MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Jan 2011 19:42

Christopher Sidor wrote:I have just finished reading a book, "Absolute War". It goes into significant details the German-Russia theater of operations in WWII. There was one significant point in the book which is worth mentioning.

"While Russia had standardized most of its weapons and these were made from interchangeable parts, the Germans were insisting on specialized production."

This is also borne out by Albert Speers memories. Albert Speer was the Minister of Armaments and War Production in nazi germany.

i believe that philosophy lasted for quite some time. however it relates to parts like clocks, meters, radios, valves, etc. which certainly do make sense - and even today most manufacturers try to do the same. i seem to remember reading something about the Su7 in this regard. however given the very tight weight and space tolerances on aircraft, sometimes even the most mundane parts need to be redesigned (and requalified) - and ofcourse if large government budgets are paying for it, then even the most humble rivet could benefit from a gold to platinum plating redesign...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Jan 2011 20:04

indranilroy wrote:Pratyushji,

MkII and MMRCA are in different leagues. Gripen barely makes it into the MMRCA category in terms of the "medium" category. Medium in terms of payload, variety of payload, range etc.

Tejas MKII has quite a lot of work left. It is still on paper. It takes around roughly a decade after the plane is ope rationalized to get wrinkle ironed off. That time is roughly now (or well past) for all the MMRCA contenders. And that time will be 2025 for Tejas MkII. So we shouldn't suddenly start equating the MKII to the MMRCA. We can't keep the nation's security hostage to our jingoistic demands.

So "scrap MMRCA" is just an insensible nationalistic cry IMHO.

IR,

Personally I have never understood the rational for the MMRCA. So I am muddled in the Head WRT the need for the project. But the LCA is here and even if it is light. It has 2ice the loadout of the early Migs 21/23, is on par with the 27 & slightly inferior to the JAG. Having said so, the MMRCA as I understand was meant to start replacing the the 27/ Jag.

If the above is correct. Then the MK will be able to replace most of the above mentioned platforms and still add to the capability of the IAF.

When you need heavy hitting, you already have the MK1.

What I am trying to say that the MKI in conjunction with the Tejas and upg 29 and M2K can meet the requirements of the IAF. Till such time the FGFA/ AMCA don't enter service with the IAF.

ATM, the Mk2 can enter service with the IAF by no later then the 2016/17 if the specs are frozen today. As most of the hard work has already been done by the ADA. The issue remains with the declining numbers of the IAF. The answer to that is scale up the MK 1 production. As anyway the first of the MMRCA whichever, platform chosen, cannot be available before 2013 at the earliest. If the project is scraped today, and national resources concentrated on the Mk1 will give the HAL sufficient time to scale up the production of the MK 1 to 25/30 per year. So you can have almost 150 Mk 1 by 2017. By 2025 you can be looking at additional 200 Tejas, for a total of 350 approx.

With the MK2 by 2016/17 things don't look so bad today. That the national security is being kept hostage to jingos demand.

Also, if the concern is an imported injun for the Tejas. The whole imported plane ought to be a bigger concern.

JMT.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jan 2011 22:11

Pratyushji,

The need for MMRCA was realized after Kargil when only the Mirages could operate in strike role but the Mig-29s were used to cover their back.
This is a huge logistical nightmare. That's why they needed a multirole fighter aircraft which could do strike attacks as well as be adept in defending itself. When not used as a strike platform it should be a good A2A platform. Mirage 2000-5s were a good fit for this. Now the IAF (somewhat forced by the non availability of new Mirages) has moved on and a decade has passed and so the requirements are only higher. LCA doesn't have enough payload capability to work as a strike platform along with being able to carry enough A2A amunitions.

And I don't agree with you that LCA is here in terms of operational maturity. We can only say that major hurdles have been passed in designing a plane and starting to field it. Needless to say that Tejas MkII will have a much smoother path than the MK-I. It is certainly not here and will take 8-10 years after its FOC to reach operational/manufacturing maturity. I don't see how LCA will be any different from all other aircrafts that have been fielded till date.

