Aero India 2009

Locked
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Singha »

I suppose Sweden's "ordinary" roads may be slightly different form our "ordinary" roads.

there would be special stretches with hidden base hangers nearby in the woods. but no country can afford to kit up all its roads as runways.
in that sense even the pakis operate C-130 and fighters off their hyundai built motorway.
rahuldevnath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 26 May 2006 22:10
Location: Bangalore, India
Contact:

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by rahuldevnath »

Of all the pics I uploaded for Aero India, do'nt know why, but left Saras. I'm uploading some good resolution pics.. the last of it. :(

Image

Image

The Pics are optimised for 16:9 Wallpaper.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Singha »

what is that beehive pattern on the tails? are they pressure transducers for stress test?

eurofighter proto was painted all black to hide the transducers for this kind of test.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by ramana »

Has anyone done a comparison of Grippen and LCA? I don't see how Grippen becomes a MRCA?
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by sunilUpa »

ramana wrote:Has anyone done a comparison of Grippen and LCA? I don't see how Grippen becomes a MRCA?
Infact Grippen NG, Rafale, Mig 35 and F-16 are the real MRCA! F-18 and Typhoon are heavy category!
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by dorai »

ramana wrote:Has anyone done a comparison of Grippen and LCA? I don't see how Grippen becomes a MRCA?
Gripen with one p.

Gripen IN has a bit more capability than both F-16 and MIG-35 so why not ask the question about the other two jets instead? But one major point here is that Gripen and F-16 unlike LCA is mature multirole jets with a large weapons package already integrated. They also come with more advanced avionics. LCA is cheap for a reason and should not take on the M-MRCA role.
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Rishirishi »

Rishirishi wrote:
ramana wrote:Has anyone done a comparison of Grippen and LCA? I don't see how Grippen becomes a MRCA?
General characteristics
Gripen LCA
Crew: 1 (2 for JAS 39B/D) 1
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in) 13,2
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in) 8,4
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) 4,4
Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²) 38.4
Empty weight: 5,700 kg (14,600 lb) 5500
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb) 8500
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) 14500
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf) 54,9
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) 85
Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)
Length (two-seater): 14.8 m (48 ft 5 in)
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,130 km/h, 1,320 mph) 2,08
Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks 3000
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft) 54000ft
Wing loading: 336 kg/m² (68.8 lb/ft²) 221,4
Thrust/weight: 0.97 01.02
Armament


1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 120 rounds GSH with 220 rounds
6 × Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)
6 × Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA
4 x Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor
4 x Rb.75
2 x KEPD.350
4 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
4 x rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets


Did they steal the design :shock: :shock:
From the above post it is evident that the LCA and gripen are very very simmilar. It can be either Gripen or LCA. perhaps the Gripen is a good choice, if the LCA does not materilise. Gripen is reasonable and cost effective to opperate. If India could produce this aircraft for a lower price, then it may be sold to many other countres.
Last edited by Rishirishi on 09 Mar 2009 04:06, edited 1 time in total.
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Virupaksha »

dorai wrote: Gripen with one p.

Gripen IN has a bit more capability than both F-16 and MIG-35 so why not ask the question about the other two jets instead? But one major point here is that Gripen and F-16 unlike LCA is mature multirole jets with a large weapons package already integrated. They also come with more advanced avionics. LCA is cheap for a reason and should not take on the M-MRCA role.
Dorai,
if the f-16 or the mig-35 or gripen have anything similar to what LCA has to offer, we shouldnt take them. and I dont understand why India needs to spend more if they can get it out of LCA.
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Rishirishi »

ravi_ku wrote:
dorai wrote: Gripen with one p.

