LCA TEJAS MK1 & MK1A: News and Discussion

FalconSlayers

Based Kashmiri
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
13,241
Likes
61,147
Country flag
How do our Tejas Mk1 compares to similar aircrafts like Gripen? Like pros and cons.
Introduction

The Gripen has American Engine, IRST and AESA radar made by an Italian-British company, missile launch rails made by an American company, Cockpit made by an Israeli company, many other foreign components and foreign weapons. Still the Gripen is called an Indegeneous Weapon nobody has any problem in buying Gripen. Because it is Gripen It is not HAL Tejas. In HAL Tejas apart from engine and Radar there is rarely anything that has been a foreign product. Still people say Tejas not indigenous.

Picture


Saab has been making aircrafts since the 1930s. They take 70 years to produce an aircraft like Gripen NG, we only take 30 years to develop an aircraft like Tejas. There is lot of problems faced from the start of the project and the western sanctions also affect the program still we managed to develop a world class fighter. 65% of Tejas is ingenuously developed. Tejas MK 2 will incorporate 90% indigenous tech and surely it can outperform Gripen NG in many areas. Gripen considered as one of the best multi role fighter in the world. Many defense analysts place Gripen inside the top 10 table. We must be proud of by our achievements and must support our great scientists.

The comparison between Tejas and Gripen is in the following 4 criteria’s
  • Stealth
  • Maneuverability
  • Avionics
  • Weapons
  • Engine and Power

READ THE COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF TEJAS

Stealth

Both Tejas and Gripen incorporate a certain amount of stealth. Gripen uses 30% composites & Tejas uses 45 % composites. 90% of the surface of Tejas is made of composites. The RCS of Tejas not publically available. Tejas MK2 will contain 70% of composites surely MK2 will have a considerable advantage in stealth. Both Gripen and Tejas using Radar Absorbent materials and coating for reducing RCS.

RCS of Tejas = 0.5 m2
RCS of Gripen = 0.9 m2
Picture


Maneuverability

So far as aerodynamics is concern, Gripen is an excellently designed plane which gives it a very good speed and long range. LCA Mk1 was considered to be a bit draggy but a lots of studies have been made to improve its aerodynamics is concern. Making LCA Mk2 1m longer is a part of Aerodynamic improvement process for better compliance of Area rule. There are some other aerodynamics changes which are coming in LCA Mk2. Study says that it will reduce drag by 8% and improve trans sonic acceleration by 20%.. So these aerodynamic changes should make LCA Mk2 a plane with very good aerodynamic characteristic.

For good turning performance wing loading should be low and thrust to weight ratio (TWR) should be high. Tejas has an advantage in both TWR and wing loading. The thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the maneuverability of the aircraft. So Tejas should have better turn rates than Gripen .Tejas shall be at a big advantage because of its light empty weight and should maneuver fast and probably can beat Gripen in close combat. Its small airframe makes it difficult for the enemy pilot to spot in a close combat. Tejas have an advantage of low wing loading also which should give it an edge at high altitude fighting. Some websites claims Gripen has superior Sustained turn Rate than any other aircraft anyway we are not considering it as a credible source. However airplane design always a compromise & both wing loading & TWR can be “adjusted” within some margins to enhance turning performance. We don’t know anything more about the specifications of Gripen to evaluate its maneuverability. Even though Tejas has better turn rates we consider both Tejas and Gripen almost equally maneuverable.

TWR Tejas = 1.07
TWR Gripen = 0.97
Wing loading Tejas = 247kg/m2
Wing loading Tejas = 283kg/m2
Picture


Avionics

Gripen got very good radar, a gallium Nitride based radar. LCA Mk2 is also all set to get top of the class AESA radar till Uttam is ready with 150 KM range. Israel has offered ELTA 2052. Recently Thales has flight-tested active array radar built specifically for Tejas. The radar is based on the company’s successful RBE2 radar installed on Rafale fighter jets. With the latest Thales AESA radar MK1A can kick out any of its adversaries. But still lags behind Gripens GaN Raven radar.

Gripen also going to get a world class IRST in the form of Selex skyward G and tejas doesn’t have any IRST till now. With the help of GaN radar and skyward G IRST gripen can detect stealthy fifth generation fighter aircraft's at long distances.

In Electronic Warfare Gripen is the first aircraft which uses electronic warfare system based on gallium nitride technology, India and Israel are making EW for Tejas and has designed MAYAVI Ew suite for Tejas and work is on for better EW. India has got spectra configured for Indian requirement. If spectra technologies goes in LCA MK2 by the way of buy back clause, it will be superior to Gripen. If not, Indo-Israeli EW will catch up with that of gripen .

So far sensor fusion is concern; Gripen is a top class plane. India is also working on sensor fusion but how much effective that will be is not known. Here is an area where I see gripen is significantly out performing Tejas in current scenario. Gripens sensor fusion is only inferior to F35 , and nobody knows how good will be India’s own sensor fusion. In avionics Gripen is atleast a generation ahead than Tejas Mk1A. May be MK2 can catch up with Gripen NG.
Picture


Weapons

Both Tejas & Gripen have very good targeting pod and weapons . India shall use Python, derby and Russian missiles along with Astra. Gripen uses AIM Series and Meteor missile. Meteor is a top class missile but new Israel claims I Derby can provide 80% of meteor performance. Astra 2 the desi meteor is under development can also be include in Tejas Mk2 weaponry. Both planes are neck to neck in A to A missiles but If Meteor is used, Gripen will have a superior edge. Both will have gun according to their requirement and both can use guided bombs. India has just tested SAAW bomb which will give LCA MK2 an edge in anti airfield strike capability.
Picture


Engine and Power

Both Tejas and Gripen deriving the power from same engine GE 414 with a Dry thrust of 62 KN and 98 KN in afterburner. However India is also working on indigenous kaveri engine with the help of Snecma France. New Kaveri engine is supposed to have same power as GE 414. LCA Mk1A has 13.2 M long which is 2 meter short in length of Gripen. Both planes have same g limits. LCA mk1As service ceiling is 16000 m which is higher than the 15240m of Gripen . This is because of low wing loading and will give protection to LCA against many short range and shoulder fire missiles and SAMs. MK2 may have even better service ceiling which will increase the advantage of MK2 over Gripen NG.

Gripen has better speed than Tejas which does not make a big difference. But the super cruising ability of Gripen gives it an advantage of Tejas Mk1A, but we can incorporate super cruise ability in Tejas MK2. However, supercruising uses more fuel to travel the same distance than at subsonic speeds but uses less fuel than afterburner.
Gripens Higher cruise speed allows pilot to surprise the enemy by approaching him from the rear, zone of poorest detection, and to avoid getting surprised by a slower-cruising opponent. It also allows the fighter to choose a time and place of engagement.

