MRCA News and Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Dec 2009 00:18

But, SAAB had no sanctions, denial of technology or parts from khan countries never ever. If SAAB wants F22 stealth skins for Gripen, they can pay for it and get it. OR they can hire the same guys who finished the f22 project, and pay them the same salary and get it done for Gripen. Virtually no restriction from gov-gov or from technology denial regime.

The conditions for India are still different to deliver on the same lines, plus India has put itself into many big problems due to its setup, financial status, and inferior investment plans for self-reliance and indeginzations. Precision technologies are still with khan, france and Russians. Even Chinese have failed to R&D (receive and duplicate) GE engines.

Actually, comparing LCA with any program or project or product outside India is silly.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Dec 2009 00:46

It is indeed unfair to compare an AC already in service with 4 AFs and in process of being absorbed by a 5th with another which is not yet in service , no jingo arguments can rule out the the fact that former is a proven and a matured product, irrespective of those crashes during the testing phase . Even time tested platforms crash we are talking about complex machines being operated by humans it can happen with any flying AC in this day and age without any warning and there is very little one can do to rule out such an eventuality. Technically speaking unless LCA clears the user acceptance trials and joins the IAF fleet it will be difficult for neutral parties to be convinced about its capabilities .

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Dec 2009 00:54

NRao wrote:Kartik,

There is really no comparison between SAAB and Indian companies. SAAB has FAR more experience than all Indian companies combined. And, there is really no shame in that.

I never said that they don't have experience. I myself don't see any shame in accepting that..however, the guy is trying to rub it in with talk of "don't even compare the LCA with the Gripen", which IMO is nonsense..

Would someone care to point out any one feature that the Gripen has that the Tejas doesn't have or cannot have ? Their weapons/sensors/avionics/specifications are pretty close in most areas. I accept that the Gripen has proven itself, but is that the only one key defining factor ?

All I hear is that the Gripen has a service history and that’s its got a superlative DL or that it can be re-programmed for a new mission in-flight..nothing else that is superlative and is not in development for the Tejas or cannot be acquired off-the-shelf as Saab has done for a lot of components. the radar for the Gripen C/D, the PS-05A is not good enough for the NG, so an imported Selex AESA is to be used. what has Ericsson done to boast about in that ? the engine is American with some Volvo components. the ejection seat is American. the APU is American. the weapons, every single one of them, is non-Swedish. the LDP is Israeli. the IR-OTIS was (as per some report I read) not going to be used on the Gripen NG.

add to all that, its not a particularly cheap aircraft either.

as for the exports of the Gripen, while they've managed to secure some, they're mostly ex-Soviet weapon users (Hungary, Czech Republic, etc.) or nations that do not really have much of an option, like Thailand. South Africa needed a single engined fighter in the Mirage-3 weight class and the competition wasn't hotly contested. so its not that big surprise that the Gripen was chosen when its offset offers and offers of putting in South African developed items (like A-Darter and Cobra HMDS) exceeded what the US or France would offer and the Gripen was sold as part of a package alongwith the BAE Hawk. the combined export sales for the Gripen doesn't exceed 60 or so, which pales in comparison to that of the Mirage-2000 or the F-16, both of which were heavier fighters as well.

so while the Gripen has been successful, its not like Sweden did it all on its own or that its been a run-away hit or so technologically advanced that it cannot be compared to the Tejas.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Dec 2009 00:57

negi wrote:It is indeed unfair to compare an AC already in service with 4 AFs and in process of being absorbed by a 5th with another which is not yet in service , no jingo arguments can rule out the the fact that former is a proven and a matured product, irrespective of those crashes during the testing phase . Even time tested platforms crash we are talking about complex machines being operated by humans it can happen with any flying AC in this day and age without any warning and there is very little one can do to rule out such an eventuality. Technically speaking unless LCA clears the user acceptance trials and joins the IAF fleet it will be difficult for neutral parties to be convinced about its capabilities .

so you're saying that the PAK-FA (which isn't even flying as yet) shouldn't be compared to the F-22 or the F-35 till the time it enters service, huh ? wait till it flies and then see how the comparisons begin. I'd like you to keep this statement of yours in mind when that happens.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Dec 2009 01:06

@Kartik:Thank you for all the replies above.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Dec 2009 01:55

no problem Rohit.

I found a presentation by Saab, and on slide 5, they proudly colour the Gripen D in American and European union flags and say "WE PICKED THE BEST"..

Norwegian presentation for Gripen

so they openly and proudly declare that they're integrating the best equipment in the Gripen from various sources..

if we do the same for the Tejas, its openly criticised for not being "indigenous enough"..if you want every item indigenised, you have to pay for R&D, and wait till the item is tested and operationlised. you cannot have your laddu and eat it too. either get a world-class fighter with imported equipment for niche areas where India lags or else build up all necessary infrastructure at the expense of time and then amortise the cost over a huge production order.

and let me point out what are the glorious advantages of the Gripen C/D as given in the presentation on slide 6

- NATO Interoperability (a non-issue for us)
- 3 colour MFDs (Tejas has them as well, albeit 5"x5" ones, not the 8"X6" of the Gripen C/D)
- IFR (Tejas will get it before service, plumbing already there and probe already designed- Gripen A/B didn't have this and yet entered service)
- HMD (Tejas is already integrated with Elbit DASH HMDS)
- OBOGS (Tejas has it)
- Fully integrated EWS (Tejas has it)
- World wide climate clearance (Tejas already tested at Leh, world's highest operational air field and in Nagpur at the peak of summer, which would exceed most other places- and in both places, passed with flying colours as per Test Pilots and ADA)

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 02:36

Kartik wrote:
ajay pratap wrote:By this time, the bugs had been largely ironed out. The Flygvapnet decided the Gripen had been worth the wait and trouble, since it easily exceeded many of its design specifications -- and the fact that it was a pretty aircraft didn't hurt. In June 1992, SAAB got the go-ahead for building the two-seat JAS 39B, and the government formally signed off on the option for 110 more Gripens, which were to be built to an improved "Batch 2" standard. The new order included 96 JAS 39As and 14 JAS 39Bs.

wait wait wait !! Wickberg asked us as to who has ever heard about a fighter being "obsolete" by the time it enters service, didn't he ? So, looks like the Gripen shared the same fate..Only 30 "Batch 1" Gripens ordered (Tejas beats it here- 40 Mk1s will be ordered) and then the next 110 were "Batch 2" (Mk2 for us)..turns out that the decades and decades of experience of Saab didn't really mean that they could build fault-free and cutting-edge fighters in the first iteration itself..and looking at the American content in the Gripen, they definitely decided that it wasn't necessary to have to develop everything indigenously when off-the-shelf imported solutions were available. After all, almost every weapon the Gripen carries is imported or licence built Swedish versions.