Gripen IN has a bit more capability than both F-16 and MIG-35 so why not ask the question about the other two jets instead? But one major point here is that Gripen and F-16 unlike LCA is mature multirole jets with a large weapons package already integrated. They also come with more advanced avionics. LCA is cheap for a reason and should not take on the M-MRCA role.
Dorai,
if the f-16 or the mig-35 or gripen have anything similar to what LCA has to offer, we shouldnt take them. and I dont understand why India needs to spend more if they can get it out of LCA.
Look at the comparison above and you will see that the LCA is practicaly the same plane as the gripen. LCA probably has some major problems. If not, the Sweeds would not be so hopeful.
Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Srivastav »

Rishirishi wrote: Look at the comparison above and you will see that the LCA is practicaly the same plane as the gripen. LCA probably has some major problems. If not, the Sweeds would not be so hopeful.
Sir, after being a member for this long, it doesnt behoove you to make unqualified statements like these. On the other hand if we are allowed to make unsubstantiated and ficticious statement on BRF then here is one from me, "Rafale must have millions of problem, because no airforce except french seems to like it" as you see one can make a statement like this about anything and the beauty of it all is that you can claim its your personal opinion, thus negating the requirement of a proof.

Please, do enlighten me regarding these major problems you foresee.
kobe
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 28 Nov 2008 14:26
Location: Tang Bohu' Village, Suzhou

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by kobe »

Singha wrote:I suppose Sweden's "ordinary" roads may be slightly different form our "ordinary" roads.

there would be special stretches with hidden base hangers nearby in the woods. but no country can afford to kit up all its roads as runways.
in that sense even the pakis operate C-130 and fighters off their hyundai built motorway.
Super Hornet is taking off from aircraft carriers daily, so whats the big deal about take off and landing from ordinery roads? the main selling point of gripen marketing team is that it is a low-maintenance a/c and therefore it can land on highway or semi-prepared runway and be refuelled or re-armed and take off again within minutes.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by ramana »

Rishi^2, thanks for the comparison. There was a reason I asked :) . I knew it before but having another member post it makes it more credible.

So how come with same specs as LCA the Gripen (with one p) becomes a MRCA and LCA is not?
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by negi »

The kind of aircraft which are competing against each other in MRCA tender always make me wonder that either the RFP was ambiguous or it was yet again insistence of incompetent UPA to somehow have multiple vendors participate in the deal. Two of them Gripen and LM are busy making paper planes NG/IN or whatever ,while typhoon and Rafale are priced in a different league all together , and then there is Mig-35 which is not in service in any AF and there is very little info/specs for its sensor suite, which again are new/unproven.
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by sunilUpa »

ramana wrote:

So how come with same specs as LCA the Gripen (with one p) becomes a MRCA and LCA is not?
Because those Gripen specs are not that of Gripen IN. Gripen IN is Gripen NG.

Gripen NG

SAAB Press release
Gripen IN is based on the newly launched Gripen NG, the next generation of Gripen, an enhanced version of the well proven Net Centric Warfare Gripen multi-role fighter, which has unbeatable low acquisition, operation and support costs. Gripen IN provides freedom of choice in weapons and sensors and an unrivalled sustained sortie generation rate through high availability.
Now compare.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by ramana »

So it has a bigger thrust engine and more internal fuel to accommodate that and extra stations.

Thanks, ramana
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by negi »

Hmm.. but no info on whether the wing area/aspect ratio has been changed , if not then like the latest block F-16's this Gripen-NG too will have a higher wing loading than a basic Gripen;which generally translates to limited maneuverability .
Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Wickberg »

ramana wrote:So it has a bigger thrust engine and more internal fuel to accommodate that and extra stations.

