ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[p2prada]

Pls tell me one light fighter which has such bombload, such low RCS, such great manouevrability and such specs?

Gripen C beats the LCA in a lot of parameters. It even surpassed Mirage-2000 in maneuverability long ago.

5 ton bomb load.
0.1m2 RCS (don't know any other parameters). It was revealed in the Swedish parliament.
Sustained turn rate surpasses 23 degrees/s at 500 knots. 30 degrees/s at 500 knots ITR.
AoA achieved was ~110 degrees during tests and is restricted to 26 degrees.

Most advanced data link ever created with 500 Km range. It even provides video information to ground troops. It links up with AEW&C and other Gripens while it is on the ground before take off. MTBF is 7.6 hours. Airframe life is 8000 hours and pilots probably get 200-240 hours/year. Sensors are fused, unlike LCA, and sensor fusion goes beyond just the aircraft.

All these for Gripen C, not NG.

 

[ersakthivel]

Gripen C beats the LCA in a lot of parameters. It even surpassed Mirage-2000 in maneuverability long ago.

5 ton bomb load.
0.1m2 RCS (don't know any other parameters). It was revealed in the Swedish parliament.
Sustained turn rate surpasses 23 degrees/s at 500 knots. 30 degrees/s at 500 knots ITR.
AoA achieved was ~110 degrees during tests and is restricted to 26 degrees.

Most advanced data link ever created with 500 Km range. It even provides video information to ground troops. It links up with AEW&C and other Gripens while it is on the ground before take off. MTBF is 7.6 hours. Airframe life is 8000 hours and pilots probably get 200-240 hours/year. Sensors are fused, unlike LCA, and sensor fusion goes beyond just the aircraft.

All these for Gripen C, not NG.

With huge canards jutting out , and rectangular boxy air intake ,there is no way Grippen can have a RCS equal to LCA TEjas or RAFALE. SO you are lying.


This single fact alone means that enemy fighter like LCA tejas MK-1 will identify the Grippen C first and launch it's long range BVR on Grippen First.

The same goes for ground based SAMs.

Also Tejas has a much larger Radome dia than Grippen C , Another very important factor in BVr combat.

 

[ersakthivel]

In late 1979, the government commenced a study calling for a versatile platform capable of "JAS", which stands for Jakt (air-to-air), Attack (air-to-surface), and Spaning (reconnaissance), indicating a multirole, or swingrole, fighter aircraft that can fulfill multiple roles during the same mission. A number of Saab designs were accordingly reviewed, with the most promising being "Project 2105" (redesignated "Project 2108" and later, "Project 2110"), which was recommended to the government by the Defence Materiel Administration (Försvarets Materielverk, or FMV). In 1980,


Sweden first ordered the JAS 39 in 1982; this first order was named Batch One and consisted of 30 JAS 39A single-seaters.[18] The first Gripen was rolled out on 26 April 1987, marking Saab's 50th anniversary.Originally planned to fly in 1987, the first prototype (serial number 39-1) took its maiden flight on 9 December 1988 with pilot Stig Holmström at the controls.. During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft's avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design configuration.


On 2 February 1989, this issue was dramatically highlighted with the crash of the prototype during an attempted landing at Linköping; test pilot Lars Rådeström was able to walk away with only a broken arm. The cause of the crash was identified as pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), caused by problems to the FCS's pitch-control routine.


To rectify the problem, Saab and US firm Calspan introduced major software improvements to the aircraft. A modified Lockheed NT-33A was used in testing; flight testing resumed within 15 months following the accident. The programme was again hindered when, on 8 August 1993, production aircraft 39102 was destroyed in an accident during an aerial display in Stockholm.

Test pilot Rådeström lost control of the aircraft during a roll at low altitude, and the aircraft rapidly stalled, forcing him to eject. Saab later found the problem to be high amplification of the pilot's quick and significant stick command inputs. The ensuing investigations and rectification of the flaws delayed test flying by several months, resuming in December 1993.