See you are wrong even in your first statement, that shows how much you know about things. A "batch" does not equal new model. The Gripen was ordered in three batches to the Swedish air force of 30, 110 and 64 fighters. From the 107th production aircraft it was changed from being A/B to C/D. That had to do with the fact that SAAB was now also looking for export customers, Sweden had joined the EU (and the PFP) and the cold war was over. The role of the Swedish air force had gone from defending the country to be able to assist NATO/UN in the international arena. That is why the C/D was born. And it have been successful, it was done without delays, no cost overruns and it have found a handful of export customers.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 02:54

Kartik wrote: so two crashes within 4 years, both traced to the FCS ? hmm..

If the LCA had made its first flight when it was predicted to, in the early 1990s they would perhaps also have had some difficulties with FBW system, cause it was pretty new 20-25 years ago. Now... LCA did´nt make its first fly until almost 15 years later.

Kartik wrote: so the Batch 1 reached IOC a full 2 years AFTER it entered service, huh ? Compare that to the Tejas which the IAF will not bring into service UNTIL it achieves IOC..

And, the Batch 2 was so obsolete that RIGHT AS IT WAS ROLLING OUT OF PRODUCTION LINES, a Batch 3 was required to overcome the obsolescence..this is turning out to be really funny !:D

Compare that to LCA which is at least 15 years delayed. And you are wrong, cause you simply don´t understand what a "batch" is.
BTW, if the LCA Mk1. ever comes into production and actually being operational in the year 2014. Do you think IAF pilots will think it is obsolete or a dream come true?

All this excersice in typing (alla knows i hate typing) is to show SAAB with all its experience managed to crash their a/c while it took them 10+ years to production version, and improved version(or MK1 MK2 etc.) already planed, so why not MK3 for LCA?[/quote]

Kartik wrote: because its hard to digest for some Europeans that India can actually produce something that will be as good as something they struggled to produce and now can barely fund to keep in service. the coming decades are really going to be hard for them to come to terms with the decline of their military might.

No, I love fighters and I would love if a new fighter and a new country could a player, instead of the old boring ones like USA/France/UK/Sweden/Russia(CCCP). But the fact is India still have´nt produced anything. They have produced some flying prototypes and the flyfans have been waiting since the 1980´s and we are still waiting. There are some things I miss when I look in my book of fighters from 1988, it´s the "Kfir", the "Tigershark" and the LCA....

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 03:15

Kartik wrote:
NRao wrote:Kartik,

There is really no comparison between SAAB and Indian companies. SAAB has FAR more experience than all Indian companies combined. And, there is really no shame in that.
I never said that they don't have experience. I myself don't see any shame in accepting that..however, the guy is trying to rub it in with talk of "don't even compare the LCA with the Gripen", which IMO is nonsense..

Would someone care to point out any one feature that the Gripen has that the Tejas doesn't have or cannot have ? Their weapons/sensors/avionics/specifications are pretty close in most areas. I accept that the Gripen has proven itself, but is that the only one key defining factor ?

All I hear is that the Gripen has a service history and that’s its got a superlative DL or that it can be re-programmed for a new mission in-flight..nothing else that is superlative and is not in development for the Tejas or cannot be acquired off-the-shelf as Saab has done for a lot of components. the radar for the Gripen C/D, the PS-05A is not good enough for the NG, so an imported Selex AESA is to be used. what has Ericsson done to boast about in that ? the engine is American with some Volvo components. the ejection seat is American. the APU is American. the weapons, every single one of them, is non-Swedish. the LDP is Israeli. the IR-OTIS was (as per some report I read) not going to be used on the Gripen NG.

add to all that, its not a particularly cheap aircraft either.

as for the exports of the Gripen, while they've managed to secure some, they're mostly ex-Soviet weapon users (Hungary, Czech Republic, etc.) or nations that do not really have much of an option, like Thailand. South Africa needed a single engined fighter in the Mirage-3 weight class and the competition wasn't hotly contested. so its not that big surprise that the Gripen was chosen when its offset offers and offers of putting in South African developed items (like A-Darter and Cobra HMDS) exceeded what the US or France would offer and the Gripen was sold as part of a package alongwith the BAE Hawk. the combined export sales for the Gripen doesn't exceed 60 or so, which pales in comparison to that of the Mirage-2000 or the F-16, both of which were heavier fighters as well.

so while the Gripen has been successful, its not like Sweden did it all on its own or that its been a run-away hit or so technologically advanced that it cannot be compared to the Tejas.

This post is just so stupid I don´t even know why I am responding to it... I really should´nt , dam it is so dumb.... Just a few things, about the radar Ericsson/SAAB, do your homework. You are so wrong. The the ejection seat, wrong again, as usual. The engine... well those "some parts" is over 50% designed and produced by Volvo Aero. The RM12 led to the 414 in which Volvo Aero is a partner in. BTW, how is that Kaveri going? The weapons, my god. It´s a GOOD thing Gripen can be armed with weapons from all over the world, unlike some of their competitors, you can choose missiles from Europe, USA, Israel, South Africa or Brazil. And BTW, the RBS15 cruise/anti-ship missile is a 100% Swedish missile IIRC, perhaps SAAB had some scientist who´s parents were born abroad, I don´t know....
And it is a cheap aircraft compared to the ones it is competing with. (No. You can´t compare it with LCA cause it is just a flying prototype so you have no clue how much it will cost in the end) (Actually you can´t compare the LCA with anything that have been operational for a while. Why? Cause IT IS NOT OPERATIONAL, and we are not even sure that it will ever be. I hope for it tough, I hope India will become a new player in the fighter business world and I would love to see some new fighter coming from this nation. I rather see India originals then Chinese copies...)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Dec 2009 03:16

Kartik wrote: I never said that they don't have experience. I myself don't see any shame in accepting that..however, the guy is trying to rub it in with talk of "don't even compare the LCA with the Gripen", which IMO is nonsense..