Also your argument that we have LCAs and Su-30MKI/PAKFAs beyond 2020 is not quite right IMHO. The gap is way too large. And we have have too much of a top heavy AF. Heavy fighters are prone to more maintenance and operating costs. Light aircrafts can't be truly multirole in a single operation. "Medium" fighters save the day. this is why most AFs which have reasonable choice open to them have lots of medium fighters and lesser number of heavy fighters. IAF on the other hand has truly become lopsided. I can completely understand that the IAF wants more medium fighters.

So according to me
1. LCA MKII is not a medium fighter
2. LCA MKII is not here yet
3. We need medium fighters
4. So MMRCA makes a lot of sense but please hasten it up for God's sake!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Jan 2011 22:25

we were hastening up since a decade.. and didn't you hear that nothing will be heard on mmrca till dec 2011.. so have a nice year long vacation.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 24 Jan 2011 22:47

Kartik wrote:join the keypubs forum- there is a Gripen thread, where you'll see this Saab document- and some poster basically exposes the spin that Saab puts on figures to make the Gripen NG look better than it is against Rafale/Typhoon types.

What I've heard, that presentation actually made the Netherlands send a big delegation to the Swedish defence committee. Since then the Dutch Parliament have fought a battle with the Dutch Government to delay the procurement of the F-35. The Parliament agreed to procure 2 pre-production F-35s, but this they withdrew from in May 2010.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Jan 2011 22:58

indranilroy wrote:Pratyushji,

The need for MMRCA was realized after Kargil when only the Mirages could operate in strike role but the Mig-29s were used to cover their back.
This is a huge logistical nightmare. That's why they needed a multirole fighter aircraft which could do strike attacks as well as be adept in defending itself. When not used as a strike platform it should be a good A2A platform.

IAF Mirages were quite capable of handling anything the PAF could throw at them in 1999. The Mirages were actually the only true multirole aircraft in the IAF inventory. That's why the IAF wanted more of them.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jan 2011 23:15

^^^ Nachiketji

I din't mean to say that the Mirages are not multirole. But with their strike loadout, they were escorted by the Mig-29s.

Also I did say that the Mirage -2000-5 would have been the best fit and that MMRCA is because we couldn't get more of them.

But MKII is not a replacement of the medium aircrafts IMHO. Would love to learn better though

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 25 Jan 2011 00:08

indranilroy wrote:
Also your argument that we have LCAs and Su-30MKI/PAKFAs beyond 2020 is not quite right IMHO. The gap is way too large. And we have have too much of a top heavy AF. Heavy fighters are prone to more maintenance and operating costs. Light aircrafts can't be truly multirole in a single operation. "Medium" fighters save the day. this is why most AFs which have reasonable choice open to them have lots of medium fighters and lesser number of heavy fighters. IAF on the other hand has truly become lopsided. I can completely understand that the IAF wants more medium fighters.
!

That, I guess is a point not emphasized enough. Suppose we opt for a heavy hitter like SH, eurofighter or Rafale, then that does make IAF an extremly top heavy force. If a war were to break out soon after, then we'll face this problem of only 200 odd LCA's aka modern light fighters which have a quick reload, refuel and pilot change capability. At it's peak the mig-21's numbered 400+ and then there was the Mig - 23 too.

The reason I'm such a Gripen fan is because it seems to fit into the IAF's need and fighter heirarchy perfectly, dosen't matter if not he most technologically advanced jet (from the contenders) but it's well capable of ground attack + A2A and can fire a range of missiles from AMRAAM's to meteor and all this with quick turn around time and good payload capacity.

With IAF planning an inventory of basically 5 fighter types (MKI, FGFA, LCA , MMRCA, AMCA) it's easy to see how heavy a big bird for MMRCA will make us. 200 Gripen + 200 LCA's seems a perfect mix for IAF's light fighter needs.