In the beyond visual range combat, super cruise capability increases range of the missile shot, and reduces the effective range of adversary’s missiles. If pilot decides to pursue a merge or a visual-range attack pass, its excess kinetic energy again allows it to dictate terms of the engagement. It can also offset a possible situational awareness disadvantage – knowing where the enemy is is of little use if you can’t engage him.

Super cruise is an area where MK1A lag behind Gripen.

Max Speed Of Tejas – mach 1.8
Max Speed Of Gripen – mach 2

LCA MK1A has 500 m take off distance (some sources says it is 700m). Gripen NG has a short take off distance of 400m which favors Gripen and it will reduce at least 15% in Mk2 so mk2 will have equal short take off distance.[Figures may not be accurate ].

Speed at sea level is also against Tejas compared to Gripen, Gripen got 1400 Km/H at sea level Tejas got 1300 Km/H. We believe things will change in Tejas Mk2 with better aerodynamic features Mk2 can catch up with Gripen .

The maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of an aircraft is the maximum weight at which the pilot is allowed to attempt to take off, due to structural or other limits. MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. Gripen has a MTOW of 16500 Kg Ideally it should be 2.5 times the dry thrust which comes around 15.62 tons but let us assume that it is 16.5 tons as stated in specification. LCA Mk2 uses the same engine so it should have an ability of 16.5 tons MTOW but let us apply that 2.5 factor rule. LCA Mk2 should carry atleast 15.62 MTOW. Now Gripen with 8 ton weight +3.4 ton fuel is left with 5.1 ton payload on plane. On the other hand LCA MK2 with 6.2 ton empty weight and similar fuel of 3.4 ton should left Tejas with 5.7 ton weight which compares favorably to Gripen.

Fuel fraction or propellant fraction, is the weight of the fuel or propellant divided by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant). Fuel fraction of Tejas & gripen is almost similar. So far as range is concern, Tejas should have higher range as both planes are using same engine but Tejas being significantly lighter should have a longer range. But gripen has a considerable advantage in range. An aircraft with more and heavier load (Gripen) should have a smaller radius of action than the same one with less and lighter load (Tejas), due to higher fuel consumption at heavier weights.

Combat Radius of Tejas = 400 Km
Combat Radius of Gripen = 800Km

Why Tejas has less combat radius than Gripen even though both uses similar engines, this is a mystery.

Possible Reasons of Less Combat radius
  • There is one possibility is that, Gripen has super cruise capability. That is Gripen shaped in such a way that it has the lowest drag as possible to make gripen super cruising so gripen can travel further. Increased drag of Tejas compared to gripen may be the one reason behind tejas less range.
  • Range is a function of ground speed. But range is directly affected by wind. An extreme example occurs when the relative velocity of an airplane through the air is 100km/h and there is a head wind of 100km/h. the ground speed is zero the air plane just hover over the same location & the range is zero. Clearly range depends upon the wind. The thing is Tejas wing loading is smaller than Gripen , which is better for maneuvering. But smaller wing loading and relaxed static stability of Tejas may cause increased gust response, to stabilize the flight aircraft need to use more energy results in increased fuel consumption.
  • The most suitable explanation for this paradox is Tejas air intake, the air intake is not good enough to tap the full potential of GE414 Engine. Current air intake is designed for indigenous Kaveri engine & is not 100% suitable for GE 414. And we believe this is the primary reason behind Tejas less combat radius. Auxiliary air intakes are provided for Tejas but this may not be able to help in all the flight paths. Hopefully the problem can solve in Tejas mk2.
Picture


Conclusion

Both planes are very good having their edge over others in different area. However, Tejas with its small size and very high T/W ratio offers many advantages as a platform. Gripen has significant advantage over Tejas in Avionics and sensor fusion and have slight advantage in weapons its almost similar in all other criteria’s. Tejas MK2 with better Radar, Smart Skin, and Internal Unified Electronic Warfare (Under development) can catch up with Gripen NG. Overall Gripen is the only 4th generation single engine aircraft which has a significant advantage over Tejas.
 

NAMICA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
1,278
Likes
6,679
Country flag
Introduction

The Gripen has American Engine, IRST and AESA radar made by an Italian-British company, missile launch rails made by an American company, Cockpit made by an Israeli company, many other foreign components and foreign weapons. Still the Gripen is called an Indegeneous Weapon nobody has any problem in buying Gripen. Because it is Gripen It is not HAL Tejas. In HAL Tejas apart from engine and Radar there is rarely anything that has been a foreign product. Still people say Tejas not indigenous.

Picture


Saab has been making aircrafts since the 1930s. They take 70 years to produce an aircraft like Gripen NG, we only take 30 years to develop an aircraft like Tejas. There is lot of problems faced from the start of the project and the western sanctions also affect the program still we managed to develop a world class fighter. 65% of Tejas is ingenuously developed. Tejas MK 2 will incorporate 90% indigenous tech and surely it can outperform Gripen NG in many areas. Gripen considered as one of the best multi role fighter in the world. Many defense analysts place Gripen inside the top 10 table. We must be proud of by our achievements and must support our great scientists.

The comparison between Tejas and Gripen is in the following 4 criteria’s
  • Stealth
  • Maneuverability
  • Avionics
  • Weapons
  • Engine and Power

READ THE COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF TEJAS

Stealth

Both Tejas and Gripen incorporate a certain amount of stealth. Gripen uses 30% composites & Tejas uses 45 % composites. 90% of the surface of Tejas is made of composites. The RCS of Tejas not publically available. Tejas MK2 will contain 70% of composites surely MK2 will have a considerable advantage in stealth. Both Gripen and Tejas using Radar Absorbent materials and coating for reducing RCS.

RCS of Tejas = 0.5 m2
RCS of Gripen = 0.9 m2
Picture


Maneuverability

So far as aerodynamics is concern, Gripen is an excellently designed plane which gives it a very good speed and long range. LCA Mk1 was considered to be a bit draggy but a lots of studies have been made to improve its aerodynamics is concern. Making LCA Mk2 1m longer is a part of Aerodynamic improvement process for better compliance of Area rule. There are some other aerodynamics changes which are coming in LCA Mk2. Study says that it will reduce drag by 8% and improve trans sonic acceleration by 20%.. So these aerodynamic changes should make LCA Mk2 a plane with very good aerodynamic characteristic.