Would someone care to point out any one feature that the Gripen has that the Tejas doesn't have or cannot have ? Their weapons/sensors/avionics/specifications are pretty close in most areas. I accept that the Gripen has proven itself, but is that the only one key defining factor ?

The point being a company is more than the feature set in a plane. (Which is why I did not compare NG to LCA, but SAAB to Indian companies.)

All I hear is that the Gripen has a service history and that’s its got a superlative DL or that it can be re-programmed for a new mission in-flight..nothing else that is superlative and is not in development for the Tejas or cannot be acquired off-the-shelf as Saab has done for a lot of components. the radar for the Gripen C/D, the PS-05A is not good enough for t....................................................................................

so while the Gripen has been successful, its not like Sweden did it all on its own or that its been a run-away hit or so technologically advanced that it cannot be compared to the Tejas.

Which is why I feel that SAAB got a "raw deal".

SAAB at the end of WW2 was very, very advanced. It is said that there was an unwritten agreement at that time that others (countries/companies) would pitch in and that SAAB did not have to do everything ground up. It was not that SAAB at that time could not build out on her own ......... which is why we see components from other countries in their planes. It was planned that a way - of course, no one saw what we see today coming (technically and politically).

However, EVEN IF you were to take foreign components into account there are other aspects of development? Management? etc? That is where they are far ahead.

Just BTW (posted this earlier too), IF India had listened to the original LCA team things would have been far better. That team - Indians - were top notch guys working for these very foreign companies in the 50-60s. They were the tech-edge in their days. (Management came a 'lil later.)

Time to move on.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Dec 2009 06:06

Kartik wrote:
negi wrote:It is indeed unfair to compare an AC already in service with 4 AFs and in process of being absorbed by a 5th with another which is not yet in service , no jingo arguments can rule out the the fact that former is a proven and a matured product, irrespective of those crashes during the testing phase . Even time tested platforms crash we are talking about complex machines being operated by humans it can happen with any flying AC in this day and age without any warning and there is very little one can do to rule out such an eventuality. Technically speaking unless LCA clears the user acceptance trials and joins the IAF fleet it will be difficult for neutral parties to be convinced about its capabilities .
so you're saying that the PAK-FA (which isn't even flying as yet) shouldn't be compared to the F-22 or the F-35 till the time it enters service, huh ? wait till it flies and then see how the comparisons begin. I'd like you to keep this statement of yours in mind when that happens.

Of course I do for the kind of semantics and specs which we discuss on board can only be confirmed if there exists an user which can vouch for the capabilities stated by the OEM ; basically unless an AC sees active service or any end user for which it was conceived it becomes difficult to establish and discuss its actual capabilities.

And I would also like to re-iterate that tomorrow if PAK-FA does end up meeting all its design specs it will still be playing catch up with the Raptor and likes in area of engine and AESA technology (at least from what is available in public about Al-117S or even Al-41 when compared with F119 which has already done 100,000 flight hours as per OEM ) for it is obvious F-22 and family will be fine tuned and receive upgrades based on USAF feedback .

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Dec 2009 06:33

Wickberg wrote:
See you are wrong even in your first statement, that shows how much you know about things.

and this comes from a guy who knows very little about the LCA but wants to trash it just because someone had the temerity to say that the Gripen NG would overlap with the planned LCA Mk2.

A "batch" does not equal new model. The Gripen was ordered in three batches to the Swedish air force of 30, 110 and 64 fighters. From the 107th production aircraft it was changed from being A/B to C/D. That had to do with the fact that SAAB was now also looking for export customers, Sweden had joined the EU (and the PFP) and the cold war was over. The role of the Swedish air force had gone from defending the country to be able to assist NATO/UN in the international arena. That is why the C/D was born. And it have been successful, it was done without delays, no cost overruns and it have found a handful of export customers.

do you want me to quote the article again ?

In June 1992, SAAB got the go-ahead for building the two-seat JAS 39B, and the government formally signed off on the option for 110 more Gripens, which were to be built to an improved "Batch 2" standard.

The first Batch 2 machine was delivered in December 1996, the same month that an order for 64 improved "Batch 3" machines was placed, including 50 single-seat "JAS 39Cs" and 14 two-seat "JAS 39Ds".

it said "Improved"..it means something was modified and made better, which means that some systems became obsolete by the time the second batch was ordered and the first one was still on the production line. you were trolling by saying that who's ever heard of an aircraft being obsolete and requiring a Mk2 by the time it was ready for service- that’s not true. The IAF has already ordered 8 LSP + 20 for the first squadron and an impending order of 20 more Tejas is around the corner. That itself would mean more Tejas Mk1 of the same spec ordered than Gripen A/B from the "Batch 1".

You've pretty much pushed yourself into a corner earlier itself by saying that no one has ever heard of a fighter being obsolete even before it enters service (even though that is patently false and pretty much BS when applied to the Tejas Mk1 since it won't be obsolete by any standard as long as Gripen C/Ds are serving worldwide)

As for Gripen C/D, it was an improved variant of the A/B, with NATO compatible equipment like pylons, and other equipment new colour MFDs, new processors and IFR probe. Whether or not Saab was looking for export or domestic requirements is immaterial. If the Flygvapnet's requirements didn't need IFR or NATO standard equipment, that doesn't mean that the Gripen A/B was not going to have to go through that upgrade to be considered current in the year 2005. as it stands, the Flygvapnet wants to basically standardize on the C/D and has grounded all A/B versions and is hoping to find an export customer for these, as is, or in upgraded to C/D form.