@ Pratyush, you make some decent points in your "scrap the MMRCA" post about Mk II but at the time MMRCA compettition was started , there was little way of knowing how succesful Tejas might be , leave alone development of an MK II and now when we're < 1yr. from decision time and MK II stilll a paper place, it''ll be a bit folly to scrap MRCA for MK II.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 00:28

Kartik wrote:
Wickberg wrote: 1st of all, I´m gonna be honest with you, as I always am. I am not an engineer, nor am I a pilot or an air force guy. I did my military service in the Swedish marines, the amphibious battalion as a squad commander carrying around a 8 cm mortar for 11 months. And if the Indian armed forces, as you say, is all volunteers I expect everyone that is over 20 years old on this forum have served the military and supported the Indian armed forces and your nation. In which arm did you serve in Marten?

To change the intakes:
Step 1: Take the (in)famous IKEA-tool.

Step 2: Remove the old intake by using that tool
Step 3: Take out the new intake from the box. Use a knife or a cutter to remove the plastic wrapped around it.
Step 4: Follow the instructions and assemble the new intake by using the same tool as in Step 2.
Step 5: Voila! There you go. Now you can take her for a test ride and always remember to fasten your seat belt.
So the Gripen is an IKEA-esque fighter is it ? talk about ignorance combined with spin !

.

Really. Talk about a person with no sense of humor! When I describe a fighter to an IKEA furniture you actually take it literally?! Jesus christ on a push-bike....

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 00:34

Pratyush wrote:
Wickberg wrote:
I have never said anything about the capabilities of the Mk2. So when you write I don´t think it will be similar (to the NG) is just a lie. You wrote that the Mk2 will have similar capabilities as the NG. And I asked you to specify those similarities since you obviously know something about the Mk2 that the rest of us does´nt.
If the IAF had all your knowledge don´t you think they would have scrapped the MRCA? Or is there something else to this story we common people are unaware of?
What I know is simple common sense and it seems that you are incapable of understanding what is being said by the poster. That is to scrap the MMRCA.

Now, hear is what we (Collectively on the BRF) know. The IAF has evaluated in detail 6 modern fighters. It knows what they are capable of and what they arn't. We also know that the IAF wants a MK2 for the Tejas. What we don't know ATM is what the specs will be for it. Having said so, who can say with absolute confidence that the IAF will not ask for MK 2 to be similar to the MMRCA contenders tech wise.

Or am I talking absolute thrash. In which case please educate me with the real facts WRT the MK 2. Comparing it with the capabilities of the MMRCA.

I can´t tell you nor educate you any facts about the Mk2. Cause common sense prevents me from doing that. The fact that I have still not seen any official release from HAL. And first hand experience from the Indian military industry makes mine common sense to be be very careful before making any conclusions....

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 25 Jan 2011 01:23

indranilroy wrote:So according to me
1. LCA MKII is not a medium fighter

Nobody puts the most powerful 4th gen engine in a plane to make a light figher. MK1 is understandable perhaps because its intakes are small and other limitations put some restrictions. But for a plane that is being redesigned, MK2 with a 98kN engine why should it carry less than what Mirage 2k, Gripen C, F16 carry with a much lower thrust engine ?

indranilroy wrote:3. We need medium fighters

So why seek a new design MK2 to be a light fighter then?

Tejas has evolved over time with requirements and "Light" part is no longer necessary. As long as it was MK1 that was being tweaked, the old "light" requirement could be tolerated in present state so as to induct sooner in numbers. But for redesigned config MK2, the old requirements could be done away with. MK2 should be medium.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 25 Jan 2011 02:02

The final configuration of the LCA Mk2 hasn't been decided yet. Or it may have been decided but nobody in an official capacity has spoken about it. We don't know if they are planning to increase the internal fuel, payload and hardpoints. So comparisons with the Gripen or any other fighter are moot at the moment.

As for the Gripen NG, IMHO the 7200kg payload figure being bandied about looks like a marketing ploy by SAAB to show Gripen == EF and Rafale. Even with a lower payload of course, the NG would be a very strong contender for the MRCA considering the price and operating cost advantages.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 02:14

Arya ji

I feel we are expecting Tejas MkII to be very very different from MK-I. From whatever changes I read from the paper elaborating the changes in MK-II, there is no indication of the same. The plane is being refined for lesser drag and more nimbleness at all parts of the envelop.