Thanks, ramana
The biggest changes are those you can´t see from the outside, it´s inside. It´s things like radar, EWS, datalinks and those computer thingies I don´t know so much about. Gripen was meant to be easily upgraded with the latest electronics inside to fit export customers need and the need of the future. We have seen it going from Gripen A/B to Gripen C/D and now Gripen Next Generation with very little changes on the fuselage, but the aircrafts themselves are very different...
Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Wickberg »

negi wrote:Hmm.. but no info on whether the wing area/aspect ratio has been changed , if not then like the latest block F-16's this Gripen-NG too will have a higher wing loading than a basic Gripen;which generally translates to limited maneuverability .
No it wont. The new stations are under the belly. They have simply moved the landing gears from the belly to the wing roots, thus freeing 40% more internal fuel and new stations. A much better solution then the CFTs F-16 went with IMHO (that just makes the plane look ugly :wink:
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by negi »

^ Boss wing loading refers to the ratio of wing area to the weight of the airplane.Whatever re-arrangement you do if there is a weight increase (Gripen NG vs Gripen) then wing loading will increase unless the wing area has been increased in proportion.And I don't think that cluttered Belly will be generating any useful lift (unlike the Flanker/Fulcrums).
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by dorai »

Gripen NG can take higher loads on the wings due to the new design and the whole aircraft itself is only 4% heavier while the engine is 22% stronger.
Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Dileep »

Stoopid question. How is the word Gripen pronunced? Graip-en or Grip-en?
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by dorai »

Dileep wrote:Stoopid question. How is the word Gripen pronunced? Graip-en or Grip-en?
Swedes say Gri-pen.. With the i sounding like the I in India.. The English say gripp-en... your own choice :)

And btw about those new belly stations, the new ventral pylons is regarded to have a positive effect on stability at high speed turns and high AoA from experience on the JA37 Viggen.

(Also a reason why the later F-16 models adopted ventral fins)
ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by ArmenT »

kobe wrote:
Singha wrote:I suppose Sweden's "ordinary" roads may be slightly different form our "ordinary" roads.

there would be special stretches with hidden base hangers nearby in the woods. but no country can afford to kit up all its roads as runways.
in that sense even the pakis operate C-130 and fighters off their hyundai built motorway.
Super Hornet is taking off from aircraft carriers daily, so whats the big deal about take off and landing from ordinery roads? the main selling point of gripen marketing team is that it is a low-maintenance a/c and therefore it can land on highway or semi-prepared runway and be refuelled or re-armed and take off again within minutes.
Taking off from an aircraft carrier is a bit different from taking off from an ordinary road. For one thing, you have people walking the flight line every morning to make sure that there aren't any loose bolts and nuts that can be ingested by the engine. (Bigger problem with US jets, not so much with other countries jets though) For another thing, there isn't a danger of the airplane sinking into the tarmac, since it is designed to take that weight. Also, the tarmac is designed to not melt from the jet's exhaust. Swedes generally designate several highway points that can be used as ad-hoc runways, but these sections are constructed of reinforced materials and usually have a small building nearby to house the jets and keep them hidden from view.
K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 973
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by K Mehta »

Singha wrote:what is that beehive pattern on the tails?
They are tufts of threads, they are used to show the direction of airflow and whether there is separation of airflow from plane body. I am no aero guru though, just some general gyan.
Image
This image clearly shows the direction of airflow especially around those miniature air-intakes.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by negi »

^ Hmm interesting that sounds very much similar to the dimples on the 'Golf ball'
i.e. inducing a turbulent flow to reduce the separation of the flow aft of the aircraft to reduce pressure drag.I remember the USPS team's leader Lance Armstrong's jersey too had a similar dotted pattern on his back.
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by dorai »

ArmenT wrote:
Swedes generally designate several highway points that can be used as ad-hoc runways, but these sections are constructed of reinforced materials and usually have a small building nearby to house the jets and keep them hidden from view.
That's not really accurate. There's no small houses or things like that.. at most there is service pocket in between trees and a raised tent. The road strips are close to a main or side-base where the service crews with fuel and ammo originates from. The best way to describe the Swedish dispersed system is like having a ordinary base that has added runways out on the road network near that base.

The Swedish STOL concept is not just for the roads but also for when the main or side-bases (field base) has been bombed by enemy air or cruise missiles and you operate on unbombed runway patches. Like this pic demonstrates;

Image
Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1409
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Rishirishi »

sunilUpa wrote:
ramana wrote:

So how come with same specs as LCA the Gripen (with one p) becomes a MRCA and LCA is not?
Because those Gripen specs are not that of Gripen IN. Gripen IN is Gripen NG.

