is OK to correct them...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Mar 2009 02:17

Wickberg wrote: That is just for the Gripen Demo, not the Gripen NG. The Gripen NG will have a 100% Swedish Aesa (a development of the NORA) Remember that Sweden was the 1st country in the world to have an airborne AESA radar (Eiryeye) . I have never said anything about the rest of the Gripen its weapons etc being foreign, as it´s a what the Swedish Air force chose. But you said the radar was french, and that is plain wrong so I corrected you. Since this is a LCA thread I will not go deeper into Gripen, but when someone say something that is completely wrong I think it is OK to correct them...

completely wrong ? nothing is for certain as of now even for the NG program. the AESA that will be shown to customers like India or Brazil will not be an in-development NORA, but a Thales or Selex development.

read here

On the key question of AESA radar, Wallin notes that Sweden now follows a procurement strategy whereby the country is "no longer doing everything itself. When it comes to subsystems we want as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible, but fully supported out to 2040".

He continues: "Sweden is assessing what's on the market and what is on the development 'track'. When the demonstrator flies with an AESA fitted in 2010 or 2011, it will still not have the full range of AESA capabilities. Today these radars are still just radars, but in the future they will be doing communications and electronic warfare.

and as per Bill Sweetman,
here

But three things happened: Thales and Dassault were given the go-ahead to develop and produce the AESA for Rafale; Dassault has taken a large shareholding in Thales; and the Gripen NG has emerged—in India and Brazil—as a competitor to Rafale. Thales will honor the Gripen Demo contract but its AESA will not be available for a production NG.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that Saab is in talks with Selex about using its AESA technology in the Gripen NG radar. The NG is not competing with the Typhoon except in India.

so, it looks like Thales is the one not keen on its AESA being used for the NG, not Gripen International, which is now having discussions with Selex instead.

even for the NORA, it is using Raytheon's AESA Tx/Rx modules, not 100% Swedish.

and this is pragmatic- one doesn't need to develop all technologies oneself when it could simply be bought off the shelf.

but what gets me angry is when people gloss over it being done on foreign weapons systems, but crib and ridicule it when its done on Indian weapons systems..

anyway, looking at the Tejas, there is a similar approach one could say- there is an indigenous AESA in the works, and the indigenous AEW&C will be using an Indian made AESA radar. but, for the time being, the Israeli 2032/Indian MMR hybrid will be used. when India gains sufficient experience, they will no longer require (at least hopefully) any Israeli components on the Tejas Mk.2 AESA radar.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 18 Mar 2009 02:31

Kartik wrote:
Wickberg wrote: You fail miserably.. I don´t know what "videshi" means but the radar is´nt from France (some parts of the AESA radar on the Gripen Demo is but please for the love of god. Do some research before you open your fail mouth....)
fail miserably ?!

tell me if I'm not true-

the Gripen used a F-404 (licence produced by Volvo and customised to some degree to create the RM-12- but its mainly a F-404)

the Gripen NG uses a F-414. the option was the EJ200 (Neither are remotely Swedish)

The Gripen uses not even a SINGLE Swedish developed AAM. AMRAAM, IRIS-T, Meteor, Sidewinder, etc. etc...all VIDESHI (FOREIGN DESIGNED, FOREIGN MADE). most A2G weapons are non-Swedish.

Its PS-05A engine is indigenous, but for the AESA, they want to collaborate with Thales or Selex for the T/X modules and only retain the PS-05A's backend. so its basically a hybrid.

So point out what is wrong in this. if Sweden is so capable of doing everything on its own, why not its own engine, its own AESA T/X modules, why not its own weapons--except for the RBS-15, every weapon used on the Gripen is made by someone else.

as for your language, it goes to show that you're a "Fail Mouth" Gripen supporter who doesn't even know what is true about the Gripen. tujhe mirchi lagi toh mae kya karoon..

Anyway, my post was meant to show the inherent double standards even Indians have towards the LCA. all the "shortcomings" they point out on the LCA related to its foreign components, are seen on other "successful" designs like the Gripen, which of course they will never mention. and then we have smart alecs who'll suggest JVs or partnership with foreign companies as if that would result in wholly indigenous products.

I know I should´nt answer this post but I will do it anyway.
1st- I have never claimed Sweden is capable of doing everything on its own. I know they are, they have been making world class fighter jets for over 60 years, but there simply has´nt been a need.
2nd - As for jet engine to the Gripen. It was concluded that best choice was to use an american engine, modified and produced in Sweden. It was the a costeffective solution and we could get it in time. As a bonus Volvo Aero got its hands in many other jet engine deals and now owns over 50% of the GE414 and produces parts in over 80% of the world commercial jet engines. As oppose to India who decided to try to design its own engine...that does´nt goes so well.....
3rd-The last time the question of Sweden making an indigenous AAM was in the late 70s. Like many times before that it was voted down cause of one simple reason. If Sweden would ever go to war it would been against the Soviets, in that case it would be pretty good if our air force could have re supplied of missiles from other NATO countries. We did however together with the Brits develop the Active Skyflash, which turned in to the Meteor. And SAAB also has a stake in the Iris-T, so Europe is trying to get away from the American AAM monopoly and SAAB is a very active player there.