I am quite sure that they won't increase the payload by much (if anything they would increase the range). They increased the horsepowers because they thought that it was not pushing hard enough. Now if you put more load, then the whole purpose of putting a bigger engine is defied.

It will therefore become a very very good light fighter and very nimble indeed. But it is not going to make it into the medium class category. Most of the "true" medium class fighters (of today) have two engines each of which are 80KN or more. The F-16 has engine thrust of upwards of 130KN. So just saying one engine at 100KN is going to make it is not going to cut the mustard.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 02:18

Wickberg wrote: Really. Talk about a person with no sense of humor! When I describe a fighter to an IKEA furniture you actually take it literally?! Jesus christ on a push-bike....

Please don't brush it off as a joke. Either explain what you very pompously stated or agree that your point was not correct in a dignified way.

It's time to act like one who has served in the forces.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 02:28

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: Really. Talk about a person with no sense of humor! When I describe a fighter to an IKEA furniture you actually take it literally?! Jesus christ on a push-bike....
Please don't brush it off as a joke. Either explain what you very pompously stated or agree that your point was not correct in a dignified way.

It's time to act like one who has served in the forces.

Are you kidding me?!

Do you take this seriously when it comes to modifying jet fighter?!

To change the intakes:
Step 1: Take the (in)famous IKEA-tool.

Step 2: Remove the old intake by using that tool
Step 3: Take out the new intake from the box. Use a knife or a cutter to remove the plastic wrapped around it.
Step 4: Follow the instructions and assemble the new intake by using the same tool as in Step 2.
Step 5: Voila! There you go. Now you can take her for a test ride and always remember to fasten your seat belt.

My god.... What IQ-level are you on?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 02:33

Enough to see that you were BS-ing ... I was just being polite all this while, but it seems a virtue you know nothing about.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jan 2011 02:47

If somebody things mk2 is simple change then please note:-

Mk2:http://idrw.org/?p=882

GE 414 IN engines
AESA MMR
New cockpit layout - major avionics change, that becomes baseline for fgfa/amca
More computing power
samtel MFDs
wider wings for extra weapons
extra internal fuel
larger intakes
rear fuselage change as well
some fbw changes for these structural modificiations

In the sense, it is a new a/c so to speak to take on equivalent ones out there. Gripen ng comes very close.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 02:49

indranilroy wrote:Enough to see that you were BS-ing ... I was just being polite all this while, but it seems a virtue you know nothing about.

If you were polite I was lost in translation. I am sorry for that. I am honest and that is mine virtue.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Jan 2011 02:57

MMRCA Competitors Set for Aero-India Showdown
Defense-Update

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 25 Jan 2011 03:03

shukla wrote:MMRCA Competitors Set for Aero-India Showdown
Defense-Update

In contrast to selecting an unknown computer wiz, Lockheed Martin is betting on gaining mass media attention through the traditional ‘Celebrity Ride’ on its F-16. Past F-16 rides at Aero-India hosted Tata Industrial Group Chairman Ratan Tata in 2007, and Delhi-based journalist Abhinav Bindra, becoming the first Indian woman to fly the F-16 in 2009.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 03:04

SaiK wrote:If somebody things mk2 is simple change then please note:-

Mk2:http://idrw.org/?p=882

GE 414 IN engines
AESA MMR
New cockpit layout - major avionics change, that becomes baseline for fgfa/amca
More computing power
samtel MFDs
wider wings for extra weapons
extra internal fuel
larger intakes
rear fuselage change as well
some fbw changes for these structural modificiations

In the sense, it is a new a/c so to speak to take on equivalent ones out there. Gripen ng comes very close.

So how much do you think the payload will go up with more additional fuel and the likes?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 03:07

SaiK wrote:If somebody things mk2 is simple change then please note:-

Mk2:http://idrw.org/?p=882

GE 414 IN engines
AESA MMR
New cockpit layout - major avionics change, that becomes baseline for fgfa/amca
More computing power
samtel MFDs
wider wings for extra weapons
extra internal fuel
larger intakes
rear fuselage change as well
some fbw changes for these structural modificiations

In the sense, it is a new a/c so to speak to take on equivalent ones out there. Gripen ng comes very close.