As for no delays or cost overruns, the Tejas has been delayed, yes, but so has the Eurofighter program, and that too when it was being built by nations with a lot of experience in aviation. as for cost, the money that was given for FSED (Full Scale Engg Dev) was not exceeded. they indeed utilised those funds to build all the aircraft till now, excepting the LSPs. As per the Standing Committee on Defence 17th report, some of this money was actually returned to the Govt.

niran · Post by **niran** » 19 Dec 2009 09:21

Wickberg wrote:
See you are wrong even in your first statement, that shows how much you know about things. A "batch" does not equal new model. The Gripen was ordered in three batches to the Swedish air force of 30, 110 and 64 fighters. From the 107th production aircraft it was changed from being A/B to C/D. That had to do with the fact that SAAB was now also looking for export customers, Sweden had joined the EU (and the PFP) and the cold war was over. The role of the Swedish air force had gone from defending the country to be able to assist NATO/UN in the international arena. That is why the C/D was born. And it have been successful, it was done without delays, no cost overruns and it have found a handful of export customers.

The phrase is "improved batch"
which is equivalent to MK1/MK2/MK3 so on and so forth.
now, if all was honky dory as you so many time stressed, then why the need
of "improved batch".

and one reason for improved batch may be is this clicky

that makes it LCA-0 Gripen-5 i can onlee yell AoA to that score.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 12:43

Kartik wrote:
Wickberg wrote:
See you are wrong even in your first statement, that shows how much you know about things.
and this comes from a guy who knows very little about the LCA but wants to trash it just because someone had the temerity to say that the Gripen NG would overlap with the planned LCA Mk2.

A "batch" does not equal new model. The Gripen was ordered in three batches to the Swedish air force of 30, 110 and 64 fighters. From the 107th production aircraft it was changed from being A/B to C/D. That had to do with the fact that SAAB was now also looking for export customers, Sweden had joined the EU (and the PFP) and the cold war was over. The role of the Swedish air force had gone from defending the country to be able to assist NATO/UN in the international arena. That is why the C/D was born. And it have been successful, it was done without delays, no cost overruns and it have found a handful of export customers.
do you want me to quote the article again ?

In June 1992, SAAB got the go-ahead for building the two-seat JAS 39B, and the government formally signed off on the option for 110 more Gripens, which were to be built to an improved "Batch 2" standard.

The first Batch 2 machine was delivered in December 1996, the same month that an order for 64 improved "Batch 3" machines was placed, including 50 single-seat "JAS 39Cs" and 14 two-seat "JAS 39Ds".
it said "Improved"..it means something was modified and made better, which means that some systems became obsolete by the time the second batch was ordered and the first one was still on the production line. you were trolling by saying that who's ever heard of an aircraft being obsolete and requiring a Mk2 by the time it was ready for service- that’s not true. The IAF has already ordered 8 LSP + 20 for the first squadron and an impending order of 20 more Tejas is around the corner. That itself would mean more Tejas Mk1 of the same spec ordered than Gripen A/B from the "Batch 1".

You've pretty much pushed yourself into a corner earlier itself by saying that no one has ever heard of a fighter being obsolete even before it enters service (even though that is patently false and pretty much BS when applied to the Tejas Mk1 since it won't be obsolete by any standard as long as Gripen C/Ds are serving worldwide)

As for Gripen C/D, it was an improved variant of the A/B, with NATO compatible equipment like pylons, and other equipment new colour MFDs, new processors and IFR probe. Whether or not Saab was looking for export or domestic requirements is immaterial. If the Flygvapnet's requirements didn't need IFR or NATO standard equipment, that doesn't mean that the Gripen A/B was not going to have to go through that upgrade to be considered current in the year 2005. as it stands, the Flygvapnet wants to basically standardize on the C/D and has grounded all A/B versions and is hoping to find an export customer for these, as is, or in upgraded to C/D form.

As for no delays or cost overruns, the Tejas has been delayed, yes, but so has the Eurofighter program, and that too when it was being built by nations with a lot of experience in aviation. as for cost, the money that was given for FSED (Full Scale Engg Dev) was not exceeded. they indeed utilised those funds to build all the aircraft till now, excepting the LSPs. As per the Standing Committee on Defence 17th report, some of this money was actually returned to the Govt.

First of all. I´m not trashing LCA. I just get sick when people insists of comparing it to Gripen. How can you compare a fighter that is not even service to another one that has been for over a decade?! And even more ridiculous, compare LCA Mk2. with anyting? The thing is´nt even a paper plane yet!

Second. You are simply wrong or that article is wrong. This is facts; Sweden ordered 204 Gripens in three different orders, or three batches. 30 + 110 + 64. The first 106 fighters was called A/B and the rest C/D. During this process the aircrafts have had some minor updates mainly when it comes to software (cause in the early 90s the research in computers really skyrocketed), but those updates did´nt mean the fighter became a new version. The Gripen was actually built to be easy to upgrade, plug and play kind of aircraft. If every update would count as a new version we would be at the Gripen Y/Z by now. But the Gripen NG is a new game, they have actually redesigned the fuselage, new radar and so on. I just wish they could have thought of this design 25 years ago, but SAAB is´nt all perfect. At least they built a plane that could easily be redesigned when new demands comes.

Third. I think it´s hilarious that people are talking about LCA Mk2. when not a single Mk1. has yet to been produced. Why waste time on producing Mk1. when they obviously thinks it´s obsolete and really wants the Mk2.? There are many things about the LCA that seems very strange from someone not from India. Rule nr 1: When producing a fighter jet the first you do is to chose an engine and build the jet around that. Rule nr2: The second thing you do is chose a radar cause that evolves anything and everything your fighter can do while in the sky. India somehow did the opposite, they built a fighter and still don´t know which engine or radar it will have. Very confusing for outsiders, hope it works out for ya´!