Gripen NG

SAAB Press release
Gripen IN is based on the newly launched Gripen NG, the next generation of Gripen, an enhanced version of the well proven Net Centric Warfare Gripen multi-role fighter, which has unbeatable low acquisition, operation and support costs. Gripen IN provides freedom of choice in weapons and sensors and an unrivalled sustained sortie generation rate through high availability.
Now compare.
So why is it not possible to upgrade the LCA to simmilar specs, considering that LCA and Gripen have simmilar size? Aircrafts capability constantly grow as new tech enters the market. Hence in the future the MRCA "SIZE" aircrafts will also be more capable then the ones today.

The Gripen can fills the role of LCA very well, that is it. One possible option cold be to codevelop the MRCA with the Sweeds, in excange for dropping the LCA in favor of Gripen. Here is how it can work:

LCA is produced in limited numbers (Assuming that it does not fulfill the requirements of IAF), Gripen is bought in 50+ numbers. The Sweeds have to co fund and co-develop a MRCA, which is produced in 250+ number. Thw sweeds have the technical capability to undertake such a task.
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by dorai »

Rishirishi wrote:
So why is it not possible to upgrade the LCA to simmilar specs, considering that LCA and Gripen have simmilar size? Aircrafts capability constantly grow as new tech enters the market. Hence in the future the MRCA "SIZE" aircrafts will also be more capable then the ones today.

The Gripen can fills the role of LCA very well, that is it. One possible option cold be to codevelop the MRCA with the Sweeds, in excange for dropping the LCA in favor of Gripen. Here is how it can work:

LCA is produced in limited numbers (Assuming that it does not fulfill the requirements of IAF), Gripen is bought in 50+ numbers. The Sweeds have to co fund and co-develop a MRCA, which is produced in 250+ number. Thw sweeds have the technical capability to undertake such a task.
LCA can be upgraded in many ways but each new technology and weapons take time and risks to develop and integrate unless you import ready-made. It's a painfully slow process. What you say is in part on offer by the Europeans and maybe most of all Saab who is really pushing the partnership idea... that if India select Gripen they promise to help with system commonality for Tejas MKx and SU-30MKI, fit them with latest generation electronic warfare systems and datalinks and as one of their selling points to co-finance and develop a MCA 5th gen fighter and in the process transfer all their technology to make India a exporter of 5th gen aircraft. All they want is a share of that cake... they have a similar offer on the table to South Korea who is considering their own 5th gen fighter since they can't buy F-22.

Saab made some moves already by opening the ADDC design centre in India and a few days ago Indian engineers moved to Sweden for training... they will then go back to india and work there as a part of Saab aircraft design team.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... ership.htm
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by sunilUpa »

:eek: :eek: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

OMG what were they thinking?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by shiv »

I got this in Aero India and put up a (worse quality) video on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKJ63lihmEw
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Singha »

the media PR consultant must have a degree from a mumbai college to work that in lol :twisted:
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by p_saggu »

Mig 35 Bangalore pilot woman Suman Sharma Aero India 2009 / МиГ 35 и Суман Шарма

:D Includes some gems as Our Ace shooter Abhinav Bindra, showing he has two left feet when it comes to getting out of a fighter, and the bangalore Autos - clearly a design that has impressed the Russians a lot
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by p_saggu »

Err,
How common is it for our defence forces to speak foreign languages? Especially russian given the large percentage of defence equipment is of russian lineage.
aditp
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by aditp »

kobe wrote:
Singha wrote:I suppose Sweden's "ordinary" roads may be slightly different form our "ordinary" roads.

there would be special stretches with hidden base hangers nearby in the woods. but no country can afford to kit up all its roads as runways.
in that sense even the pakis operate C-130 and fighters off their hyundai built motorway.
Super Hornet is taking off from aircraft carriers daily, so whats the big deal about take off and landing from ordinery roads? the main selling point of gripen marketing team is that it is a low-maintenance a/c and therefore it can land on highway or semi-prepared runway and be refuelled or re-armed and take off again within minutes.
SH takes off from A/C with the help of a very powerful steam catapult and lands in the short distance with the help of an arrestor wire. Neither is possible to be placed on a public road. The only solution is a long straight, wide and level road to double up as a runway - a very expensive solution.