For good turning performance wing loading should be low and thrust to weight ratio (TWR) should be high. Tejas has an advantage in both TWR and wing loading. The thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the maneuverability of the aircraft. So Tejas should have better turn rates than Gripen .Tejas shall be at a big advantage because of its light empty weight and should maneuver fast and probably can beat Gripen in close combat. Its small airframe makes it difficult for the enemy pilot to spot in a close combat. Tejas have an advantage of low wing loading also which should give it an edge at high altitude fighting. Some websites claims Gripen has superior Sustained turn Rate than any other aircraft anyway we are not considering it as a credible source. However airplane design always a compromise & both wing loading & TWR can be “adjusted” within some margins to enhance turning performance. We don’t know anything more about the specifications of Gripen to evaluate its maneuverability. Even though Tejas has better turn rates we consider both Tejas and Gripen almost equally maneuverable.

TWR Tejas = 1.07
TWR Gripen = 0.97
Wing loading Tejas = 247kg/m2
Wing loading Tejas = 283kg/m2
Picture


Avionics

Gripen got very good radar, a gallium Nitride based radar. LCA Mk2 is also all set to get top of the class AESA radar till Uttam is ready with 150 KM range. Israel has offered ELTA 2052. Recently Thales has flight-tested active array radar built specifically for Tejas. The radar is based on the company’s successful RBE2 radar installed on Rafale fighter jets. With the latest Thales AESA radar MK1A can kick out any of its adversaries. But still lags behind Gripens GaN Raven radar.

Gripen also going to get a world class IRST in the form of Selex skyward G and tejas doesn’t have any IRST till now. With the help of GaN radar and skyward G IRST gripen can detect stealthy fifth generation fighter aircraft's at long distances.

In Electronic Warfare Gripen is the first aircraft which uses electronic warfare system based on gallium nitride technology, India and Israel are making EW for Tejas and has designed MAYAVI Ew suite for Tejas and work is on for better EW. India has got spectra configured for Indian requirement. If spectra technologies goes in LCA MK2 by the way of buy back clause, it will be superior to Gripen. If not, Indo-Israeli EW will catch up with that of gripen .

So far sensor fusion is concern; Gripen is a top class plane. India is also working on sensor fusion but how much effective that will be is not known. Here is an area where I see gripen is significantly out performing Tejas in current scenario. Gripens sensor fusion is only inferior to F35 , and nobody knows how good will be India’s own sensor fusion. In avionics Gripen is atleast a generation ahead than Tejas Mk1A. May be MK2 can catch up with Gripen NG.
Picture


Weapons

Both Tejas & Gripen have very good targeting pod and weapons . India shall use Python, derby and Russian missiles along with Astra. Gripen uses AIM Series and Meteor missile. Meteor is a top class missile but new Israel claims I Derby can provide 80% of meteor performance. Astra 2 the desi meteor is under development can also be include in Tejas Mk2 weaponry. Both planes are neck to neck in A to A missiles but If Meteor is used, Gripen will have a superior edge. Both will have gun according to their requirement and both can use guided bombs. India has just tested SAAW bomb which will give LCA MK2 an edge in anti airfield strike capability.
Picture


Engine and Power

Both Tejas and Gripen deriving the power from same engine GE 414 with a Dry thrust of 62 KN and 98 KN in afterburner. However India is also working on indigenous kaveri engine with the help of Snecma France. New Kaveri engine is supposed to have same power as GE 414. LCA Mk1A has 13.2 M long which is 2 meter short in length of Gripen. Both planes have same g limits. LCA mk1As service ceiling is 16000 m which is higher than the 15240m of Gripen . This is because of low wing loading and will give protection to LCA against many short range and shoulder fire missiles and SAMs. MK2 may have even better service ceiling which will increase the advantage of MK2 over Gripen NG.

Gripen has better speed than Tejas which does not make a big difference. But the super cruising ability of Gripen gives it an advantage of Tejas Mk1A, but we can incorporate super cruise ability in Tejas MK2. However, supercruising uses more fuel to travel the same distance than at subsonic speeds but uses less fuel than afterburner.
Gripens Higher cruise speed allows pilot to surprise the enemy by approaching him from the rear, zone of poorest detection, and to avoid getting surprised by a slower-cruising opponent. It also allows the fighter to choose a time and place of engagement.

In the beyond visual range combat, super cruise capability increases range of the missile shot, and reduces the effective range of adversary’s missiles. If pilot decides to pursue a merge or a visual-range attack pass, its excess kinetic energy again allows it to dictate terms of the engagement. It can also offset a possible situational awareness disadvantage – knowing where the enemy is is of little use if you can’t engage him.

Super cruise is an area where MK1A lag behind Gripen.

Max Speed Of Tejas – mach 1.8
Max Speed Of Gripen – mach 2

LCA MK1A has 500 m take off distance (some sources says it is 700m). Gripen NG has a short take off distance of 400m which favors Gripen and it will reduce at least 15% in Mk2 so mk2 will have equal short take off distance.[Figures may not be accurate ].

Speed at sea level is also against Tejas compared to Gripen, Gripen got 1400 Km/H at sea level Tejas got 1300 Km/H. We believe things will change in Tejas Mk2 with better aerodynamic features Mk2 can catch up with Gripen .

The maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of an aircraft is the maximum weight at which the pilot is allowed to attempt to take off, due to structural or other limits. MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. Gripen has a MTOW of 16500 Kg Ideally it should be 2.5 times the dry thrust which comes around 15.62 tons but let us assume that it is 16.5 tons as stated in specification. LCA Mk2 uses the same engine so it should have an ability of 16.5 tons MTOW but let us apply that 2.5 factor rule. LCA Mk2 should carry atleast 15.62 MTOW. Now Gripen with 8 ton weight +3.4 ton fuel is left with 5.1 ton payload on plane. On the other hand LCA MK2 with 6.2 ton empty weight and similar fuel of 3.4 ton should left Tejas with 5.7 ton weight which compares favorably to Gripen.

Fuel fraction or propellant fraction, is the weight of the fuel or propellant divided by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant). Fuel fraction of Tejas & gripen is almost similar. So far as range is concern, Tejas should have higher range as both planes are using same engine but Tejas being significantly lighter should have a longer range. But gripen has a considerable advantage in range. An aircraft with more and heavier load (Gripen) should have a smaller radius of action than the same one with less and lighter load (Tejas), due to higher fuel consumption at heavier weights.

Combat Radius of Tejas = 400 Km
Combat Radius of Gripen = 800Km

Why Tejas has less combat radius than Gripen even though both uses similar engines, this is a mystery.

