Trikaal wrote:Pratyush wrote:
Then the engine will need to change from 414 to something more powerful. Like the AL31 or its American equivalent.
Why? F-16 and Gripen-E fly with F-414, don't they? Both the aircrafts are considered medium build. Tejas Mk2 just has to achieve similar nos in range, speed and payload which HAL believes would be achievable. The problem earlier was attaining those nos in a light aircraft.
It would be nice to do some basic research before you post.
The Gripen E is powered by the F414 with a max wet thrust of 98kN.
F-16s have been powered by several different versions of 2 different engines the PW F100 and the GE F110 both of which are more powerful than the F414. Late model F-16s have the F100-PW-229 (129kN). Some versions like UAE's blk 60 have the F110-GE-132 variant making 144kN.
Brochure claims aside, simple physics will tell you that the Gripen will not be able to lift the same payload as an F-16 with so much more power available. That does not stop Saab from claiming ridiculous values for the Gripen's max payload in brochures. Evaluations by the Swiss and Indian AFs brought out the truth however. The Swiss evaluation comparative report was posted here earlier to show how hollow Saab's claims are. Not surprising since they were basically hawking us vaporware during the MRCA trials considering that the definitive Gripen E prototype made its first flight only in June 2017.
Yet like clockwork, we always have someone righteously asking why ADA/HAL cannot match the Gripen's brochure claims in the Tejas Mk2.