Empire Test Pilots' School JAS 39B Gripen taxis after landing at RIAT 2008
The first order also included an option for another 110, which became a firm order in June 1992.Batch Two consisted of up to 96 one-seat JAS 39As and 14 two-seat JAS 39Bs.

The JAS 39B variant is 66 cm (26 in) longer than the JAS 39A to accommodate a second seat; this also necessitated the deletion of the built-in cannon and a reduced internal fuel capacity. By April 1994, five prototype Gripens and two series-production aircraft had been completed; the only major decision remaining was to select a beyond-visual-range missile (BVR).


A third batch of Gripens was ordered in June 1997. This batch called for 50 upgraded single-seat JAS 39Cs and 14 JAS 39D two-seaters. Batch Three aircraft possess more powerful and updated avionics, in-flight refuelling capability with the provisions of retractable probes on the aircraft's starboard side, and an on-board oxygen-generating system for longer missions. To test the viability of in-flight refuelling, Flight Refuelling Ltd outfitted a prototype (39–4), which was successfully tested with a Royal Air Force VC10 in 1988. Deliveries of this batch ran from 2003 to 2008.

Despite these setbacks with a couple of initial crashes the Swedes stick with grippen enabling it to see service so early in 1992 with firm orders.All despite-. The investigations and rectification of the flaws which delayed test flying by several months, resuming in December 1993..

But even with On again Off again funding and half hearted backing from users LCA is entering service in 20 years from the date of funds release in 1993 with a truncated program of just two TDs to be built first and only after evaluating all the concepts the PVs are to be built later.

If it is India and LCA suffered a couple of crashes like this in it's earlier development phase, the import lobby along with corrupt politicians would have succeeded in closing down the program.

From the program start at the 1980 with firm funding and backing from Sweedish government , despite the couple of crashes , the first first order firmed up only in 1992.

Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's maximum take off weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900–35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb).

The same is also possible for LCA mk-2 as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

F-16 versus Saab Gripen|F-16|Forum :: F-16.net

Toan's post says a lot more specific things about grippen opposed to some baseless claims made on this page.

 

[ersakthivel]

Gripen C beats the LCA in a lot of parameters. It even surpassed Mirage-2000 in maneuverability long ago.

5 ton bomb load.
0.1m2 RCS (don't know any other parameters). It was revealed in the Swedish parliament.
Sustained turn rate surpasses 23 degrees/s at 500 knots. 30 degrees/s at 500 knots ITR.
AoA achieved was ~110 degrees during tests and is restricted to 26 degrees.

Most advanced data link ever created with 500 Km range. It even provides video information to ground troops. It links up with AEW&C and other Gripens while it is on the ground before take off. MTBF is 7.6 hours. Airframe life is 8000 hours and pilots probably get 200-240 hours/year. Sensors are fused, unlike LCA, and sensor fusion goes beyond just the aircraft.

All these for Gripen C, not NG.

F-16 versus Saab Gripen|F-16|Forum :: F-16.net

Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.

While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:


JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.

Toan's post says a lot more specific things about grippen opposed to some baseless claims made on this page.

Gripen's acceleration in sub-sonic and trans-sonic domains: faster than F/A-18C/D and M2000-5, but slower than F-16C.
Gripen's instaneous turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
Gripenss sustaneous turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.

So LCA's ASR as mentioned by MSD Woolen has given a STR requirement of 17 deg per sec for LCA tejas , almost same as F-16 C/D. In Aeroindia 2013 LCA Tejas completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds meaning It's vertical sustained turn rate is 18 deg per second almost same as that of F-16 C/ D.

This 20 second vertical loop was achieved with a very restricted AOA below 20 deg and with just 6Gs only FCS restriction.

Recent reports indicate that IAf is very much satisfied with LCA's STR. All that needs to be sorted out is Radome material and lightning tests along with wake penetration tests.

In radar detection range and RCS parameters LCA will definitely be above grippen C/D.