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 13:04

ajay pratap wrote:
Wickberg wrote:
See you are wrong even in your first statement, that shows how much you know about things. A "batch" does not equal new model. The Gripen was ordered in three batches to the Swedish air force of 30, 110 and 64 fighters. From the 107th production aircraft it was changed from being A/B to C/D. That had to do with the fact that SAAB was now also looking for export customers, Sweden had joined the EU (and the PFP) and the cold war was over. The role of the Swedish air force had gone from defending the country to be able to assist NATO/UN in the international arena. That is why the C/D was born. And it have been successful, it was done without delays, no cost overruns and it have found a handful of export customers.
The phrase is "improved batch"
which is equivalent to MK1/MK2/MK3 so on and so forth.
now, if all was honky dory as you so many time stressed, then why the need
of "improved batch".

and one reason for improved batch may be is this clicky

that makes it LCA-0 Gripen-5 i can onlee yell AoA to that score.

No, every update of Gripen is not equivalent to "Mk1/Mk2" and so forth. In that case we would have been in Gripen Y/Z by now. You know the technology in software and computers grows very rapidly, so you have to update your fighters in the same phase. If I were about to write this post on my 1993 computer I would´nt be able to, and a Gripen with 1993 computers would not be alive in todays battlefield.

No, like all military projects and every country the Gripen was not honky dory and without errors. It was heavily criticized from the media and things did´nt actually improve that the first time media was allowed to film the plane it crashed in front of their cameras, or when a plane crashed in the middle of Stockholm during the Stockholm Water Festival with a million people watching it live. They had problems with the FBW software, that delayed the project some. It was fixed and since then everything actually have been "honky dory".
And comparing crash stats between LCA-prototypes and a fighter that has been in service for over a decade in five different countries and has like 200 000 flighthours or something is just silly. And at the same time linking to a page that shows that none of operational plane crashes had anything to do with the planes design somehow proves you point?! It just shows how smart you are...

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 19 Dec 2009 14:00

Wickberg wrote:And even more ridiculous, compare LCA Mk2. with anyting? The bloody thing is´nt even a paper plane yet!

Wickberg everyone here is being decent and arguing without getting personal and swearing words, while it seems you have some ideas about having a special status to use words like "stupid" and "bloody thing".

While you are getting so livid about somebody comparing Tejas with gripen 'cause gripen is operational and Tejas is not. Others like f16 or f18 fans can stretch the argument to "f16,18 have been in war when was gripen in war?"
or hell
when was the last time sweden in war, and when nazis wanted to attach norway(sweden's sister country), sweden provided the nazis path and its railroads to crossover and attack norway. I think swede attempts at making war products is a joke, while they are not having any guts to fight, even against nazis.

Too bad poor gripen crashed (inspite of unsactioned uninterrupted tech help from americans) in front of millions of peoples and cameras, must have left a psy wound, hence the insecurity agression. Hope it helps with your hangover from whatever it is you drank.

Indian armed force need equipment for real warfighting and they never back down from protecting even if a country is genociding its own citizens example '71 war inspite of pakistanis backed by 7th fleet of US.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Dec 2009 14:31

wickberg, are you able and willing to converse in a civilised manner or not ?
consider this an unofficial warning.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 14:47

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Wickberg wrote:And even more ridiculous, compare LCA Mk2. with anyting? The bloody thing is´nt even a paper plane yet!
Wickberg everyone here is being decent and arguing without getting personal and swearing words, while it seems you have some ideas about having a special status to use words like "stupid" and "bloody thing".

While you are getting so livid about somebody comparing Tejas with gripen 'cause gripen is operational and Tejas is not. Others like f16 or f18 fans can stretch the argument to "f16,18 have been in war when was gripen in war?"
or hell
when was the last time sweden in war, and when nazis wanted to attach norway(sweden's sister country), sweden provided the nazis path and its railroads to crossover and attack norway. I think swede attempts at making war products is a joke, while they are not having any guts to fight, even against nazis.

Too bad poor gripen crashed (inspite of unsactioned uninterrupted tech help from americans) in front of millions of peoples and cameras, must have left a psy wound, hence the insecurity agression. Hope it helps with your hangover from whatever it is you drank.

Indian armed force need equipment for real warfighting and they never back down from protecting even if a country is genociding its own citizens example '71 war inspite of pakistanis backed by 7th fleet of US.

Ok, sorry for using the term "bloody thing" or "stupid". They are not swearwords where I´m from, but if it offended you I will edit those.
And as always, why do people post stuff about things they don´t have a clue about?
The last time Sweden as a country was in war were in 1815, and for that I am very happy and proud. War is nothing you want or should be proud of, war is destruction, murders, burnt down homes and so on. I actually think peace is much better, and so does the Swedish people. That is why Sweden have always invested much amount in the military "a strong military does not creates wars, it prevents it" kind of attitude.
And no, Sweden did not help Germany with pathways and railroads to invade Norway. After Norway had been occupied by the nazis, Germany demanded that to be allowed to transport soldiers that were on leave on Swedish railroads. Sweden was at that time surrounded by German forces and allowed non-armed German soldiers that was on permission to leave Norway to Germany to be allowed on Swedish trains. And equal numbers of non-armed Germans to travel through Sweden to Norway to fill their places. The only time German armed forces were allowed to travel trough Sweden was when Finland (our real sister-country) attacked Soviet with help from the Germans to regain the parts of the country they lost in the Winter war. At that time a German armored division was allowed to travel from Norway, trough Sweden to Finland, to help the finns. A breach in neutrality? Hell yes! On the other hand, Sweden was on the allied side and helped them secretly as much as they could. The fact was however, Sweden was totally surrounded by the Nazis and we had little room to do anything. The only thing that prevented Germany from invading and occupying Sweden was the fact that we had a descent defense force. And about Norway, Sweden helped Norway during the attack and occupation as much as we could (without declaring war on Germany). We helped Norwegians that fled over the border, we trained them armed them and created several "Norge-brigader" (Norway-brigades) that could fight the Germans (with Swedish assistance) during the occupation. The Swedish border military constantly shot at German soldiers who were trying to shoot Norwegians trying to pass the border to Sweden, my grandfather was one of them.
So please don´t bring any of these WW2 stuff in this issue, it is off topic and you have no idea about facts....