Possible Reasons of Less Combat radius
  • There is one possibility is that, Gripen has super cruise capability. That is Gripen shaped in such a way that it has the lowest drag as possible to make gripen super cruising so gripen can travel further. Increased drag of Tejas compared to gripen may be the one reason behind tejas less range.
  • Range is a function of ground speed. But range is directly affected by wind. An extreme example occurs when the relative velocity of an airplane through the air is 100km/h and there is a head wind of 100km/h. the ground speed is zero the air plane just hover over the same location & the range is zero. Clearly range depends upon the wind. The thing is Tejas wing loading is smaller than Gripen , which is better for maneuvering. But smaller wing loading and relaxed static stability of Tejas may cause increased gust response, to stabilize the flight aircraft need to use more energy results in increased fuel consumption.
  • The most suitable explanation for this paradox is Tejas air intake, the air intake is not good enough to tap the full potential of GE414 Engine. Current air intake is designed for indigenous Kaveri engine & is not 100% suitable for GE 414. And we believe this is the primary reason behind Tejas less combat radius. Auxiliary air intakes are provided for Tejas but this may not be able to help in all the flight paths. Hopefully the problem can solve in Tejas mk2.
Picture


Conclusion

Both planes are very good having their edge over others in different area. However, Tejas with its small size and very high T/W ratio offers many advantages as a platform. Gripen has significant advantage over Tejas in Avionics and sensor fusion and have slight advantage in weapons its almost similar in all other criteria’s. Tejas MK2 with better Radar, Smart Skin, and Internal Unified Electronic Warfare (Under development) can catch up with Gripen NG. Overall Gripen is the only 4th generation single engine aircraft which has a significant advantage over Tejas.
Where is junk fighter 17 blunder.
 

N4tsula67

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
1,160
Likes
4,999
Country flag
Introduction

The Gripen has American Engine, IRST and AESA radar made by an Italian-British company, missile launch rails made by an American company, Cockpit made by an Israeli company, many other foreign components and foreign weapons. Still the Gripen is called an Indegeneous Weapon nobody has any problem in buying Gripen. Because it is Gripen It is not HAL Tejas. In HAL Tejas apart from engine and Radar there is rarely anything that has been a foreign product. Still people say Tejas not indigenous.

Picture


Saab has been making aircrafts since the 1930s. They take 70 years to produce an aircraft like Gripen NG, we only take 30 years to develop an aircraft like Tejas. There is lot of problems faced from the start of the project and the western sanctions also affect the program still we managed to develop a world class fighter. 65% of Tejas is ingenuously developed. Tejas MK 2 will incorporate 90% indigenous tech and surely it can outperform Gripen NG in many areas. Gripen considered as one of the best multi role fighter in the world. Many defense analysts place Gripen inside the top 10 table. We must be proud of by our achievements and must support our great scientists.

The comparison between Tejas and Gripen is in the following 4 criteria’s
  • Stealth
  • Maneuverability
  • Avionics
  • Weapons
  • Engine and Power

READ THE COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF TEJAS

Stealth

Both Tejas and Gripen incorporate a certain amount of stealth. Gripen uses 30% composites & Tejas uses 45 % composites. 90% of the surface of Tejas is made of composites. The RCS of Tejas not publically available. Tejas MK2 will contain 70% of composites surely MK2 will have a considerable advantage in stealth. Both Gripen and Tejas using Radar Absorbent materials and coating for reducing RCS.

RCS of Tejas = 0.5 m2
RCS of Gripen = 0.9 m2
Picture


Maneuverability

So far as aerodynamics is concern, Gripen is an excellently designed plane which gives it a very good speed and long range. LCA Mk1 was considered to be a bit draggy but a lots of studies have been made to improve its aerodynamics is concern. Making LCA Mk2 1m longer is a part of Aerodynamic improvement process for better compliance of Area rule. There are some other aerodynamics changes which are coming in LCA Mk2. Study says that it will reduce drag by 8% and improve trans sonic acceleration by 20%.. So these aerodynamic changes should make LCA Mk2 a plane with very good aerodynamic characteristic.

For good turning performance wing loading should be low and thrust to weight ratio (TWR) should be high. Tejas has an advantage in both TWR and wing loading. The thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the maneuverability of the aircraft. So Tejas should have better turn rates than Gripen .Tejas shall be at a big advantage because of its light empty weight and should maneuver fast and probably can beat Gripen in close combat. Its small airframe makes it difficult for the enemy pilot to spot in a close combat. Tejas have an advantage of low wing loading also which should give it an edge at high altitude fighting. Some websites claims Gripen has superior Sustained turn Rate than any other aircraft anyway we are not considering it as a credible source. However airplane design always a compromise & both wing loading & TWR can be “adjusted” within some margins to enhance turning performance. We don’t know anything more about the specifications of Gripen to evaluate its maneuverability. Even though Tejas has better turn rates we consider both Tejas and Gripen almost equally maneuverable.

TWR Tejas = 1.07
TWR Gripen = 0.97
Wing loading Tejas = 247kg/m2
Wing loading Tejas = 283kg/m2
Picture


Avionics

Gripen got very good radar, a gallium Nitride based radar. LCA Mk2 is also all set to get top of the class AESA radar till Uttam is ready with 150 KM range. Israel has offered ELTA 2052. Recently Thales has flight-tested active array radar built specifically for Tejas. The radar is based on the company’s successful RBE2 radar installed on Rafale fighter jets. With the latest Thales AESA radar MK1A can kick out any of its adversaries. But still lags behind Gripens GaN Raven radar.

Gripen also going to get a world class IRST in the form of Selex skyward G and tejas doesn’t have any IRST till now. With the help of GaN radar and skyward G IRST gripen can detect stealthy fifth generation fighter aircraft's at long distances.

In Electronic Warfare Gripen is the first aircraft which uses electronic warfare system based on gallium nitride technology, India and Israel are making EW for Tejas and has designed MAYAVI Ew suite for Tejas and work is on for better EW. India has got spectra configured for Indian requirement. If spectra technologies goes in LCA MK2 by the way of buy back clause, it will be superior to Gripen. If not, Indo-Israeli EW will catch up with that of gripen .