However, another main reason for JAS-39 to have the best performance in "first look" among other western fighters that are mentioned is the small frontal RCS of Gripen. Take F/A-18C/D for example, although AN/APG-65/73's detective range is a little longer than PS-05A, the frontal RCS of F/A-18C/D is five times more than JAS-39. According the basic formula of RCS, the detective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen will be about 2/3 of the detective range for MIG-29 to detect F/A-18C/D. That is the reason why although F/A-18 has the radar with longer range, the Gripen still has the better performance in "first look".

As per the above post LCA will the same RCS advantage over Grippen in BVR.

you are mixing up a lot of grippen NG specs with C/D specs. If you want to compare grippen NG do it with tejas mk-2 not Mk-1.

Also from the same page,

2005 Combat Aircraft, Vol. 6, No.5, Page 37:

An Norwegian pilot of F-16 declared: "During the winter exercise last year, we learned some interesting things when flying against the Swedish Gripens. With the F-16, we can out-maneuver the Gripen, thanks to our more powerful engine

Just read a story in the magazine "Combat AIRCRAFT", March 2005, where a RNoAF Viper pilot say they were able to outmaneuver the Gripen thanks to its more powerful engine. He also states that the Swedish pilots do not call the JAS39 Gripen, but just "39".

 

[ersakthivel]

Internal fuel-

JAS-39C----- 2,270 kg ,

Tejas mk-1 -----------------2500 Kg , I think,

Empty weight

JAS-39C--------- 6,800 kg

Tejas mk-1-----6400 Kg,

Note having significantly more wing area tejas weighs lesser than Grippen C/D,

Thrust to weight ratio

JAS-39C--------- 0.917 / 0.615 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust) ,(I assume it is with half fuel load)

Tejas mk-1 ---------1.07,(with half fuel load )

The Tejas mk-1 in all possibility will have close to half the clean config RCS of grippen C/D , if we go by toan's post in that forum,

Also the service ceiling of both the fighters are roughly the same,


Any one can correct if these figures are wrong.

So tejas mk-1 has much higher internal fuel ,

Tejas mk-1 has much higher power to weight ratio ,

Tejas mk-1 has much lower frontal RCS combined with much higher radome dia , meaning much more powerful radar to detect a fighter sized target at much longer range which implies that meaning tejas mk-1 will detect Grippen C/D and launch a BVR at it , before Grippen NG can do that,

Tejas has now FCS limited AOA between 22 to 24 deg and slated to be capped at 24-26 AOA in foc much the same as the 26 deg FCS capped AOA of grippen C/D,

So there is nothing much to back a claim of inferiority of Tejas mk-1 over grippen C/D,

Only thing is top speed of grippen N/G is mach -2 and the aimed top speed of Tejas mk-1 is mach 1.8(done mach 1.6 till now), which leads lot of people into saying that Grippen has less drag than the tejas mk-1.

But important point to note is Tejas mk-1 has more wing area for per KG of load carried, which means Tejas mk-1 has to endure more drag than Grippen C/D , but will have more lift force per Kg than Grippen C/D, so while the top speed and G load of Tejas mk-1 is lower than Grippen C/D, the instantaneous turn rate of Tejas mk-1 must be better than Grippen C/D, because tejas mk-1 sacrifices a bit of top speed and G limit to achieve a higher instantaneous turn rate is my conclusion base don these figures.

This is already corroborated by the test pilot's comments that tejas mk-1 has much sharper take offs than Mirage, which implicitly means much higher lift force due to much lower wing loading than Mirage-2000.

Which means that Tejas mk-1 has much better Lift to Drag ratio than the Mirage-2000 due to higher wing are per Kg of weight carried, i.e lower wing loading.

The real need for this type of design is to have the first look ,first shoot ability with high off bore sight WVR missiles in close combat in which Mirage-2000s always had a traditional edge over the F-16s and debated to death in various forums.

Tejas will be much better than the Mirage-2000 in this area because it has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the Mirage-2000 and lower wing loading than the Mirage-2000. So it will naturally have the edge over the Grippen C/D as well. We will know when full specs are out after FOC. But design suggests that it was aimed from the inception.

What this means is in barrel rolls and scissors close combat maneuvers the tejas Mk-1 will do better than the Grippen C/D, again it is simply based on the wing area calculation and needs clarification.