"wider wings for extra weapons
extra internal fuel
larger intakes
rear fuselage change as well
some fbw changes for these structural modificiations"
How will that work out? The LCA is chubby as we speak and has drag issues. Adding wider wings and extra internal fuel tanks to an already fat body will not exactly help that. Are we talking about a decrease in top speed from 1.4 to 1.1 Mach? If that is the case the Mk2 will be close to the NG when the NG is super cruising....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 03:09

Wickberg wrote:
Singha wrote:> But all of their C/Ds are to upgraded with NG avionics/engine.

since the 414 apparently has a higher airflow and different dimension than 404, wont that mean structural modification like bigger engine bay, bigger air intake, shifting of CG and a flight test pgm to qualify that ? and it still will not be == to NG because of lesser internal fuel and lesser/weaker pylons.
No, the engineers of Gripen planned on a early stage for such a scenario. Therefor the intakes are removable and can easily be replaced with a bigger air intake if such a demand was called for. It´s called planning ahead.

Intakes removed

Back on again on the Gripen NG Demo

I was never speaking about your tool posts. This what you said. Were you joking?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 03:19

Wickberg wrote: "wider wings for extra weapons
extra internal fuel
larger intakes
rear fuselage change as well
some fbw changes for these structural modificiations"
How will that work out? The LCA is chubby as we speak and has drag issues. Adding wider wings and extra internal fuel tanks to an already fat body will not exactly help that. Are we talking about a decrease in top speed from 1.4 to 1.1 Mach? If that is the case the Mk2 will be close to the NG when the NG is super cruising....

They are going to make it longer. That much is for sure through a nose plug (and may be a fuselage plug).
The rear fuselage change is for narrowing down the wing fuselage blend to decrease deviation from smooth area curve (and hence decrease wave drag).
Its top speed as of today is 1.6 Mach. They are not worried about its top speed, they are worried about its performance at sea level.
To be completely fair, I have good reason to believe that Tejas MKII will super cruise (pretty much like GRipen NG does by using afterburner to cross the mach barrier and then going back to dry thrust for maintaining supersonic cruising).

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 03:19

indranilroy wrote: No, the engineers of Gripen planned on a early stage for such a scenario. Therefor the intakes are removable and can easily be replaced with a bigger air intake if such a demand was called for. It´s called planning ahead.

Intakes removed

Back on again on the Gripen NG Demo

I was never speaking about your tool posts. This what you said. Were you joking?[/quote]

No, why would I joke of such a thing?
The Swedish government approved of the Gripen NG in the fall/winter of 2007. In May 2008 the demo flew for the first time, with the new engine that demands a higher air flow. That air craft was a rebuilt older 2-seater Gripen. With new intakes.
From decision to a flying air fighter in less then 6 months. Do you really think they had the time to build an entire new air craft? (think logically now)
Not all aviation industry works in the manner of HAL....

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 03:28

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: "wider wings for extra weapons
extra internal fuel
larger intakes
rear fuselage change as well
some fbw changes for these structural modificiations"
How will that work out? The LCA is chubby as we speak and has drag issues. Adding wider wings and extra internal fuel tanks to an already fat body will not exactly help that. Are we talking about a decrease in top speed from 1.4 to 1.1 Mach? If that is the case the Mk2 will be close to the NG when the NG is super cruising....
They are going to make it longer. That much is for sure through a nose plug (and may be a fuselage plug).
The rear fuselage change is for narrowing down the wing fuselage blend to decrease deviation from smooth area curve (and hence decrease wave drag).
Its top speed as of today is 1.6 Mach. They are not worried about its top speed, they are worried about its performance at sea level.
To be completely fair, I have good reason to believe that Tejas MKII will super cruise (pretty much like GRipen NG does by using afterburner to cross the mach barrier and then going back to dry thrust for maintaining supersonic cruising).