So far sensor fusion is concern; Gripen is a top class plane. India is also working on sensor fusion but how much effective that will be is not known. Here is an area where I see gripen is significantly out performing Tejas in current scenario. Gripens sensor fusion is only inferior to F35 , and nobody knows how good will be India’s own sensor fusion. In avionics Gripen is atleast a generation ahead than Tejas Mk1A. May be MK2 can catch up with Gripen NG.
Picture


Weapons

Both Tejas & Gripen have very good targeting pod and weapons . India shall use Python, derby and Russian missiles along with Astra. Gripen uses AIM Series and Meteor missile. Meteor is a top class missile but new Israel claims I Derby can provide 80% of meteor performance. Astra 2 the desi meteor is under development can also be include in Tejas Mk2 weaponry. Both planes are neck to neck in A to A missiles but If Meteor is used, Gripen will have a superior edge. Both will have gun according to their requirement and both can use guided bombs. India has just tested SAAW bomb which will give LCA MK2 an edge in anti airfield strike capability.
Picture


Engine and Power

Both Tejas and Gripen deriving the power from same engine GE 414 with a Dry thrust of 62 KN and 98 KN in afterburner. However India is also working on indigenous kaveri engine with the help of Snecma France. New Kaveri engine is supposed to have same power as GE 414. LCA Mk1A has 13.2 M long which is 2 meter short in length of Gripen. Both planes have same g limits. LCA mk1As service ceiling is 16000 m which is higher than the 15240m of Gripen . This is because of low wing loading and will give protection to LCA against many short range and shoulder fire missiles and SAMs. MK2 may have even better service ceiling which will increase the advantage of MK2 over Gripen NG.

Gripen has better speed than Tejas which does not make a big difference. But the super cruising ability of Gripen gives it an advantage of Tejas Mk1A, but we can incorporate super cruise ability in Tejas MK2. However, supercruising uses more fuel to travel the same distance than at subsonic speeds but uses less fuel than afterburner.
Gripens Higher cruise speed allows pilot to surprise the enemy by approaching him from the rear, zone of poorest detection, and to avoid getting surprised by a slower-cruising opponent. It also allows the fighter to choose a time and place of engagement.

In the beyond visual range combat, super cruise capability increases range of the missile shot, and reduces the effective range of adversary’s missiles. If pilot decides to pursue a merge or a visual-range attack pass, its excess kinetic energy again allows it to dictate terms of the engagement. It can also offset a possible situational awareness disadvantage – knowing where the enemy is is of little use if you can’t engage him.

Super cruise is an area where MK1A lag behind Gripen.

Max Speed Of Tejas – mach 1.8
Max Speed Of Gripen – mach 2

LCA MK1A has 500 m take off distance (some sources says it is 700m). Gripen NG has a short take off distance of 400m which favors Gripen and it will reduce at least 15% in Mk2 so mk2 will have equal short take off distance.[Figures may not be accurate ].

Speed at sea level is also against Tejas compared to Gripen, Gripen got 1400 Km/H at sea level Tejas got 1300 Km/H. We believe things will change in Tejas Mk2 with better aerodynamic features Mk2 can catch up with Gripen .

The maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of an aircraft is the maximum weight at which the pilot is allowed to attempt to take off, due to structural or other limits. MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. Gripen has a MTOW of 16500 Kg Ideally it should be 2.5 times the dry thrust which comes around 15.62 tons but let us assume that it is 16.5 tons as stated in specification. LCA Mk2 uses the same engine so it should have an ability of 16.5 tons MTOW but let us apply that 2.5 factor rule. LCA Mk2 should carry atleast 15.62 MTOW. Now Gripen with 8 ton weight +3.4 ton fuel is left with 5.1 ton payload on plane. On the other hand LCA MK2 with 6.2 ton empty weight and similar fuel of 3.4 ton should left Tejas with 5.7 ton weight which compares favorably to Gripen.

Fuel fraction or propellant fraction, is the weight of the fuel or propellant divided by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant). Fuel fraction of Tejas & gripen is almost similar. So far as range is concern, Tejas should have higher range as both planes are using same engine but Tejas being significantly lighter should have a longer range. But gripen has a considerable advantage in range. An aircraft with more and heavier load (Gripen) should have a smaller radius of action than the same one with less and lighter load (Tejas), due to higher fuel consumption at heavier weights.

Combat Radius of Tejas = 400 Km
Combat Radius of Gripen = 800Km

Why Tejas has less combat radius than Gripen even though both uses similar engines, this is a mystery.

Possible Reasons of Less Combat radius
  • There is one possibility is that, Gripen has super cruise capability. That is Gripen shaped in such a way that it has the lowest drag as possible to make gripen super cruising so gripen can travel further. Increased drag of Tejas compared to gripen may be the one reason behind tejas less range.
  • Range is a function of ground speed. But range is directly affected by wind. An extreme example occurs when the relative velocity of an airplane through the air is 100km/h and there is a head wind of 100km/h. the ground speed is zero the air plane just hover over the same location & the range is zero. Clearly range depends upon the wind. The thing is Tejas wing loading is smaller than Gripen , which is better for maneuvering. But smaller wing loading and relaxed static stability of Tejas may cause increased gust response, to stabilize the flight aircraft need to use more energy results in increased fuel consumption.
  • The most suitable explanation for this paradox is Tejas air intake, the air intake is not good enough to tap the full potential of GE414 Engine. Current air intake is designed for indigenous Kaveri engine & is not 100% suitable for GE 414. And we believe this is the primary reason behind Tejas less combat radius. Auxiliary air intakes are provided for Tejas but this may not be able to help in all the flight paths. Hopefully the problem can solve in Tejas mk2.
Picture


Conclusion

Both planes are very good having their edge over others in different area. However, Tejas with its small size and very high T/W ratio offers many advantages as a platform. Gripen has significant advantage over Tejas in Avionics and sensor fusion and have slight advantage in weapons its almost similar in all other criteria’s. Tejas MK2 with better Radar, Smart Skin, and Internal Unified Electronic Warfare (Under development) can catch up with Gripen NG. Overall Gripen is the only 4th generation single engine aircraft which has a significant advantage over Tejas.
I see Gripen is very good aircraft indeed. I would say both planes are on par with each other. While Tejas has better stealth, Gripen has more range and better radar. I hope with Tejas MK2 our aircraft would be the best among these two.
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,835
Likes
3,814
Country flag
I see Gripen is very good aircraft indeed. I would say both planes are on par with each other. While Tejas has better stealth, Gripen has more range and better radar. I hope with Tejas MK2 our aircraft would be the best among these two.
That wasn't an appropriate comparison in the first place. Tejas is a light aircraft. Gripen is medium weight. Apples and oranges.
 

rohit b3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
609
Likes
740
Country flag
Introduction

The Gripen has American Engine, IRST and AESA radar made by an Italian-British company, missile launch rails made by an American company, Cockpit made by an Israeli company, many other foreign components and foreign weapons. Still the Gripen is called an Indegeneous Weapon nobody has any problem in buying Gripen. Because it is Gripen It is not HAL Tejas. In HAL Tejas apart from engine and Radar there is rarely anything that has been a foreign product. Still people say Tejas not indigenous.