Again We are yet to know whether tejas mk-1's design top speed of mach 1.8 is limited to hot Indian conditions or whether it will have a bit higher speeds at cold condition,Information about this is not available, it is important because hot conditions will reduce engine thrust by a significant percentage leading to lower performance in hot conditions and better performance in cold conditions.

 

[ersakthivel]

Gripen C beats the LCA in a lot of parameters. It even surpassed Mirage-2000 in maneuverability long ago.

5 ton bomb load.
0.1m2 RCS (don't know any other parameters). It was revealed in the Swedish parliament.
Sustained turn rate surpasses 23 degrees/s at 500 knots. 30 degrees/s at 500 knots ITR.
AoA achieved was ~110 degrees during tests and is restricted to 26 degrees.

Most advanced data link ever created with 500 Km range. It even provides video information to ground troops. It links up with AEW&C and other Gripens while it is on the ground before take off. MTBF is 7.6 hours. Airframe life is 8000 hours and pilots probably get 200-240 hours/year. Sensors are fused, unlike LCA, and sensor fusion goes beyond just the aircraft.

All these for Gripen C, not NG.

The following is the specs of grippen C/D from

Saab JAS 39 Gripen.


Type: JAS 39 Gripen
Country: Sweden
Export: South Africa/Hungary
Function: fighter / attack / reconnaissance
Year: 1998
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 80 kN G.E.-Volvo RM 12 (F404-GE-400)

Wing Span: 8.00 m
Wing area: 30 m2
Length: 14.00 m
Height: 4.70 m
Canard Area: Unknown
Wing Aspect Ratio: 2.13
Tail Plane Area: N/A
Empty Weight: 6622 kg. For tejas mk-1 it is 6500 kg approx

Max.Weight: 12474 kg. It is 13250 Ks for tejas mk-1. A clear indication that with far lower wing loading than Grippen , tejas mk-1 can lift a ton more. So where is your source for the 5 ton weapon load of grippen C/D?

Internal Fuel Weight: 2,268 kg, It is 2350 kg for tejas MK-1

Maximum Speed: Mach 1.8, mk-1 has done mach 1.6 and design spec is mach 1.8[/B]
Maximum Speed at low altitudes: Mach 1.15, same speed for tejas mk-1
Ferry Range: 3000 km (with external tanks)
Combat Radius: 800 km
G-limits: 9/-3.0
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second.same design spec for tejas mk-1 back in 1998 itself, but what it is now is not known.

Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second. In aero india 2013 tejas completed a vertical loop with in 20 seconds , meaning that it has 20 deg vertical sustained turn rate even with in 6g and 20 deg AOA restrictions imposed on FCS

Roll rate: > 250 deg/sec
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): 0.98:1. for tejas mk-1 it is 1.07, bit higher engine thrust and bit lesser empty weight, same internal fule capacity
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): 0.88:1
Armament: 1*g 27 mm.

Look at the bold statements. They are almost the same as Tejas mk-1's design specs.

Even the RAFALE which is a delta canard and has a Thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 approx has a sustained turn rate of only 23 deg approx.

So how come grippen C/D a lower thrust to weight ratio delta canard(TWR-0.97), can have 23 deg per second Sustained turn rate?

You are lying again as usual, simply juggling the the NG specs with C/D.

The same can be said of tejas mk-2 , which will also have same specs as that of grippen -NG.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html

in this forum on page-12 or 1 you can see that even though grippen C has a much better instantaneous turn rate than F-16 , a Grippen supporter robban simply agreeing that grippen pilots found that Mirage is a tough fighter to beat in WVR, due to almost same instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg for both grippen C/D and Mirage.

tejas too has the same instantaneous turn rate of 30 deg as a very old design spec from 1998. And many test pilots have commented that take off is much better at LCA tejas mk-1 than Mirage-2000 due to lower wingloading of Tejas mk-1.

Tejas has a higher thrust to weight ratio than both grippen and Mirage-2000. So tejas mk-1 is not inferior to Grippen C/D on any counts.

Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.

So your RCS figures are also wrong.

