LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D

[SQ8]

I think 40 aircraft is good enough for MK1, cause we have to accept that MK1 is atleast 5-6 years late if not more then that.

The 40 aircraft are a token number just to get the IAF started and familiarized with the type. Otherwise the Mk.1 is woefully lacking in meeting the IAF's requirements. Hopefully the Mk.2 will address these shortcomings quickly.. but will it be relevant to the IAF's Air Staff requirements when it arrives is something to be seen.

 

[narcon]

Which as far as we know is 1200Kg so that alone is a problem, the bigger problem as said however is the size, because LCA has size limitations on the centerline station.

Its relative, to the thrust to weight ratio of an aircraft, the higher it is, the more load it can carry under its belly.

 

[Raul_AD]

The testimony for the Tejas Mk.1 has been provided by the IAF itself. It is just not as capable as its next iteration the Mk.2 will be. Hence, there is no comparison with the Gripen which is a well established combat aircraft.
the Tejas Mk.2 could be a good comparison to the Gripen C/D but not a competitor.. yet I see lots of potential for sale of the Tejas to nations like Bangladesh and African states.

Are you kidding?????

1) Gripen C/D carries AESA????

2) Gripen Carries Engine F-414?????

3) Gripen-C/D Carries Fuel 2,268 kg - Tejas MK-I carries Fuel - 2,400 kg (Internal Fuel)????? (Note: Internal fuel of
Tejas MK-II will increase to 3200 Kgs.) (Add 0.5 meter in fuselage to smoothen the cross section increase between
4 and 5 meter lengths in fuselage and retain the same design)

4) AOA of Tejas MK-I is extending to 27 Degrees. Yes 27 Degrees. What is the AOA of Gripen-C/D? (I can bet with you
finally AOA of Tejas MK-I will extend upto 28 Degrees!)

5) What is the TWR of Gripen-C/D???? And what is of Tejas Mk-I ?????

6) Weapon Load for Tejas MK-I 4000 Kgs. same for Gripen C/D???

You are very senior poster! I kindly request you to equate Tejas Mk-I and Gripen-C/D on the above mentioned parameters and post a reply why Gripen-C/D is better then Tejas MK-I.

Tejas MK-II will seriously competing with GRIPEN-NG in all spacs HEAD-ON!!!

If not why dont you post a comparison between GRIPEN-NG and TEJAS-MK-II !!!!!

 

[Raul_AD]

You are absolutely correct. I would not compare the Tejas very easily with the Gripen.

Sir may I know your definition of Comparison???? Would you please elaborate what are the short comings of Tejas MK-I in front of Gripen-C/D??? With some serious Facts and figures!!!!

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Comparing a mature fighter with a new one is too early, one should wait a few years and then see how it will end up.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Are you kidding?????

1) Gripen C/D carries AESA????

2) Gripen Carries Engine F-414?????

3) Gripen-C/D Carries Fuel 2,268 kg - Tejas MK-I carries Fuel - 2,400 kg (Internal Fuel)????? (Note: Internal fuel of
Tejas MK-II will increase to 3200 Kgs.) (Add 0.5 meter in fuselage to smoothen the cross section increase between
4 and 5 meter lengths in fuselage and retain the same design)

4) AOA of Tejas MK-I is extending to 27 Degrees. Yes 27 Degrees. What is the AOA of Gripen-C/D? (I can bet with you
finally AOA of Tejas MK-I will extend upto 28 Degrees!)

5) What is the TWR of Gripen-C/D???? And what is of Tejas Mk-I ?????

6) Weapon Load for Tejas MK-I 4000 Kgs. same for Gripen C/D???

You are very senior poster! I kindly request you to equate Tejas Mk-I and Gripen-C/D on the above mentioned parameters and post a reply why Gripen-C/D is better then Tejas MK-I.

Tejas MK-II will seriously competing with GRIPEN-NG in all spacs HEAD-ON!!!