Picture


Saab has been making aircrafts since the 1930s. They take 70 years to produce an aircraft like Gripen NG, we only take 30 years to develop an aircraft like Tejas. There is lot of problems faced from the start of the project and the western sanctions also affect the program still we managed to develop a world class fighter. 65% of Tejas is ingenuously developed. Tejas MK 2 will incorporate 90% indigenous tech and surely it can outperform Gripen NG in many areas. Gripen considered as one of the best multi role fighter in the world. Many defense analysts place Gripen inside the top 10 table. We must be proud of by our achievements and must support our great scientists.

The comparison between Tejas and Gripen is in the following 4 criteria’s
  • Stealth
  • Maneuverability
  • Avionics
  • Weapons
  • Engine and Power

READ THE COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF TEJAS

Stealth

Both Tejas and Gripen incorporate a certain amount of stealth. Gripen uses 30% composites & Tejas uses 45 % composites. 90% of the surface of Tejas is made of composites. The RCS of Tejas not publically available. Tejas MK2 will contain 70% of composites surely MK2 will have a considerable advantage in stealth. Both Gripen and Tejas using Radar Absorbent materials and coating for reducing RCS.

RCS of Tejas = 0.5 m2
RCS of Gripen = 0.9 m2
Picture


Maneuverability

So far as aerodynamics is concern, Gripen is an excellently designed plane which gives it a very good speed and long range. LCA Mk1 was considered to be a bit draggy but a lots of studies have been made to improve its aerodynamics is concern. Making LCA Mk2 1m longer is a part of Aerodynamic improvement process for better compliance of Area rule. There are some other aerodynamics changes which are coming in LCA Mk2. Study says that it will reduce drag by 8% and improve trans sonic acceleration by 20%.. So these aerodynamic changes should make LCA Mk2 a plane with very good aerodynamic characteristic.

For good turning performance wing loading should be low and thrust to weight ratio (TWR) should be high. Tejas has an advantage in both TWR and wing loading. The thrust-to-weight ratio of a combat aircraft is a good indicator of the maneuverability of the aircraft. So Tejas should have better turn rates than Gripen .Tejas shall be at a big advantage because of its light empty weight and should maneuver fast and probably can beat Gripen in close combat. Its small airframe makes it difficult for the enemy pilot to spot in a close combat. Tejas have an advantage of low wing loading also which should give it an edge at high altitude fighting. Some websites claims Gripen has superior Sustained turn Rate than any other aircraft anyway we are not considering it as a credible source. However airplane design always a compromise & both wing loading & TWR can be “adjusted” within some margins to enhance turning performance. We don’t know anything more about the specifications of Gripen to evaluate its maneuverability. Even though Tejas has better turn rates we consider both Tejas and Gripen almost equally maneuverable.

TWR Tejas = 1.07
TWR Gripen = 0.97
Wing loading Tejas = 247kg/m2
Wing loading Tejas = 283kg/m2
Picture


Avionics

Gripen got very good radar, a gallium Nitride based radar. LCA Mk2 is also all set to get top of the class AESA radar till Uttam is ready with 150 KM range. Israel has offered ELTA 2052. Recently Thales has flight-tested active array radar built specifically for Tejas. The radar is based on the company’s successful RBE2 radar installed on Rafale fighter jets. With the latest Thales AESA radar MK1A can kick out any of its adversaries. But still lags behind Gripens GaN Raven radar.

Gripen also going to get a world class IRST in the form of Selex skyward G and tejas doesn’t have any IRST till now. With the help of GaN radar and skyward G IRST gripen can detect stealthy fifth generation fighter aircraft's at long distances.

In Electronic Warfare Gripen is the first aircraft which uses electronic warfare system based on gallium nitride technology, India and Israel are making EW for Tejas and has designed MAYAVI Ew suite for Tejas and work is on for better EW. India has got spectra configured for Indian requirement. If spectra technologies goes in LCA MK2 by the way of buy back clause, it will be superior to Gripen. If not, Indo-Israeli EW will catch up with that of gripen .

So far sensor fusion is concern; Gripen is a top class plane. India is also working on sensor fusion but how much effective that will be is not known. Here is an area where I see gripen is significantly out performing Tejas in current scenario. Gripens sensor fusion is only inferior to F35 , and nobody knows how good will be India’s own sensor fusion. In avionics Gripen is atleast a generation ahead than Tejas Mk1A. May be MK2 can catch up with Gripen NG.
Picture


Weapons

Both Tejas & Gripen have very good targeting pod and weapons . India shall use Python, derby and Russian missiles along with Astra. Gripen uses AIM Series and Meteor missile. Meteor is a top class missile but new Israel claims I Derby can provide 80% of meteor performance. Astra 2 the desi meteor is under development can also be include in Tejas Mk2 weaponry. Both planes are neck to neck in A to A missiles but If Meteor is used, Gripen will have a superior edge. Both will have gun according to their requirement and both can use guided bombs. India has just tested SAAW bomb which will give LCA MK2 an edge in anti airfield strike capability.
Picture


Engine and Power

Both Tejas and Gripen deriving the power from same engine GE 414 with a Dry thrust of 62 KN and 98 KN in afterburner. However India is also working on indigenous kaveri engine with the help of Snecma France. New Kaveri engine is supposed to have same power as GE 414. LCA Mk1A has 13.2 M long which is 2 meter short in length of Gripen. Both planes have same g limits. LCA mk1As service ceiling is 16000 m which is higher than the 15240m of Gripen . This is because of low wing loading and will give protection to LCA against many short range and shoulder fire missiles and SAMs. MK2 may have even better service ceiling which will increase the advantage of MK2 over Gripen NG.

Gripen has better speed than Tejas which does not make a big difference. But the super cruising ability of Gripen gives it an advantage of Tejas Mk1A, but we can incorporate super cruise ability in Tejas MK2. However, supercruising uses more fuel to travel the same distance than at subsonic speeds but uses less fuel than afterburner.
Gripens Higher cruise speed allows pilot to surprise the enemy by approaching him from the rear, zone of poorest detection, and to avoid getting surprised by a slower-cruising opponent. It also allows the fighter to choose a time and place of engagement.