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 19 Dec 2009 14:55

Rahul M wrote:wickberg, are you able and willing to converse in a civilised manner or not ?
consider this an unofficial warning.

Yes I will shape up. Sorry for my rude manner. I guess I just get to wind up when people writes lies, but from now on I will use a civil manner...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Dec 2009 23:09

Wickberg wrote:
Rahul M wrote:wickberg, are you able and willing to converse in a civilised manner or not ?
consider this an unofficial warning.
Yes I will shape up. Sorry for my rude manner. I guess I just get to wind up when people writes lies, but from now on I will use a civil manner...

first of all your language is uncouth and reflects very poorly on Swedes, although I've worked with a couple and found them to be quite nice, so I guess its just you.

as for your other claim about lies..well lets examine whats been said about the the Gripen

prototypes crashed twice- true
its never seen any combat action - true
its got very substantial foreign content- true
its not got any equipment that isn't going to be standard fitment even on the Tejas Mk1 -true

earlier you said that no one has heard about a fighter that became obsolete before entering service, and now you say that its common to have new equipment because computers and processors become obsolete fast..easy to see how you contradict yourself when cornered with facts on different "Batch" Gripens. and no, you can't fool people into thinking that if Batches were considered to be different Mk, then the Gripen would be at Mk.X, Y or Z. there are fundamental differeneces between these batches, which is why it cost the Flygvapnet so much to upgrade those Gripen A/Bs to C/D standards for itself.

There is basically nothing spectacular about the Gripen. it’s a good fighter, cheap to operate, has low turn-around times and a great DL. with all the experience and expertise that Saab has in aviation for so many decades and after so much help from other nations in the form of equipment and expertise, the Gripen took shape.

BTW, not exactly related, but Saab's automotive division sold to GM years ago, is now going to shut down. so its good-bye Saab auto. bad news for 3000 odd Swedish workers. I can only say that its in your nations interest to try its level best to find a partner like India or Brazil to keep Saab, the aerospace company healthy in the coming decade..otherwise all they'll manage are piddly 6 or 20 unit fighter sales to countries that'll keep their assembly lines only just alive.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Dec 2009 04:16

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gri ... ipin-0684/
13-Jun-2005 06:32 EDT

dated but, orders so far for grippen are:-

Czech 14
Hungary 14
SA 26
Sweeden 204 (138 in service)
Thailand 6.

Now looking LCA down the line say 2020
India would be on operational par with Grippen with IAF using about 200 of them.

If India does not order Grippen, I doubt it would get more orders from Sweden other than upgrades. A 5% increase would be great.. where as LCA has a very bright future, especially graduating into MCA.

No external force can stop us voting for more investment into our LCA.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 20 Dec 2009 06:19

Instead of comparing two paper planes (the LCA MK2 and the Gripen NG). Let us compare the Gripen C/D with the Tejas MK1 and you will realise the Swedish bird exceeds the LCA in all aspects.

The reason why Gripen has had a few crashes is because they have tested at a faster pace than the guys at ADA/HAL. The Tejas has not stretched its operational limits to its design goals on G loading and other aspects. There may be a good reason for this cautious approach but for me it partly explains why the Tejas has a better safety record during testing.

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Dec 2009 06:53

If the LCA had made its first flight when it was predicted to, in the early 1990s they would perhaps also have had some difficulties with FBW system, cause it was pretty new 20-25 years ago. Now... LCA did´nt make its first fly until almost 15 years later

Nice try. But falls flat in the face of facts. The Gripen FCS is a straight lift from the F-16, which made it's first flight in the 1970s!. So twenty years later, the swedes still couldn't program a FCS already proven in another very successful airplane that had huge amount of hours behind it ?. Indians on the other hand designed everything from scratch, including the hardware and software and built a more modern system. The LCA FCS is all digital, while even the Gripen NG will continue using the exact same FBW /FCS system of the F16,ie 3 channel digital with one analog back up. Maybe Sweden needs to hire a couple of hundred programmers and designers from India!.

On the other hand, Sweden was on the allied side and helped them secretly as much as they could. The fact was however, Sweden was totally surrounded by the Nazis and we had little room to do anything. The only thing that prevented Germany from invading and occupying Sweden was the fact that we had a descent defense force.

The only thing that prevented Germany from invading was not Sweden's totally inconsequential "defense force" (which really was a joke compared to the Wehrmacht) , but the guaranteed supply of the ONE vital commodity that Sweden had, but Germany didn't , ie IRON ORE, which got shipped across the Baltic sea without any hindrance by the allies because of that "neutrality" . It saved the Germans the trouble of securing the supply line for that vital resource for it's war machine from the Russians and British and it was advantageous for them not to invade Sweden. Why invade a country when they themselves willingly turn over the ONLY resource they have that is of use to you and with guaranteed security of delivery ?. It made no sense to invade , atleast until the war was on.

We helped Norwegians that fled over the border, we trained them armed them and created several "Norge-brigader" (Norway-brigades) that could fight the Germans (with Swedish assistance) during the occupation

Nice. But the actual partisan Norwegian operations were by the British trained folks , mostly sea borne and supported by RAF air drops.

Training "Norge-brigader' for a hypothical fight if Sweden was invaded by the Germans , but holding them back from actually going and fighting in German occupied Norway really doesnt cut the mustard.

niran · Post by **niran** » 20 Dec 2009 07:45

Wickberg wrote:
No, every update of Gripen is not equivalent to "Mk1/Mk2" and so forth. In that case we would have been in Gripen Y/Z by now. You know the technology in software and computers grows very rapidly, so you have to update your fighters in the same phase. If I were about to write this post on my 1993 computer I would´nt be able to, and a Gripen with 1993 computers would not be alive in todays battlefield.