 

[ersakthivel]

Fighter jet JAS 39 GRIPEN DISPLAY Compilation - YouTube

grippen C/D too completes a vertical loop in the same 20 seconds,

In aeroindia2013 tejas mk-1 completes the vertical loop in the same 20 seconds in a video posted by rahulrds1 in this forum.

In that display tejas flew with a restricted AOA of 20 deg only along with 6 G turning capability much lesse than it's planned 24 deg AOA and 8 G capacity.

So even in sustained turn rates it

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-41.html


Watch the video from 1:29 seconds to 1:50 seconds . tejas mk-1 completes a vertical loop in close to 21 seconds even before achieving IOC-1 with a restricted AOA of 20 deg only along with 6 G turning capability much lesse than it's planned 24 deg AOA and 8 G capacity meaning it did 18 deg /sec approx , so in FOC state ,tejas mk-1 with an AOA of 24 and 8Gs , it can have a better sustained turn rate as well.

 

[rvjpheonix]

Fighter jet JAS 39 GRIPEN DISPLAY Compilation - YouTube

grippen C/D too completes a vertical loop in the same 20 seconds,

In aeroindia2013 tejas mk-1 completes the vertical loop in the same 20 seconds in a video posted by rahulrds1 in this forum.

In that display tejas flew with a restricted AOA of 20 deg only along with 6 G turning capability much lesse than it's planned 24 deg AOA and 8 G capacity.

So even in sustained turn rates it

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/43717-ada-lca-tejas-iv-41.html


Watch the video from 1:29 seconds to 1:50 seconds . tejas mk-1 completes a vertical loop in close to 21 seconds even before achieving IOC-1 with a restricted AOA of 20 deg only along with 6 G turning capability much lesse than it's planned 24 deg AOA and 8 G capacity meaning it did 18 deg /sec approx , so in FOC state ,tejas mk-1 with an AOA of 24 and 8Gs , it can have a better sustained turn rate as well.

But why does it seem in the video that the gripen is way nimbler? It looks like it is turning faster. Maybe after the FCS restrictions are removed the tejas might be nimbler?

 

[Decklander]

@ersakthivel, You are trying to sell mirrors to blind. Pls stop it you won't succeed.

 

[rvjpheonix]

@ersakthivel, You are trying to sell mirrors to blind. Pls stop it you won't succeed.

Sir i accept what @ersakthivel has said. But in general to the layman's eyes it seems as the Gripen is nimbler. Since you are a fighter pilot you can explain it better.

 

[Decklander]

Sir i accept what @ersakthivel has said. But in general to the layman's eyes it seems as the Gripen is nimbler. Since you are a fighter pilot you can explain it better.

since you asked me, I will reply.
LCA MK1 has still not gone thru spin test and max AOA test. It is restricted to just 6G right now. You are trying to compare an immature platform with an operational platform. It does not need rocket science to make out that if an ac is matching an ac which is a mature platform with limitations, how will it fare when its entire envelop is opened up? Secondly asaik, the load limitation of LCA MK1 has more to do with its limitation of undercart than its ability w.r.t wingloading or thrust. Lastly you must also realise that Gripen is a canard design while LCA is a tailless compound delta design. The survivability in battle is the biggest factor when you compare any weapon system. LCA due to its small size and RCS scores tons of miles ahead of Gripen. LCA in its present form can easily lift up more than Gripen provided we beef up the undercart and decrease the T/O field limitations which have forced LCA to this load. If you allow LCA also to take as much T/O roll as Gripen with full load, LCA will emerge ahead. IAF had placed those restrictions regarding T/O field length reqts and landing run reqts. They did not put any such conditions in MMRCA competition.
Bro, Please remember the words of last Naval Chief when he stated," We will wait for N-LCA as it is ours and we can sort out the problems even if it is not upto our reqts". You don't throw away your child in a dustbin if he/she is not upto your reqts in looks and features.
Unfortunately we have parents in India who precisely do this and we have such people on this forum and also in our govt when it comes to home grown products.