That was a whole lot of info about the Gripen and I have been saying not to compare them two.
My impression of the LCA is however, the planning crew have been far to optimistic. Planned to be in service in he mid 1990s.... that never happened. It can still be a fine fighter, it´s just when you read some of the comments from fanboys here. Its like the LCA Mk2 will be a F22, the world best invention after the wheel.

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 18 Mar 2009 02:41

Wickberg wrote:
That was a whole lot of info about the Gripen and I have been saying not to compare them two.
My impression of the LCA is however, the planning crew have been far to optimistic. Planned to be in service in he mid 1990s.... that never happened. It can still be a fine fighter, it´s just when you read some of the comments from fanboys here. Its like the LCA Mk2 will be a F22, the world best invention after the wheel.

It seems that you are speaking out of your backside here.
Please post links where the LCA has been made out to be an F22 killer or even of the same class as the F22. I certainly do not remember anyone making such claims. I believe just about everyone hear understands the challenges and the limitations that the design and manufacturing process of the LCA imposes on the program and the outcome.

Planned to be in service in the 1990s? Who made these plans?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 18 Mar 2009 03:02

It can still be a fine fighter, it´s just when you read some of the comments from fanboys here. Its like the LCA Mk2 will be a F22

Wickberg, please provide the link where here in BRF the LCA was equated with the Raptor.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 18 Mar 2009 03:04

Wickberg wrote:That was a whole lot of info about the Gripen and I have been saying not to compare them two.
My impression of the LCA is however, the planning crew have been far to optimistic. Planned to be in service in he mid 1990s.... that never happened. It can still be a fine fighter, it´s just when you read some of the comments from fanboys here. Its like the LCA Mk2 will be a F22, the world best invention after the wheel.

Wickberg.... what you are saying is totally double standards. You get defensive and start calling people names if something is said about Gripen but then you go on talking about LCA as you know everything about the program. As for LCA being supposed to be all ready in the 1990's, its just bile being propogated but Defense jounalist who had no idea when the program started.

Seriously though....think bout it, you are basically on an indian forum calling names to indian products. You also fail to realize that you guys had the access to western technology, on the other hand we had to make do with what we had.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Mar 2009 03:15

Wickberg wrote:
I know I should´nt answer this post but I will do it anyway.

That was a whole lot of info about the Gripen and I have been saying not to compare them two.
My impression of the LCA is however, the planning crew have been far to optimistic. Planned to be in service in he mid 1990s.... that never happened. It can still be a fine fighter, it´s just when you read some of the comments from fanboys here. Its like the LCA Mk2 will be a F22, the world best invention after the wheel.

if you've been following the discussion on the AeroIndia thread or the LCA thread, where most of the posters are writing about the LCA, you'll find that people are discussing what the issues are with it currently. I've yet to come across anyone making claims of the Mk.2 being a F-22. since you're claiming so, show me the post where someone said that.

and since you're yanking the LCA's chain regarding schedule, let me tell you clearly that had the LCA program suffered a crashed prototype like the Gripen did, it most likely would've been ended by ignorant people and those who have a vested interest in its failure..and believe me there are LOTs of them around.

there are no fanboys here, let me make that clear. this isn't a juvenile forum (at least for the most part) where LOLLZZZ type posts are entertained. discussions are based on what is known of the LCA, what is expected, within realms of current or envisaged engineering skills available, not hypothetical death star type capabilities.

and those who're in favour of the LCA here are people who are in favour of indigenisation and the benefits of overall technology insertion into the Indian industry as a result of this program. we are well aware of what mistakes were made and you won't find a single person who'll say there were none made. there's a lot more I could write about the experience gained, and the potential applications of its technologies, but I'm afraid you'll just paint me as a "fanboy", so I won't waste my time.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 18 Mar 2009 03:38

Kartik wrote:
Wickberg wrote:
I know I should´nt answer this post but I will do it anyway.