If not why dont you post a comparison between GRIPEN-NG and TEJAS-MK-II !!!!!

Made me laugh... HAHAHAHAHA ... Sorry couldn't control myself ...

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Sir may I know your definition of Comparison???? Would you please elaborate what are the short comings of Tejas MK-I in front of Gripen-C/D??? With some serious Facts and figures!!!!

Do please read the post#275. That is why I would refrain yet from making any comparison.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

In dec 2013... The AOA of LCA was 22 .. Their target for Mk-1 was to increase it to 24...

The nose design limited the detection rang of radar to 40+ km.. Which was to be increased to 70-80km.. And so on..

Compare it with ehm .. Any aircraft in its class and the result would be disappointing..

 

[Raul_AD]

Do please read the post#275. That is why I would refrain yet from making any comparison.

Sir may I please know in which configuration Su-30 arrived in India and why India had to latter upgrade it to MKI standard. Our IAF want fully mature Air Craft from day one, of Desi Air Craft, so be it!

You are not making comparisons in previous posts dont you???

 

[Raul_AD]

In dec 2013... The AOA of LCA was 22 .. Their target for Mk-1 was to increase it to 24...

The nose design limited the detection rang of radar to 40+ km.. Which was to be increased to 70-80km.. And so on..

Compare it with ehm .. Any aircraft in its class and the result would be disappointing..

Hehehehe You don't know about the latest developments AOA has opened upto 26 Degrees and with Quartz RaDom Radar Range will go to +100 Km (This tracking range).

So what is your point???

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Hehehehe You don't know about the latest developments AOA has opened upto 26 Degrees and with Quartz RaDom Radar Range will go to +100 Km (This tracking range).

So what is your point???

Do you have a reliable source for that ? Even with the doubtable stats you have provided gripen is superior..
P.S when will lca be handed to indian airforce? 18?

 

[Raul_AD]

Do you have a reliable source for that ? Even with the doubtable stats you have provided gripen is superior..
P.S when will lca be handed to indian airforce? 18?

International Standard for Radar is 5 sq.mtr. RCS and IAF has set standard to 2 sq.mtr. RCS.

Tejas-MK-I will have +80 Km for 2 sq.mtr. as per IAF standards. It is a known fact.

Equate it to international standards of 5 sq.mtr. it will be 100 km.+

 

[sancho]

Its relative, to the thrust to weight ratio of an aircraft, the higher it is, the more load it can carry under its belly.

Which still is pointless when you don't have the space to carry large weapons. After the upgrade MKI will be able to carry a 2.5t Brahmos on the centerline, but that doesn't mean it can carry 5 x KAB 500 bombs there, because there is no space! So if the LCA centerline station is limited to payloads of a certain length and width, it can only carry payloads that suits these limitations, no matter what weight it theoretically can carry.

 

[rockstarIN]

Which still is pointless when you don't have the space to carry large weapons. After the upgrade MKI will be able to carry a 2.5t Brahmos on the centerline, but that doesn't mean it can carry 5 x KAB 500 bombs there, because there is no space! So if the LCA centerline station is limited to payloads of a certain length and width, it can only carry payloads that suits these limitations, no matter what weight it theoretically can carry.

Can't we attach missiles or bombs there? As it is a wet station.add some carrier to hold it.

 

[sancho]

The testimony for the Tejas Mk.1 has been provided by the IAF itself. It is just not as capable as its next iteration the Mk.2 will be. Hence, there is no comparison with the Gripen which is a well established combat aircraft.

Isn't it just logical than an upgraded versio (MK2, E/F, Block 2) is more capable than the earlier one? So where is the surprise in IAF opting for the more capable one, rather than opting for more of the old once? Isn't that the reason why PAF did not bought additional JF 17 block 1s and waited for the Block 2 upgrade to be finished? According to your logic that would mean that the Block 1 is not capable and no comparison either to other fighters in that class either wouldn't it?