So, what you are basically saying is that the LCA is a faulty design. From the get go.
And about super cruise, the Gripen A/B/C/D already had that capability (with a fuel tank and AAM missiles ). But it´s sweet you think the Mk2. will be able to do that. I do love that MiG-21++

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 03:47

Wickberg wrote: No, why would I joke of such a thing?
The Swedish government approved of the Gripen NG in the fall/winter of 2007. In May 2008 the demo flew for the first time, with the new engine that demands a higher air flow. That air craft was a rebuilt older 2-seater Gripen. With new intakes.
From decision to a flying air fighter in less then 6 months. Do you really think they had the time to build an entire new air craft? (think logically now)
Not all aviation industry works in the manner of HAL....

1. Gripen Demo's air intakes were increased by 1 inch on each sides. For LCA MkII they are redesigning the thing not just for additional volume but also high AoA, doing away with the aux. air intakes and the likes. Rest of the "demo" plane is basically a two seater in production. WRT to change from 404 to 414 (or even the EJ-200), HAL/ADA said that there will be minor changes, the same statement as provided by SAAB in their advertising write-ups.

2. LCA MK-II is going for much more refinements than that from the MK-I. Intakes are going to be changed, fuselage is going to be lengthened and yes we can't crash the plane at a demo.

3. Government go ahead and a private plane manufacturers design plans need not go hand in hand. They might have designed a lot while the government was getting ready to give the go ahead. And oh the GRipen NG is still developing and only be ready to advertised levels by 2013 (or so) and start getting produced by 2015. Know what the Tejas MK-II was sanctioned in late 2009-ish and will get FOC by 2017. Development time very similar to the NG with more changes from MK-I, than NG has from the Gripen C/D. Go figure!

4. I agree that India/HAL trails Sweden in aircraft design as of today and may be for 10 years to come. But stop masquerading as the mascot of "Swedes and Saab knows best".

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 03:51

Wickberg wrote: So, what you are basically saying is that the LCA is a faulty design. From the get go.
And about super cruise, the Gripen A/B/C/D already had that capability (with a fuel tank and AAM missiles ). But it´s sweet you think the Mk2. will be able to do that. I do love that MiG-21++

Does developing the NG prove that Gripen A/B/C/D was a faulty design from the get go?

And oh the according to SAAB's marketing director marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson, GRipen NG can only supercruise with fuel tank and AAM missiles, so no development only gung ho?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 04:29

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: So, what you are basically saying is that the LCA is a faulty design. From the get go.
And about super cruise, the Gripen A/B/C/D already had that capability (with a fuel tank and AAM missiles ). But it´s sweet you think the Mk2. will be able to do that. I do love that MiG-21++
Does developing the NG prove that Gripen A/B/C/D was a faulty design from the get go?

And oh the according to SAAB's marketing director marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson, GRipen NG can only supercruise with fuel tank and AAM missiles, so no development only gung ho?

Yes, in some terms it was. If the designers would have realized from the start the you could add 40% more fuel by moving the landing gear off course that would have been a great thing.
The shift from A/B to C/D has nothing to do with design, and I think you are aware of that. (It was just to make it NATO-friendly and export-friendly. Actually, it was a down-grade considering most NATO-solutions were sub-par to the Swedish ones. Specially the datalink. The Link-16 is like the data-link old Swedish Draken used.)

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 25 Jan 2011 04:37

Wickberg wrote: Not all aviation industry works in the manner of HAL....

[/quote]

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 04:38

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: No, why would I joke of such a thing?
The Swedish government approved of the Gripen NG in the fall/winter of 2007. In May 2008 the demo flew for the first time, with the new engine that demands a higher air flow. That air craft was a rebuilt older 2-seater Gripen. With new intakes.
From decision to a flying air fighter in less then 6 months. Do you really think they had the time to build an entire new air craft? (think logically now)
Not all aviation industry works in the manner of HAL....
1. Gripen Demo's air intakes were increased by 1 inch on each sides. For LCA MkII they are redesigning the thing not just for additional volume but also high AoA, doing away with the aux. air intakes and the likes. Rest of the "demo" plane is basically a two seater in production. WRT to change from 404 to 414 (or even the EJ-200), HAL/ADA said that there will be minor changes, the same statement as provided by SAAB in their advertising write-ups.

