ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Chandragupt Maurya]

You can not provide any reliable information about RCS , these types of data are extremely confidential and countries exaggerate capabilities of their aircrafts .


most of the stealth is achieved by shape , do you think Grippen with all these weapons and fuel tanks wouldn't reflect radar waves ?

Gripen has electronic stealth the onboard mission computer on Gripen is far better than that on F16 it’s avionics are far superior to F16 the radar the missiles the EW suite and Gripen is light weight F16s are made of Aluminum alloy they’re heavy and have got huge RCS there is some reason why Gripen E costs 130 million dollars each

 

[airtel]

Production variant ka first flight tha wo, Brazilian airforce ka series aircraft hai,limited series production nahi....

Article written in July 2020 . https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-smart-fighter-component-production-in-brazil




They are still testing their avonics .

Mikael Olsson, Saab’s Head of Flight Test and Verification, said the company is engaged in intensive envelope expansion testing in parallel with tactical testing of the Leonardo ES-05 Raven Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, the infrared search and track (IRST), and electronic warfare system.

They have just started making few components .from July 2020 .

Tail units and front fuselages of the single-seat Gripen E are the first components to enter into production at SAM, which is located in São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil. Subsequently, speed brakes as well as wing box and front fuselage sections for the two-seat F model will also be made here. These will then be delivered to the final assembly facilities at the Embraer plant in Gavião Peixoto, São Paulo, Brazil, as well as to Linköping, Sweden.

And then final deliveries are expected from 2021 .

Deliveries to the Brazilian air force are scheduled to begin in 2021, with all combat aircraft to be delivered by 2024. The aircraft is to be designated the F-39.

Source = https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/saab-starts-gripen-e-production-in-brazil/139180.article

 

[Steven Rogers]

Article written in July 2020 . https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-smart-fighter-component-production-in-brazil




They are still testing their avonics .



They have just started making few components .from July 2020 .





And then final deliveries are expected from 2021 .



Source = https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/saab-starts-gripen-e-production-in-brazil/139180.article

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

F16s btw were rejected by IAF in 2008 and what answer does F16 have to the European meteor integrated on Gripen , EF Typhoon, and Rafales? And hopefully our Tejas when it finally gets UTTAM AESA Radars

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

F16s should be considered only when Lockheed Martin agrees to sell them at dirt cheap price and full technology transfer we cannot buy Maruti 800 at the price of an Alto and if Americans can’t supply the technology of a 45-50 years old design Then there is no point in buying those F16

 

[airtel]

F16s btw were rejected by IAF in 2008 and what answer does F16 have to the European meteor integrated on Gripen , EF Typhoon, and Rafales? And hopefully our Tejas when it finally gets UTTAM AESA Radars

Grippen was also rejected , meteor is costly missile and bvr missiles with duel pulse motors are the cheaper alternatives .
Americans will soon develop a missile comparable to meteor.

F16s should be considered only when Lockheed Martin agrees to sell them at dirt cheap price and full technology transfer we cannot buy Maruti 800 at the price of an Alto and if Americans can’t supply the technology of a 45-50 years old design Then there is no point in buying those F16

Why F16 or Grippen should be considered ?

When we are developing Tejas ?

Tejas MK2 should be the backbone of IAF .

 

[Flying Dagger]

I will quote the source later but Gripen has lower RCS and better air to missile (meteors) than F16 , Gripen has more than 30% carbon composite material used in its airframe (Tejas has 90% carbon composite material used in its airframe) F16 barely uses carbon composite maybe the tail fin is made up of carbon composite in the most recent ones

1. Meteor can be integrated with F-16s too. While America has own missiles which are advanced like 120 D with 160km+ range , cheaper with more shelf life in general and available in plenty big amount during war if stocks needed to be replenished quickly with a big supply line for spare parts.

2. F-16s of USA use extensive RAM coating and have very low frontal RCS .

Not to forget Gripen have canards too that will increase the RCS.

With almost 40-50% more thrust and 5th gen avionics it isn't behind gripen in anycase.

Remember Gripen have lots of American components too.

Tejas has 70% carbon composite by volume and 45% by weight.

Now what is life of Gripen airframe vs F-16s ?

 

[Steven Rogers]

1. Meteor can be integrated with F-16s too. While America has own missiles which are advanced like 120 D with 160km+ range , cheaper with more shelf life in general and available in plenty big amount during war if stocks needed to be replenished quickly with a big supply line for spare parts.

2. F-16s of USA use extensive RAM coating and have very low frontal RCS .

Not to forget Gripen have canards too that will increase the RCS.

With almost 40-50% more thrust and 5th gen avionics it isn't behind gripen in anycase.

Remember Gripen have lots of American components too.

Tejas has 70% carbon composite by volume and 45% by weight.

Now what is life of Gripen airframe vs F-16s ?