 

[rvjpheonix]

since you asked me, I will reply.
LCA MK1 has still not gone thru spin test and max AOA test. It is restricted to just 6G right now. You are trying to compare an immature platform with an operational platform. It does not need rocket science to make out that if an ac is matching an ac which is a mature platform with limitations, how will it fare when its entire envelop is opened up? Secondly asaik, the load limitation of LCA MK1 has more to do with its limitation of undercart than its ability w.r.t wingloading or thrust. Lastly you must also realise that Gripen is a canard design while LCA is a tailless compound delta design. The survivability in battle is the biggest factor when you compare any weapon system. LCA due to its small size and RCS scores tons of miles ahead of Gripen. LCA in its present form can easily lift up more than Gripen provided we beef up the undercart and decrease the T/O field limitations which have forced LCA to this load. If you allow LCA also to take as much T/O roll as Gripen with full load, LCA will emerge ahead. IAF had placed those restrictions regarding T/O field length reqts and landing run reqts. They did not put any such conditions in MMRCA competition.
Bro, Please remember the words of last Naval Chief when he stated," We will wait for N-LCA as it is ours and we can sort out the problems even if it is not upto our reqts". You don't throw away your child in a dustbin if he/she is not upto your reqts in looks and features.
Unfortunately we have parents in India who precisely do this and we have such people on this forum and also in our govt when it comes to home grown products.

Sir don't get me wrong, I am all for indigenisation and love the lca because it is ours. However it saddened me to see that it was hailed as a miserable failure across news articles and forums. However coming from a fighter pilot like you,I no longer have any qualms over it. i also think that once the LCA is inducted and the pilots find it good which I am sure they will listening to the testimony of the test pilots the importing fiasco will reduce if not end. With popular support from the pilots the higher ups won't be able to take a biased decision.

 

[p2prada]

LCA take off distance is 1700m without AB. Landing distance is 1300m.
Welcome to Aerospace Division of HAL

Gripen C max take off distance is 800m (2624 feet exactly) at MTOW, with AB it is 500m at MTOW and 500m for landing at max landing weight.
Take off and landing distance can be reduced to 350m when carrying lesser payload.

Rafale max take off distance is 400m (1312 feet exactly) without AB at MTOW. Landing distance is 450m(1475 feet) at MLW.

EF-2000 take off distance is less than 700m and landing distance is less than 600m according to official Luftwaffe data. 300m take off with only air to air loadout.

F-35 take off distance at MTOW is 550 feet or 168m with AB.

Note all figures are for rolling take off.

 

[ersakthivel]

But why does it seem in the video that the gripen is way nimbler? It looks like it is turning faster. Maybe after the FCS restrictions are removed the tejas might be nimbler?

Sir i accept what @ersakthivel has said. But in general to the layman's eyes it seems as the Gripen is nimbler. Since you are a fighter pilot you can explain it better.

It appears nimbler because it was not shot by professional camera man and the hand that holds the camera is shaking.

If the camera was held steady there won't be any difference between the two films,

Otherwise it's all the same.

What counts is the time taken to complete the loop.

it simply proves the lie behind grippen C/D's 23 deg per second Sustained turn rate made by some one here.

Even it's makers have quoted a figure of 20 deg per second.

The rafale and Euro fighter both delta canards which have 20 percent more thrust to weight ratio than the Grippen and roughly the same wing loading can pnly have 23 deg per sec Sustained turn rate,
So there is no way for grippen C/D to have the same wing loading

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Published on Apr 20, 2013

India's indigenous LCA Tejas light fighter aircraft at its first live fire power demonstration.

=========================

Taking off with Payload ( 2XR73 AAM, 2X800L Fuel tanks, 1x1000LBS LGB ) under 500ms runway..

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA take off distance is 1700m without AB. Landing distance is 1300m.
Welcome to Aerospace Division of HAL

Gripen C max take off distance is 800m (2624 feet exactly) at MTOW, with AB it is 500m at MTOW and 500m for landing at max landing weight.
Take off and landing distance can be reduced to 350m when carrying lesser payload.

Rafale max take off distance is 400m (1312 feet exactly) without AB at MTOW. Landing distance is 450m(1475 feet) at MLW.