2. LCA MK-II is going for much more refinements than that from the MK-I. Intakes are going to be changed, fuselage is going to be lengthened and yes we can't crash the plane at a demo.

3. Government go ahead and a private plane manufacturers design plans need not go hand in hand. They might have designed a lot while the government was getting ready to give the go ahead. And oh the GRipen NG is still developing and only be ready to advertised levels by 2013 (or so) and start getting produced by 2015. Know what the Tejas MK-II was sanctioned in late 2009-ish and will get FOC by 2017. Development time very similar to the NG with more changes from MK-I, than NG has from the Gripen C/D. Go figure!

4. I agree that India/HAL trails Sweden in aircraft design as of today and may be for 10 years to come. But stop masquerading as the mascot of "Swedes and Saab knows best".

Am I gonna be nice or harsh? Please tell me, my fingers are itching.... Can you give me an official source? A link?
Or is it all wishful rambling?

Either way. I love you. And I would love to see the LCA successful.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 04:46

I don't think you should look at them as mistakes. These are lessons learnt and often times these are also driven by project deadlines and the likes.

So like those developers, I like to look at them as refinements, not only in design but also feasibility in terms of time-to-production.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 04:51

Wickberg wrote: Am I gonna be nice or harsh? Please tell me, my fingers are itching.... Can you give me an official source? A link?
Or is it all wishful rambling?

Either way. I love you. And I would love to see the LCA successful.

I don't want/need you to be nice. So just get rid of the itch.

I am very fond of the Gripen. If you write the right stuff, I will stand with you. If you right ridiculous stuff like an universal join for air intakes, I am going to question you till either of us are proven wrong.

P.S. I forgot you were asking for links. All I wrote are general open source information. I thought you knew these so didn't provide links. Let me know what you think is flattery and I shall provide the links. You can also do the simplest Google searches.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 04:53

VinayG wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Not all aviation industry works in the manner of HAL....

Sir, please get the quotes right. I never said that.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jan 2011 05:09

well I hate gripen for one reason that all its import components are problematic for a ToT business deal with India. too much handle with the khans just destroys the plane's hold on technology transfer.

wish gripen ng was all indigenous technology.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 Jan 2011 05:13

Game changer for the US birds - especially SH??

US removes ISRO, DRDO from export control list
Times of India

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 05:13

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: Am I gonna be nice or harsh? Please tell me, my fingers are itching.... Can you give me an official source? A link?
Or is it all wishful rambling?

Either way. I love you. And I would love to see the LCA successful.
I don't want/need you to be nice. So just get rid of the itch.

I am very fond of the Gripen. If you write the right stuff, I will stand with you. If you right ridiculous stuff like an universal join for air intakes, I am going to question you till either of us are proven wrong.

Am I wrong when I say the fact is SAAB did not have to do major redesign to the Gripen to fit the GE414?

Am I wrong when I say SAAB did it within 6 months?

Am I wrong when I say SAAB planned for this already back in 1983?

The Ikea thing was a joke. Get over it. It still not change the fact that the Gripen (like the F-16) can be upgraded to beyond ridiculous.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 05:22

SaiK wrote:well I hate gripen for one reason that all its import components are problematic for a ToT business deal with India. too much handle with the khans just destroys the plane's hold on technology transfer.

wish gripen ng was all indigenous technology.

I do think, Dear Sir, that all MRCA candidates are imports to India. At least with the Gripen and F-18 you will have the same engine as the LCA. With the Gripen it can also share the same radar and datalink.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jan 2011 06:04

Wickberg wrote: Am I wrong when I say the fact is SAAB did not have to do major redesign to the Gripen to fit the GE414?

No. But you seemed to be making a point of the SAAB "thinking ahead" and intakes being strap ons.
Here's what SAAB says about fitting the 414. link

To accomodate the engine in the Demo aircraft, only limited changes were needed in the main engine bay, and the main air intakes were widened to achieve correct air flow

For either GE 414/EJ-200, HAL ADA said link

ADA and HAL will have to make some slight modifications to the Tejas airframe to make the new engine fit.