In the beyond visual range combat, super cruise capability increases range of the missile shot, and reduces the effective range of adversary’s missiles. If pilot decides to pursue a merge or a visual-range attack pass, its excess kinetic energy again allows it to dictate terms of the engagement. It can also offset a possible situational awareness disadvantage – knowing where the enemy is is of little use if you can’t engage him.

Super cruise is an area where MK1A lag behind Gripen.

Max Speed Of Tejas – mach 1.8
Max Speed Of Gripen – mach 2

LCA MK1A has 500 m take off distance (some sources says it is 700m). Gripen NG has a short take off distance of 400m which favors Gripen and it will reduce at least 15% in Mk2 so mk2 will have equal short take off distance.[Figures may not be accurate ].

Speed at sea level is also against Tejas compared to Gripen, Gripen got 1400 Km/H at sea level Tejas got 1300 Km/H. We believe things will change in Tejas Mk2 with better aerodynamic features Mk2 can catch up with Gripen .

The maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of an aircraft is the maximum weight at which the pilot is allowed to attempt to take off, due to structural or other limits. MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. Gripen has a MTOW of 16500 Kg Ideally it should be 2.5 times the dry thrust which comes around 15.62 tons but let us assume that it is 16.5 tons as stated in specification. LCA Mk2 uses the same engine so it should have an ability of 16.5 tons MTOW but let us apply that 2.5 factor rule. LCA Mk2 should carry atleast 15.62 MTOW. Now Gripen with 8 ton weight +3.4 ton fuel is left with 5.1 ton payload on plane. On the other hand LCA MK2 with 6.2 ton empty weight and similar fuel of 3.4 ton should left Tejas with 5.7 ton weight which compares favorably to Gripen.

Fuel fraction or propellant fraction, is the weight of the fuel or propellant divided by the gross take-off weight of the craft (including propellant). Fuel fraction of Tejas & gripen is almost similar. So far as range is concern, Tejas should have higher range as both planes are using same engine but Tejas being significantly lighter should have a longer range. But gripen has a considerable advantage in range. An aircraft with more and heavier load (Gripen) should have a smaller radius of action than the same one with less and lighter load (Tejas), due to higher fuel consumption at heavier weights.

Combat Radius of Tejas = 400 Km
Combat Radius of Gripen = 800Km

Why Tejas has less combat radius than Gripen even though both uses similar engines, this is a mystery.

Possible Reasons of Less Combat radius
  • There is one possibility is that, Gripen has super cruise capability. That is Gripen shaped in such a way that it has the lowest drag as possible to make gripen super cruising so gripen can travel further. Increased drag of Tejas compared to gripen may be the one reason behind tejas less range.
  • Range is a function of ground speed. But range is directly affected by wind. An extreme example occurs when the relative velocity of an airplane through the air is 100km/h and there is a head wind of 100km/h. the ground speed is zero the air plane just hover over the same location & the range is zero. Clearly range depends upon the wind. The thing is Tejas wing loading is smaller than Gripen , which is better for maneuvering. But smaller wing loading and relaxed static stability of Tejas may cause increased gust response, to stabilize the flight aircraft need to use more energy results in increased fuel consumption.
  • The most suitable explanation for this paradox is Tejas air intake, the air intake is not good enough to tap the full potential of GE414 Engine. Current air intake is designed for indigenous Kaveri engine & is not 100% suitable for GE 414. And we believe this is the primary reason behind Tejas less combat radius. Auxiliary air intakes are provided for Tejas but this may not be able to help in all the flight paths. Hopefully the problem can solve in Tejas mk2.
Picture


Conclusion

Both planes are very good having their edge over others in different area. However, Tejas with its small size and very high T/W ratio offers many advantages as a platform. Gripen has significant advantage over Tejas in Avionics and sensor fusion and have slight advantage in weapons its almost similar in all other criteria’s. Tejas MK2 with better Radar, Smart Skin, and Internal Unified Electronic Warfare (Under development) can catch up with Gripen NG. Overall Gripen is the only 4th generation single engine aircraft which has a significant advantage over Tejas.
I cannot believe someone would do such a huge analysis, but believe the "Combat radius" figure of Wikipedia.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,472
Likes
2,200
Country flag
I cannot believe someone would do such a huge analysis, but believe the "Combat radius" figure of Wikipedia.
The article is old,@Karthi may help here...
 

Trololo

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
571
Likes
1,623
Country flag
Credit where due: The Gripen overall is a better aircraft as compared to LCA Mk1 and Mk1A. Especially the NG version.

In the base Gripen design area rule has been meticulously followed, and Sweden being a western country, didn't have to bother so much about engines, radar, etc. It therefore got the freedom to design the plane as a system and pick and choose the parts, people, companies, and countries to help put that together. Therefore its an excellent aircraft with focus on cutting edge avionics and long range munitions, both A2A and A2G. That wasn't quite the situation for us.

In our case we lost whatever expertise was there after the Marut project. The babus and commies at the different aerospace establishments didn't help either. Neither did the IAF who couldn't foresee what a future modern air force can look like, and where 4G fighters can reach, and hence decided to create a "light" fighter. I would say that going by the initial LCA specs they wanted an F16 in the package of a Folland Gnat. Even the Gods cannot make this happen. Also note that Dassault has been a design consultant for the ADA and that's primarily why the LCA resembles a mini Mirage 2000. The chubbiness of the design of course is where the area ruling was ignored, giving rise to all the drag penalties.

Given how the LCA was progressing I thought that at one point the project may be entirely abandoned.

The Mk1A and Mk2 gives a lot of hope now and shows that there is firm backing of the political establishment, which has made the IAF get involved in the project. IAFs ab-initio involvement in the AMCA and Mk2 also shows they don't want to make the LCA mistakes where they treated it as a step child. As rightly mentioned by @FalconSlayers, the LCA Mk2 is the plane the IAF always wanted, but didn't know how to quite express, perhaps because of lack of vision. In hindsight perhaps asking the ADA to create an aircraft of the capabilities and dimensions of the F-16 would have helped better in terms of timeline. Also the core technologies of the LCA except engines are ours. In their entirety. That gives us a lot of freedom and flexibility. The technologies being developed for the Mk2, and the AMCA will also go into the MiG 29Ks and Su-30s. And that's a big thing! I've always felt that stuffing the MiG 29Ks of the IN with the LCA Mk2s avionics and weapons can turn it into a mini Rafale of sorts, and will make it a force to reckon with in the subcontinent. It will be the best MiG 29 ever built. (Sorry I love that plane a lot!)