EF-2000 take off distance is less than 700m and landing distance is less than 600m according to official Luftwaffe data. 300m take off with only air to air loadout.

F-35 take off distance at MTOW is 550 feet or 168m with AB.

Note all figures are for rolling take off.

these figures are supremely irrelevant .

Sweeden is a small country and it's ASR requiremnt was as per that. So the need for grippen to land on short stretches of road and take off .


But India is a continent and even in war time there are tens of thousands of KMs of national Highways and as much area available for LCA to land anywhere with 1000 plus meter landing and take off distance and still have the same element of surprise the grippen has

Because grippen uses Canards as to reduce landing speed , it can land within a short distance.

Since LCA mk-1 can't this landing distance figure is higher. So this is not a aerodynamic deficiency as you make it out to be. The same canards give more than twice the frontal config RCS for grippen than LCA mk-1 which means in any one on one engagement it is the LCA mk-1 which sees first and shoots first. Because LCA has a bigger radome dia as well

So compared to this vital combat fact this lesser landing and take off distance for geippen due to canards pale into insignificance.

Btw what is the landing distance of Mirage-2000, Pakfa, Su-30 and Mig-29 with which LCA will share all ground infra?


In LCA mk-2 navy there is a levcon. IF IAF want to reduce landing and take off run it can ask to implement the same thing on IAF mk-2 as well.

Plus point is Levcon gives no radar reflection in level flight as it is part of the wing. So no extra corner reflections.

Also look at the link in Kunal's post above which shows LCA taking off with a lesser distance than what you pointed out.

 

[Decklander]

LCA take off distance is 1700m without AB. Landing distance is 1300m.
Welcome to Aerospace Division of HAL

Gripen C max take off distance is 800m (2624 feet exactly) at MTOW, with AB it is 500m at MTOW and 500m for landing at max landing weight.
Take off and landing distance can be reduced to 350m when carrying lesser payload.

Rafale max take off distance is 400m (1312 feet exactly) without AB at MTOW. Landing distance is 450m(1475 feet) at MLW.

EF-2000 take off distance is less than 700m and landing distance is less than 600m according to official Luftwaffe data. 300m take off with only air to air loadout.

F-35 take off distance at MTOW is 550 feet or 168m with AB.

Note all figures are for rolling take off.

these figures about LCA as shown on HAL site seem grossly wrong as it shows the thrust of the engine to be just 5.6 tons. Anyone with very basic knowledge of physics will know the two equations listed below by me,
Force = mass x Accelaration, for LCA and Gripen lets take thrust to be equal as 9000kgs of afterburning thrust, T/O wt to be 9000kgs, now applying this formula you will know that both ac will have similar accelaration but LCA will have shorter T/O roll as it has larger wing area and so lower T/O speed.
Now the next equation is (V^2-U^2) = 2 x a x s, this equation gives you the distance travelled to reach a velocity for a particular accelaration or velocity achieved for a given accelaration within a specified distance
Now if we look at LCA & Gripen both have equal accelaration so all other parameters shud also be equal. You need to explain your posts and how do you counter my POV.

 

[Twinblade]

these figures about LCA as shown on HAL site seem grossly wrong as it shows the thrust of the engine to be just 5.6 tons.

Sounds like GE-f404 max dry thrust figure for the latest variants. That is what P2P says in his post. Correcting for AB thrust of 9163Kg force the take off distance comes as 993 meters, which considering is the 'max' take off range should be at Leh AFB.

 

[Decklander]

Please watch the video of Iron fist and the one given below. The time for T/O for LCA MK1 is 12 seconds from a standing start in hot Indian conditions while the time for T/O for Gripen NG in cold high pressure european conditions is 16 seconds. Please make your own guess regarding T/O distance of the two.
Gripen NG Demonstrator at Emmen Jan. 2013 - YouTube

pls watch from 03.15 to 03.32

Now clean Gripen-C T/O at FB in clean config which takes 14 seconds.
Saab Gripen Flight Demonstration - Farnborough Airshow 2012 (Monday) - YouTube