Low RCS measurements in the combat aircraft that carries external payload doesn't help,it will be detected by AWACS and ground control systems way earlier than a stealth aircraft...

 

[Flying Dagger]

Low RCS measurements in the combat aircraft that carries external payload doesn't help,it will be detected by AWACS and ground control systems way earlier than a stealth aircraft...

That's not what we are discussing right now but thanks for Input.

Right now we are fooling around with rants of Chandragupta Maurya.

Between Awacs won't be always available .

 

[Shekhar Singh]

F16s should be considered only when Lockheed Martin agrees to sell them at dirt cheap price and full technology transfer we cannot buy Maruti 800 at the price of an Alto and if Americans can’t supply the technology of a 45-50 years old design Then there is no point in buying those F16

What ToT with F16 do you think can be useful?

 

[Shekhar Singh]

That's not what we are discussing right now but thanks for Input.

Right now we are fooling around with rants of Chandragupta Maurya.

Between Awacs won't be always available .

He is a large pressure cooker.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

1. Meteor can be integrated with F-16s too. While America has own missiles which are advanced like 120 D with 160km+ range , cheaper with more shelf life in general and available in plenty big amount during war if stocks needed to be replenished quickly with a big supply line for spare parts.

2. F-16s of USA use extensive RAM coating and have very low frontal RCS .

Not to forget Gripen have canards too that will increase the RCS.

With almost 40-50% more thrust and 5th gen avionics it isn't behind gripen in anycase.

Remember Gripen have lots of American components too.

Tejas has 70% carbon composite by volume and 45% by weight.

Now what is life of Gripen airframe vs F-16s ?

1.Can you give me the example of any F16 using meteors ?
2. Quote me the source which claims that F16 has lower RCS than Gripen
Su30mki has more thrust than Rafales does it make Su30mki superior to Rafales?
Tejas has American component (the GE F404 engines) too
3.Tejas is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites, and titanium alloys.[ Composite materials make up 45% of the airframe by weight and 95% by surface area

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

What ToT with F16 do you think can be useful?

Engines

 

[Sridhar_TN]

1. Meteor can be integrated with F-16s too. While America has own missiles which are advanced like 120 D with 160km+ range , cheaper with more shelf life in general and available in plenty big amount during war if stocks needed to be replenished quickly with a big supply line for spare parts.

2. F-16s of USA use extensive RAM coating and have very low frontal RCS .

Not to forget Gripen have canards too that will increase the RCS.

With almost 40-50% more thrust and 5th gen avionics it isn't behind gripen in anycase.

Remember Gripen have lots of American components too.

Tejas has 70% carbon composite by volume and 45% by weight.

Now what is life of Gripen airframe vs F-16s ?

Yeah, the AIM 120D is under development. There is also an extended range BVR missile under development.
I don’t particularly think the meteor system is integrated with F16 or with any USAF aircraft for that matter. It’s very important that MBDA sees a European radar on an aircraft befriend they approve meteor integration.

And for the F16 ram coating. It’s a temporary coating that wears off, and needs to be maintained. It also does not reduce the RCS a whole lot compared to a platform that is made up of carbon composites. Either way the RCS will increase significantly for any aircraft once it starts carrying fuel tanks and weapons.

 

[Steven Rogers]

1.Can you give me the example of any F16 using meteors ?
2. Quote me the source which claims that F16 has lower RCS than Gripen
Su30mki has more thrust than Rafales does it make Su30mki superior to Rafales?
Tejas has American component (the GE F404 engines) too
3.Tejas is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites, and titanium alloys.[ Composite materials make up 45% of the airframe by weight and 95% by surface area

Lithium is an alkali metal,it will react with air due to its highly reactive properties...you mean titanium isn't it...

 

[Steven Rogers]

Between Awacs won't be always available .

Their won't be a strike package coming in the time of peace..during the heated time like we had one last year, at least an awacs will be available in the theatre at any given time.....

 

[Flying Dagger]

1.Can you give me the example of any F16 using meteors ?
2. Quote me the source which claims that F16 has lower RCS than Gripen
Su30mki has more thrust than Rafales does it make Su30mki superior to Rafales?
Tejas has American component (the GE F404 engines) too
3.Tejas is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites, and titanium alloys.[ Composite materials make up 45% of the airframe by weight and 95% by surface area

1. No because no one felt the need to employ such an expensive missile system when already 120 C/D are available.
Even France is getting MICA NG for their airforce and not meteor.

What I said is they can be integrated with an American radar MBDA or any other European nation has no issue with it.

2. Are you on Drugs or fell on your head ?

Why would I quote you a source when you yourself don't have USAF report on Gripen and F-16 RCS ?

I said they use extensive RAM coating to reduce frontal RCS while gripen have canards that increase its RCS so 5 m2 and 0.1 m2 RCS that you claimed is imaginary and words of a fool.