PS - it must also be kept gravel free.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by geeth »

>>>Err,
>>>How common is it for our defence forces to speak foreign languages? Especially russian given the large percentage of defence equipment is of russian lineage.

As part of their training, the crew undergo language courses. This is particularly true with Russian and people on deputation to Russia go through a basic course in Russian before they leave the shores, or else have to resort to same action as that of the newsreader for the hearing impaired.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Surya »

There are language courses

I am not sure how fluent they get.

When I encountered the folks it has been kind of listening to a Punjabi Mandarin or Tamil Mandarin :D

My concern has always been how well they can pick up the dialects etc on the chinese side - knowing how tough it is for Chinese speakers from diff areas.

Maybe RayC can fill us on that
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1083
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Kailash »

Set of webcasts of the three days - but only first day videos worked for me :cry:

http://www.24framesdigital.com/aeroindia2009/
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Kartik »

Rishirishi wrote: General characteristics
Gripen LCA
Crew: 1 (2 for JAS 39B/D) 1
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in) 13,2
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in) 8,4
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) 4,4
Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²) 38.4
Empty weight: 5,700 kg (14,600 lb) 5500
Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb) 8500
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) 14500
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf) 54,9
Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) 85
Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)
Length (two-seater): 14.8 m (48 ft 5 in)
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,130 km/h, 1,320 mph) 2,08
Combat radius: 800 km (500 mi, 432 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi) with drop tanks 3000
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft) 54000ft
Wing loading: 336 kg/m² (68.8 lb/ft²) 221,4
Thrust/weight: 0.97 01.02
Armament


1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 120 rounds GSH with 220 rounds
6 × Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)
6 × Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA
4 x Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor
4 x Rb.75
2 x KEPD.350
4 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
4 x rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets


Did they steal the design :shock: :shock:

From the above post it is evident that the LCA and gripen are very very simmilar. It can be either Gripen or LCA. perhaps the Gripen is a good choice, if the LCA does not materilise. Gripen is reasonable and cost effective to opperate. If India could produce this aircraft for a lower price, then it may be sold to many other countres.
there's some specs that don't seem to match up to what you're stating from Wikipedia..for instance, the max. speed mentioned..the LCA is not designed to be capable of flight beyond Mach 2 and it cannot be, with fixed inlets. with the LCA, the max. speed is actually Mach 1.8. and the weight WAS supposed to be 5500 kg, but its closer to 6300 kgs. weight reduction exercises may reduce it further to 6000 kgs at most.

but its rather clear that the Gripen A/B/C/D and Tejas Mk.1 are in almost the same class of fighters, weight/thrust/dimension wise. in terms of capability, obviously the Gripen is much much more mature.

But, with the Gripen NG and LCA Mk.2, the weight classes are slightly different- the empty weight of the NG goes up to 7100 kgs, and a max. takeoff weight of 15,652 pounds (source) , whereas the LCA Mk.2 should have, hopefully and theoretically, stayed near 6500 kgs only- first due to a weight reduction on the Production Tejas Mk.1 and then a slight increase on the Mk.2 due to whatever modifications to the engine bay and intakes that were required to install a new engine.

more crucially, the range, loiter and other such criteria of the NG are in an altogether different class, thanks to the 33% increased internal fuel.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Aero India 2009

Post by Cybaru »

Rakall & K Prasad,

Any talk of unified data links at AI09 ?
Locked