Spot any difference? In fact both manufacturers had made statements that neither of them would require any major changes but they (the manufacturers) need 2 years for the new engines (most likely for rearrangement).

Wickberg wrote: Am I wrong when I say SAAB did it within 6 months?

May be. Certainly they were working on "Gripen-specific" changes on the 414G for much longer. This would mean that they would be working on fitting it onto fuselage! Besides if it is only about increasing air volume, then it is much easier. On the TejasMkII, they have to do volume and refinements (not sure for AoA) and getting rid of the aux. intakes (possibly). There was also talk of going rectangular like the F-18 intake changes. And since we have 2 years, till the engines get ready, why not!

Wickberg wrote: Am I wrong when I say SAAB planned for this already back in 1983?

Planned about air intake changes? Any designer worth his salt would know that a plane would go for 2-3 engine upgrades in its life time! Can you show me anything contrary to this for a successful plane. So what is the big deal about SAAB seeing it in 1983!!!!
You seem to make a lot out of the where the intake is joined. Just because it is on the exterior of the fuselage, it doesn't make it any more "modular"!

Wickberg wrote: The Ikea thing was a joke. Get over it. It still not change the fact that the Gripen (like the F-16) can be upgraded to beyond ridiculous.

I am not obsessed with the IKEA joke. My statement was simple. "There is nothing uniquely modular about GRipen's intake design" ... I am still standing by it. You, on the other hand are changing your statement from "GRipen was made modular with lots of of thinking ahead of time" to "Gripen like the F-16 can be upgraded".

So you agree that there is nothing unique about Gripen's "modular" air intake design?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 25 Jan 2011 06:23

indranilroy wrote:
Wickberg wrote: Am I wrong when I say the fact is SAAB did not have to do major redesign to the Gripen to fit the GE414?
No. But you seemed to be making a point of the SAAB "thinking ahead" and intakes being strap ons.
Here's what SAAB says about fitting the 414. link
To accomodate the engine in the Demo aircraft, only limited changes were needed in the main engine bay, and the main air intakes were widened to achieve correct air flow

For either GE 414/EJ-200, HAL ADA said link
ADA and HAL will have to make some slight modifications to the Tejas airframe to make the new engine fit.
Spot any difference? In fact both manufacturers had made statements that neither of them would require any major changes but they (the manufacturers) need 2 years for the new engines (most likely for rearrangement).
Wickberg wrote: Am I wrong when I say SAAB did it within 6 months?
May be. Certainly they were working on "Gripen-specific" changes on the 414G for much longer. This would mean that they would be working on fitting it onto fuselage! Besides if it is only about increasing air volume, then it is much easier. On the TejasMkII, they have to do volume and refinements (not sure for AoA) and getting rid of the aux. intakes (possibly). There was also talk of going rectangular like the F-18 intake changes. And since we have 2 years, till the engines get ready, why not!
Wickberg wrote: Am I wrong when I say SAAB planned for this already back in 1983?
Planned about air intake changes? Any designer worth his salt would know that a plane would go for 2-3 engine upgrades in its life time! Can you show me anything contrary to this for a successful plane. So what is the big deal about SAAB seeing it in 1983!!!!
You seem to make a lot out of the where the intake is joined. Just because it is on the exterior of the fuselage, it doesn't make it any more "modular"!
Wickberg wrote: The Ikea thing was a joke. Get over it. It still not change the fact that the Gripen (like the F-16) can be upgraded to beyond ridiculous.
I am not obsessed with the IKEA joke. My statement was simple. "There is nothing uniquely modular about GRipen's intake design" ... I am still standing by it. You, on the other hand are changing your statement from "GRipen was made modular with lots of of thinking ahead of time" to "Gripen like the F-16 can be upgraded".

So you agree that there is nothing unique about Gripen's "modular" air intake design?

I agree that we are agreeing. But I wont agree that Gripen is not something unique. It´s a Gen. 4+ fighter designed and produced by a country of 9 million people. A country placed in the northern out skirts. A country with the similar size as California and with the population of Manhattan. It is pretty unique to produce a fighter jet considering those circumstances don´t you think?
And I also agree we have lot to learn from each other, and to each other....