Now, now mistah Wickberg, please, this in Anglais is "bluffing"
here below is the difference between batch 1,2,3.( this much i had been able to glean on Sunday)

The Flygvapnet is currently taking deliveries of Batch 2 Gripens, which feature a new Sundstrand APU, replacing the older Microturbo APU, which was too noisy and not reliable enough; a new Lockheed Martin flight control system computer, replacing a Lear-Siegler unit; a Kaiser HUD, replacing the Hughes-built HUD; and a new display processor. The Sundstrand APU is being retrofitted to Batch 1 Gripens, as well as early Batch 2 aircraft that had an interim improved Microturbo APU.

Production is now shifting to the Batch 3 machines, which feature:

An inflight refueling probe that retracts over the right engine intake.(ya alla it makes it a new a/c altogether no?

)
A cockpit with new color MFDs and compatible with night vision goggles.
A new inertial navigation system with GPS, and an improved "Communication & Data Link 39 (CDL 39)" system. This is apparently in addition to the current TIDLS datalink.
An "on board oxygen generating system (OBOGS)".(te! he! he! no further comments)
More computing power and five MILSTD 1553B data buses, instead of three.
An improved "RM12UP" engine, with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) and other improvements.
The improved "EWS-30" EW system, built around the new Saab Avionics "BOW-21" RWR, capable of recognizing a wider range of threats and targeting them more accurately. The EWS-30 includes an onboard, automatic active jammer, and can support improved towed decoys.
The last 20 Batch 2 aircraft included some Batch 3 features, such as the color MFDs, CDL 39, and the five data buses. Deliveries have now shifted to the Batch 3 configuration. The changes in Batch 3 give the new version a substantial increase in capability. The Batch 3 JAS 39C/D are sometimes referred to as "Super Gripens".

Gripen production quantities have been steadily decreasing. When the type went into formal service, the Flygvapnet expected to obtain a total of 204 aircraft, but in 2007 the total buy was cut to 100. In compensation, all earlier production was to be brought up to Super Gripen standard by 2012. This represents a major downsizing of the air force, since in the late 1980s the country had 425 combat aircraft in 26 squadrons, and the original plan had been to obtain 350 Gripens.

The aggressive sales promotion of the Gripen has led to a few odd statements, apparently the products of overactive minds in the marketing department. Some sources have stated that it was specifically designed to only use smart weapons, which leads to the puzzle of why the ability to carry dumb bombs would be designed out, all the more so because with modern attack avionics, unguided weapons can be delivered with surprising precision. In fact, there are plenty of pictures of Gripens carrying dumb bombs and unguided rocket pods.

I used to work with marketing people. There's a old saying: "The difference between sales and marketing is that sales knows they are lying."

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Dec 2009 08:14

ajay pratap wrote:...
The aggressive sales promotion of the Gripen has led to a few odd statements, apparently the products of overactive minds in the marketing department. Some sources have stated that it was specifically designed to only use smart weapons, which leads to the puzzle of why the ability to carry dumb bombs would be designed out, all the more so because with modern attack avionics, unguided weapons can be delivered with surprising precision. In fact, there are plenty of pictures of Gripens carrying dumb bombs and unguided rocket pods.

...

On that note of "dumb" bombs, I have yet to see a picture of a Rafale carrying "dumb" bombs. It is always shown with PGMs (AASM, Scalp) and AAMs (Mica IR/RF) and never with any dumb bombs. In fact in the new edition of the Fox 3 magazine, it states that FrAF is interested in integrating unguided rocket pods in the future.

FoxThree N14

...
On top of the Scalp, the AASM, the Mica IR/RF, the Meteor and its internal 30 mm gun, the Rafale is cleared to carry the AM39 Exocet antiship missile and the GBU-12/22/24 laser guided bombs, and the French Armed Forces are seriously considering the adoption of rockets in the near future.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 20 Dec 2009 08:16

Yes, the Swedish army was a joke compared to the Whermacht. And the Swedish airforce
were an even bigger joke compared to the Luftwaffe. But Sweden had a strong navy and
a strong coastal defense. That is why Hitler and his friends decided it was not worth
the while to invade Sweden.But this issue is so off topic and so stupid I don´t even
know why I bother to respond to it. Should I sit here and apologize to the fact that
Sweden was´nt invaded and occupied by Germany back in 1940? Would a German-occupied
Sweden have helped the allied during WW2? So this is my last reply in the incredible
stupid issue. (BTW, the iron ore that Sweden exported to Germany was not trough the Baltic
Sea. It was trough Tromsö/Norway and the North Sea, but it is hard to know such minor
details...)

As for the LCA vs Gripen... It was foolish of me to write something that could be
interpenetrated ass criticism towards the LCA on an Indian forum. This is all I have to
say about that. From now on I will only hail the LCA and its smashing success. For me
the LCA is the new god and I will pray for it every day. Why even bother to buy Su-30
and MRCA when we have this outstanding fighter that knocks every other competitor out of
the sky?

ALL HAIL LCA!

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 20 Dec 2009 08:34

^^
Dude, chill, relax. Before you type up something think. Go for walk, have a drink. Come back with cogent arguments.

niran · Post by **niran** » 20 Dec 2009 08:49

srai wrote:
On that note of "dumb" bombs, I have yet to see a picture of a Rafale carrying "dumb" bombs. It is always shown with PGMs (AASM, Scalp) and AAMs (Mica IR/RF) and never with any dumb bombs. In fact in the new edition of the Fox 3 magazine, it states that FrAF is interested in integrating unguided rocket pods in the future.

there is a difference. Rafale was rushed into action in Afghanistan and few "Smart" weapons were cleared within 2 weeks,
in real hurry, now with time on their hands they are clearing "Dumb" weapons, eventually all weapons in French arsenal will
cleared.(air delivered weapons i mean)

Gripen was supposedly onlee "Smart" weapon designed.

and mistah Wickberg your reaction is classical of person downhill skiing when faced with proper facts. (mission accomplished)
see sir, when you came in with Gripen the best and LCA a vapour plane thingy, and few experts here began educating you, i decided you are unworthy of education by experts, a janitor such as moi will do it, and deny you the satisfaction.
AoA

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Dec 2009 09:17

only the khanate can print enough fake dollah notes to go 100% smart weapon. the french , british, germans must either not fight a major war or live in a dream world if they think unguided bombs and rockets are totally out.