Where from did you brought Flanker and Rafale comparison ? Stay on topic anyway I'll still entertain you.

Flanker that we use is from early 2000 era while the Rafale you want me to compare is the latest variant F3/F4

In terms of pure aircraft performance su is indeed better.

In terms of avionics Su need upgrade. The latest flanker variant is Su 35 and Su 57.

You can try to compare Rafale F3/F4 with Su 57 in the relevant thread.
3. What are you trying to say Anyway you have Inc.
the composites to 95% by volume now make it 100 and be happy.

Engines

4.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

1. No because no one felt the need to employ such an expensive missile system when already 120 C/D are available.
Even France is getting MICA NG for their airforce and not meteor.

What I said is they can be integrated with an American radar MBDA or any other European nation has no issue with it.

2. Are you on Drugs or fell on your head ?

Why would I quote you a source when you yourself don't have USAF report on Gripen and F-16 RCS ?

I said they use extensive RAM coating to reduce frontal RCS while gripen have canards that increase its RCS so 5 m2 and 0.1 m2 RCS that you claimed is imaginary and words of a fool.

Where from did you brought Flanker and Rafale comparison ? Stay on topic anyway I'll still entertain you.

Flanker that we use is from early 2000 era while the Rafale you want me to compare is the latest variant F3/F4

In terms of pure aircraft performance su is indeed better.

In terms of avionics Su need upgrade. The latest flanker variant is Su 35 and Su 57.

You can try to compare Rafale F3/F4 with Su 57 in the relevant thread.
3. What are you trying to say Anyway you have Inc.
the composites to 95% by volume now make it 100 and be happy.



4.

Yeah, the AIM 120D is under development. There is also an extended range BVR missile under development.
I don’t particularly think the meteor system is integrated with F16 or with any USAF aircraft for that matter. It’s very important that MBDA sees a European radar on an aircraft befriend they approve meteor integration.

And for the F16 ram coating. It’s a temporary coating that wears off, and needs to be maintained. It also does not reduce the RCS a whole lot compared to a platform that is made up of carbon composites. Either way the RCS will increase significantly for any aircraft once it starts carrying fuel tanks and weapons.

MICA is not an American missile and If meteor can be integrated with American Radars then why MBDA refused to integrate it with Israeli ELTA 2052 of Tejas
Gripens have lower RCS than F16 even Lockheed Martin wouldn’t claim that F16s have lower RCS than Gripens
And you compared thrust of Gripen with F16 saying that with higher thrust f16s are better than gripens that’s why I gave the example of Su30mki and Rafales
And I said 95% by surface Area and 45% by weight I hope you understand that difference between meter square and Meter cube seems like you watched too much India TV or Zee News which keeps repeating that F16 is the best aircraft in the world or worst the Pakistani news channels which claim F16 to be 5th generation Fighter Aircraft

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Lithium is an alkali metal,it will react with air due to its highly reactive properties...you mean titanium isn't it...

Lithium alloy

 

[Flying Dagger]

MICA is not an American missile and If meteor can be integrated with American Radars then why MBDA refused to integrate it with Israeli ELTA 2052 of Tejas
Gripens have lower RCS than F16 even Lockheed Martin wouldn’t claim that F16s have lower RCS than Gripens
And you compared thrust of Gripen with F16 saying that with higher thrust f16s are better than gripens that’s why I gave the example of Su30mki and Rafales
And I said 95% by surface Area and 45% by weight I hope you understand that difference between meter square and Meter cube seems like you watched too much India TV or Zee News which keeps repeating that F16 is the best aircraft in the world or worst the Pakistani news channels which claim F16 to be 5th generation Fighter Aircraft

1. Are you nuts who told you MICA is an American missile that you had to Google search and confirm it to us that it's not.

2. Meteor can be integrated with American radar since they have a goddamn treaty are NATO allies.

UK , Italy and other European nation who are buying American jets are already going to integrate their F35 with meteor missiles.

3. That's Idiotic look at the size diff of Rafale and Sukhoi. What you should have asked is for t/w ratio and power available for electronics. Su has an edge over there.

It is obvious to understand that higher thrust in case of F-16s means more power for the electronics and its onboard radar.

The point you should have made is higher t/w ratio for Gripen though one can get f-16s engine upgraded by ge to neutralise that.

4. RCS of what with what . With missile and tanks hanging and canards in front a 0.1 m2 RCS you claim is a joke. The RCS of both will be similar to each other.

5. You did PHD in lying and ranting I guess. First you said it's 90% (possibly from Delhi defence review article) then after my statement you said 95% . (From wiki article) Better make up your mind if you want to make it 100% now from some another fanboy article.

If the composite were 95% by surface area and 45% by weight then the weight saving would have been 50/95*100 almost 50% But that's not.