That was a whole lot of info about the Gripen and I have been saying not to compare them two.
My impression of the LCA is however, the planning crew have been far to optimistic. Planned to be in service in he mid 1990s.... that never happened. It can still be a fine fighter, it´s just when you read some of the comments from fanboys here. Its like the LCA Mk2 will be a F22, the world best invention after the wheel.
if you've been following the discussion on the AeroIndia thread or the LCA thread, where most of the posters are writing about the LCA, you'll find that people are discussing what the issues are with it currently. I've yet to come across anyone making claims of the Mk.2 being a F-22. since you're claiming so, show me the post where someone said that.

there are no fanboys here, let me make that clear. this isn't a juvenile forum (at least for the most part) where LOLLZZZ type posts are entertained. discussions are based on what is known of the LCA, what is expected, within realms of current or envisaged engineering skills available, not hypothetical death star type capabilities.

and those who're in favour of the LCA here are people who are in favour of indigenisation and the benefits of overall technology insertion into the Indian industry as a result of this program. we are well aware of what mistakes were made and you won't find a single person who'll say there were none made. there's a lot more I could write about the experience gained, and the potential applications of its technologies, but I'm afraid you'll just paint me as a "fanboy", so I won't waste my time.

I´ll get you loud and clear. Maybe I exaggerated the cries of some LCA fanboys but to cut to the core. Bill Sweetman is´nt exactly the most reliable source you can rely on. Gripen NG will have a Swedish AESA radar and the Gripen Demo will have a AESA radar that is partially french.
LCA was meant to replace to old MiG21s starting in the mid 1990s, everyone knows this even if some here refuse to phase the facts. I know this is an Indian forum but this statement is not a criticize to the plane it self, it´s a criticize to the guys who planned this whole project. Tell me, if LCA is such an success why you had to buy Mirage 2000s and have this MRCA deal now?

The deal with Thales is suppose to end at the year 2010. All according to plan. SAAB has worked with Selex for many years and both parties seems quite happy with it. They have actually come up with some new products they are currently trying to sell to both BAe and other companies so I don´t think they are about to end this corporation....

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Mar 2009 03:51

Wickberg wrote: I´ll get you loud and clear. Maybe I exaggerated the cries of some LCA fanboys but to cut to the core. Bill Sweetman is´nt exactly the most reliable source you can rely on. Gripen NG will have a Swedish AESA radar and the Gripen Demo will have a AESA radar that is partially french.

in which case, I'd like to see a more reliable source that confirms that the Gripen NG will have the NORA and not any other radar. even then, the NORA currently has Raytheon Tx/Rx modules- are they going to be Swedish in the future ? if so, please provide a source.

LCA was meant to replace to old MiG21s starting in the mid 1990s, everyone knows this even if some here refuse to phase the facts. I know this is an Indian forum but this statement is not a criticize to the plane it self, it´s a criticize to the guys who planned this whole project. Tell me, if LCA is such an success why you had to buy Mirage 2000s and have this MRCA deal now?

granted that they made a big mistake in their initial estimation, but there were several factors that made it even worse- the financial crisis of the early 90s, the US embargo, the seizing of equipment by the US, and non-release of computers that contained data crucial to the LCA. it meant that where flight testing of the FBW was being done in US on a F-16 VISTA, it needed to be REDONE from scratch in India. this is highly complex digital quadruplex FBW, which India (or any other Asian country for that matter) hadn't even attempted on its own till then.

and importantly, the fear that failure of a single prototype was not acceptable. it would simply end the program. if a single Gripen prototype like crash had happened at the start of the LCA program, it would've ended at the Technology Demo phase itself. that meant that everything was done very cautiously, slowly and margins were built in (which led to weight gain). those US sanctions alone meant a delay of 3-4 years for things to be developed in-house rather than be sourced from foreign vendors. in the long-run its a good thing for India, but in the case of the LCA, gave it a bad name. There is however, one thing I must add- being a public sector undertaking, there is a difference in the way the uppre management views things- in a private sector, schedule, time tables, profits, etc. drive decision making. because the organisations developing the LCA are public sectors, the decision making is inherently slower and lethargic due to necessary permissions required from the Govt.

on Mirage-2000s, the 10 that IAF purchased in 2002 were only for attrition replacements. because of the standing of the Mirage-2000 in the IAF, it wanted a Mirage-2000 type fighter to replace all the MiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-27s that would be needed to be phased out in the late 2000s. the MiG-21 replacement was postponed by going for the Bison upgrade, which was not connected to the MiG-23 replacement (Mirage-2000), which eventually grew out of hand into the MRCA contest we see today.

The deal with Thales is suppose to end at the year 2010. All according to plan. SAAB has worked with Selex for many years and both parties seems quite happy with it. They have actually come up with some new products they are currently trying to sell to both BAe and other companies so I don´t think they are about to end this corporation....

so what ? Selex is not Swedish. the point I was making is that they were looking for a foreign partner for the AESA radar. you still haven't shown how I was wrong in claiming that.