I suspect they have no intention/need of fighting a major war. Sending a showpiece
detachment of 20 rafales or typhoons with the best available equipment in support of
some american offensive is probably what is on the menu.

makes good copy for AFM photographers. does not win against a fully deployed PLA - not even close.

rachit · Post by **rachit** » 20 Dec 2009 10:34

i gotta say ive been following the wickiberg vs BR argument about thee gripen quite intently over the past few days, and i have to admit...i am with wickiberg all the way through. All i have to say is that IMHO, the LCA is nowhere near the gripen in terms of current status and fight potential, future development potential and probability, radar, engines, everything! LCA is truly just as good as a paper plane atm, and will probably continue to stay that way for at least the coming decade. Just because both the LCA and gripen are 'lightweight single-engined fighters' does not merit a comparision between the 2. Unfortunately Wickiberg, i also shared some criticisms about the LCA some months ago, and got shut down by the members here as well!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Dec 2009 12:02

The LCA was never intended to be solely a "tech demonstrator",an experimental aircraft meant to certify certain new indigenous aerospace technology,but a programme aimed at a quick induction of the MIG-21s replacements.It was meant to come into service a decade ago and is still languishing.The IAF's priorities keep changing too and they should keep to schedule on the entire programme.

The LCA's delays will have an effect on the choice of the MCA,but the iIAF too will want a twin-engined version.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 12:06

rachit wrote:i gotta say ive been following the wickiberg vs BR argument about thee gripen quite intently over the past few days, and i have to admit...i am with wickiberg all the way through. All i have to say is that IMHO, the LCA is nowhere near the gripen in terms of current status and fight potential, future development potential and probability, radar, engines, everything! LCA is truly just as good as a paper plane atm, and will probably continue to stay that way for at least the coming decade. Just because both the LCA and gripen are 'lightweight single-engined fighters' does not merit a comparision between the 2. Unfortunately Wickiberg, i also shared some criticisms about the LCA some months ago, and got shut down by the members here as well!!

what exactly ? care to specify ?

I also do not understand how the gripen is being billed as "incomparable" with the LCA, they have very similar specifications and role. the major difference being that the LCA project started about a decade later and the program also picked up a lag of 4 years (as compared to the gripen) on account of problems with FBW(sanctions) and domestic infrastructure, problems that saab didn't have to contend with.
all in all LCA Mk1 development cycle is behind gripen's by about 14 years

Code: Select all

                       LCA          Gripen
Proposal floated   Early 80's     Late 70's
Program started    1991-92(*)       1982
Roll-out              1995          1987
First flight          2001          1988
Induction in AF       2010          1996


(*) actual scope of project along with funding was officially cleared only in june 1993.

arya · Post by **arya** » 20 Dec 2009 14:59

THIS IS MRCA News and Discussion????????????????

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Dec 2009 21:31

rachit wrote: All i have to say is that IMHO, the LCA is nowhere near the gripen in terms of current status and fight potential, future development potential and probability, radar, engines, everything! LCA is truly just as good as a paper plane atm, and will probably continue to stay that way for at least the coming decade. Just because both the LCA and gripen are 'lightweight single-engined fighters' does not merit a comparision between the 2.

Did you at least care to compare the specs and features of both a/cs? If you did, may we know how you arrived at that conclusion?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 20 Dec 2009 21:35

arya wrote:THIS IS MRCA News and Discussion????????????????

On any other thread, I would have said the same. But considering that this is MRCA thread (which anyway has not seen a worthwhile discussion in a long time), I really do not care.

arya · Post by **arya** » 20 Dec 2009 22:27

Gaur wrote:
arya wrote:THIS IS MRCA News and Discussion????????????????
On any other thread, I would have said the same. But considering that this is MRCA thread (which anyway has not seen a worthwhile discussion in a long time), I really do not care.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Dec 2009 00:27

johnny_m wrote:Instead of comparing two paper planes (the LCA MK2 and the Gripen NG). Let us compare the Gripen C/D with the Tejas MK1 and you will realise the Swedish bird exceeds the LCA in all aspects.

please do the comparison and let us know what you found.

The reason why Gripen has had a few crashes is because they have tested at a faster pace than the guys at ADA/HAL. The Tejas has not stretched its operational limits to its design goals on G loading and other aspects. There may be a good reason for this cautious approach but for me it partly explains why the Tejas has a better safety record during testing.

yes and if the Tejas had crashed, the program would've been shelved. guaranteed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Dec 2009 01:00

pgbhat wrote:^^
Dude, chill, relax. Before you type up something think. Go for walk, have a drink. Come back with cogent arguments.

he has no real arguments..its going to be "service history" vs "no service history" only. and of course sheer anger at having a Swedish in-service fighter compared to a fighter not yet inducted. the rest is irrelevant or sarcasm, both of which are not arguments.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Dec 2009 01:15

so, here is an open challenge to all those who say that the LCA Mk1 cannot be compared to the Gripen C/D. show us all exactly what equipment the Gripen C/D has that the LCA Mk1 either doesn't or will not have when it enters FOC phase.

what structural advantage does the Gripen have over the Tejas ? does it use more composites that are considered defining amongst 4th generation fighters ?

does it produce extra thrust than the Tejas' engine ? does it weigh more ? so what will its T/W ratio be when compared to that of the Tejas ?

without actual data on the performance of the LCA Mk1, we obviously cannot compare them in that respect, and it might be that the Gripen does do better in this regard, but its PURE SPECULATION if that’s done.

what weapons does it have that make it such a super-duper fighter that is incomparable to another in the same weight/thrust class ?

lets keep the Gripen NG discussion apart and that can be taken up at a later date.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Dec 2009 01:24

Wickberg wrote:Compare that to LCA which is at least 15 years delayed.

may I how this 15 year figure is arrived at ? if gripen is considered the benchmark, LCA is 4 years late compared to the gripen program, factoring in the sanction related delays that is quite understandable.