Keep in mind that the LCA Mk2 is the only aircraft in the world which will be able to fire a slew of European, American, Indian, and Russian munitions, both A2A and A2G. It will also be able to field avionics from the same places as well, depending on customer choices. That makes it a plane which can be exported easily to Eastern Europe, SE-Asia, Africa, ME, and LatAm.

Overall the Mk2 bodes very well for us. If the designers can take care of the aerodynamics side of things, whatever gap that remains with the Gripen-NG as far as avionics are concerned, can be made up and even exceeded in rapid iterations. Overall, the scene looks bright to me!
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,165
Likes
4,324
The Gripen has had multiple crashes due to flight control software issues.

As of January 2017, Gripen aircraft have been involved in at least 10 incidents, including nine hull-loss accidents, with one loss of life.[407]


The first two crashes, in 1989 and 1993 respectively, occurred during public displays of the Gripen and resulted in considerable negative media reports. The first crash was filmed by a Sveriges Television news crew and led to critics calling for development to be cancelled.[408] The second crash occurred in an empty area on the island of Långholmen during the 1993 Stockholm Water Festival with tens of thousands of spectators present. The decision to display the Gripen over large crowds was publicly criticized, and was compared to the 1989 crash.[409][410] Both the 1989 and 1993 crashes were related to flight control software issues.[411] The first and only fatal crash occurred on 14 January 2017 at Hat Yai International Airport, Thailand, during an airshow for Thai Children's Day; the pilot did not survive.[412] The last crash occurred on 21 August 2018 near the southern Swedish town of Ronneby; the pilot was able to successfully eject from the aircraft.[413]

The Tejas has a much better record with its flight control software. 😎
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,541
Likes
22,520
Country flag
That wasn't an appropriate comparison in the first place. Tejas is a light aircraft. Gripen is medium weight. Apples and oranges.
Credit where due: The Gripen overall is a better aircraft as compared to LCA Mk1 and Mk1A. Especially the NG version.
gripen E is medium combat while gripen C is light combat aircraft

While Gripen-NG is pretty much same as MWF, other Gripens & Tejas Mark1/A are similar light fighters with same engine.

The Gripen C/D have very good aerodynamics compared to a bit crude one of Tejas Mk1, but have crash record like the Junk Fighter-17 Blunder due to inferior flight software. Almost everything is imported to screwdriver, so better weaponary compared to FOC Tejas.
I've found maneuverability to be very similar despite Gripen having canards, possibly due to higher wing area & complex aerofoil in Tejas (this one is its greatest strength)... While Saab's greatest strength is its lead in EW.

Anyway, coming soon;
IMG-20201118-WA0001.jpg
 
Last edited:

rohit b3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
609
Likes
740
Country flag
Credit where due: The Gripen overall is a better aircraft as compared to LCA Mk1 and Mk1A. Especially the NG version.

In the base Gripen design area rule has been meticulously followed, and Sweden being a western country, didn't have to bother so much about engines, radar, etc. It therefore got the freedom to design the plane as a system and pick and choose the parts, people, companies, and countries to help put that together. Therefore its an excellent aircraft with focus on cutting edge avionics and long range munitions, both A2A and A2G. That wasn't quite the situation for us.

In our case we lost whatever expertise was there after the Marut project. The babus and commies at the different aerospace establishments didn't help either. Neither did the IAF who couldn't foresee what a future modern air force can look like, and where 4G fighters can reach, and hence decided to create a "light" fighter. I would say that going by the initial LCA specs they wanted an F16 in the package of a Folland Gnat. Even the Gods cannot make this happen. Also note that Dassault has been a design consultant for the ADA and that's primarily why the LCA resembles a mini Mirage 2000. The chubbiness of the design of course is where the area ruling was ignored, giving rise to all the drag penalties.

Given how the LCA was progressing I thought that at one point the project may be entirely abandoned.

The Mk1A and Mk2 gives a lot of hope now and shows that there is firm backing of the political establishment, which has made the IAF get involved in the project. IAFs ab-initio involvement in the AMCA and Mk2 also shows they don't want to make the LCA mistakes where they treated it as a step child. As rightly mentioned by @FalconSlayers, the LCA Mk2 is the plane the IAF always wanted, but didn't know how to quite express, perhaps because of lack of vision. In hindsight perhaps asking the ADA to create an aircraft of the capabilities and dimensions of the F-16 would have helped better in terms of timeline. Also the core technologies of the LCA except engines are ours. In their entirety. That gives us a lot of freedom and flexibility. The technologies being developed for the Mk2, and the AMCA will also go into the MiG 29Ks and Su-30s. And that's a big thing! I've always felt that stuffing the MiG 29Ks of the IN with the LCA Mk2s avionics and weapons can turn it into a mini Rafale of sorts, and will make it a force to reckon with in the subcontinent. It will be the best MiG 29 ever built. (Sorry I love that plane a lot!)

Keep in mind that the LCA Mk2 is the only aircraft in the world which will be able to fire a slew of European, American, Indian, and Russian munitions, both A2A and A2G. It will also be able to field avionics from the same places as well, depending on customer choices. That makes it a plane which can be exported easily to Eastern Europe, SE-Asia, Africa, ME, and LatAm.

Overall the Mk2 bodes very well for us. If the designers can take care of the aerodynamics side of things, whatever gap that remains with the Gripen-NG as far as avionics are concerned, can be made up and even exceeded in rapid iterations. Overall, the scene looks bright to me!
Gripen NG costs almost twice that of Tejas mk1A and is bigger and heavier. And hence cannot be compared.
In terms of Cost and Weight class, Tejas mk1A can be compared to Gripen C or Tejas mk1 can be compared to Gripen A.
So how is Gripen C better than Tejas mk1A again?

Our only fault is we are pretty behind in the timeline, and this Govt is still delaying the contract signing.
 

johnq

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,165
Likes
4,324
While Gripen-NG is pretty much same as MWF, other Gripens & Tejas Mark1/A are similar light fighters with same engine.

The Gripen C/D have very good aerodynamics compared to a bit crude one of Tejas Mk1, but have crash record like the Junk Fighter-17 Blunder due to inferior flight software. Almost everything is imported to screwdriver, so better weaponary compared to FOC Tejas.
I've found maneuverability to be very similar despite Gripen having canards, possibly due to higher wing area & complex aerofoil in Tejas (this one is its greatest strength)... While Saab's greatest strength is its lead in EW.

Anyway, coming soon;View attachment 66938
Is that a jammer with towed decoy?
 

patriots

Defense lover
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2017
Messages
4,525
Likes
15,206
Country flag

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top