MRCA News and Discussion

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 31 Mar 2010 18:20

johnny_m wrote:The people who think sale of U.S F 16s to Pakistan will affect American chances of winning the MRCA may need to think again:...

Asked whether the deal with the American companies to supply 126 combat aircraft to the Indian Air Force would be affected by the military aid, Naik said that the deal would happened as planned.

"As far as 126 multirole combat aircraft deal is concerned, it will be a fair and square assessment... presently, there is no connection between the two."
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/30/indi ... -naik.html

This is old news buddy. If only you had bothered reading older posts.. (only a day old posts for that matter...)

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 31 Mar 2010 19:01

From DT Forum

The UK will also make about 25% of each Gripen NG, IIRC (enough for the British government to back Gripen NG sales campaigns, at least where it isn't competing with Typhoon)so that rules the MRCA out, however it would come into play if the IN chooses to go for a navalised Gripen in the future and that is a big IF, but I don't think the mooted Sea Gripen is considered a realistic option for the RN, even though it should be cheaper & easier to develop than a Sea Typhoon.

So this just adds fuel to the fire that the Grippy has US made components and a UK based marketing lobby, possibly even esteemed middlemen pulling the strings? Although it still makes me wonder how they have been kept on the sidelines of the juicy bone which is the MRCA, if at all.

So does this clamp the argument of Sweden not having any political mileage vis a vis India tightly shut? Or do the naysayers and doubters continue...

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 31 Mar 2010 19:13

negi wrote:Even if the two engines were to match up exactly in terms of specs and dimensions the mere difference in positioning of the gearboxes would mean substantial re engineering of the airframe , for instance the RD-93 which powers the bandar is basically a modified RD-33 with a gearbox mounted on the underside of the engine .

Now I am not sure about the layout...

Negi it's zimble only. If you see a bump on top, the gearbox is top mounted with accessories otherwise if the bump is on the bottomside, the gearbox is bottom mounted.

EJ200:

GE-404:

GE-414:

RD-33:

RD-93:

M88:

Cheers....

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 31 Mar 2010 20:49

IIRC, there is a re-Engine effort on for the IAF Jaguars. The engine dimensions of the the contenders are different and this is an operational a/c. Considering that the NG is still in "advanced development" would'nt it be worthwhile for SAAb to seriously look at EJ200?

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 01 Apr 2010 10:46

Yesterday I saw a fighter flying around ORR, Bangalore at 4.20PM. Seemed like F-16, could be even gripen. It came very low over ORR.

Any one could see it closer?

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 01 Apr 2010 18:21

http://www.navair.navy.mil/press_releas ... &site_id=6

The SH is going green will be tested soon with biofuel blends. By 2016 the USN wants to operate all its aircraft on bio fuels. The GE F 414 engine is bio fuel capable which means an LCA and SH powered with this will help reduce our dependance on fossils fuels, thus imports, could saves millions. The bio fuel is based on Cameline Sativa a weed which can be grown in India. Wonder if tech like this puts the GE on top for the LCA and SH a strong contender for the mrca (politics aside).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 18:31

biofuel is a gimmick with no practical benefits except in a handful of specific cases.

Vishnu · Post by **Vishnu** » 01 Apr 2010 18:45

This piece of information will set this thread buzzing for sure.

The Gripen Ds did sensationally in their tests when they were in India recently. The D restarted and took off from Leh with a loadout of 2.6 tonnes which included air to air missiles and underwing fuel tanks. The heat test went off very well in Jaisalmer. It meant placing the aircraft in the sun for a designated period of time, firing her up and flying her at maximum speed at low altitude while checking out all the systems. They also dropped a bomb flying out of Jaisalmer. They also did tanking ops.

And ... no need to hold your breath any longer ... the Demo will be here in mid May and will likely do the Leh trip again and anything that the Indian Air Force requests. They were earlier unable to bring in the Demonstrator because of tasking with the Swedish Air Force which happened at exactly the same time that they were supposed to come to India.

Indian Air Force pilots travel to Sweden in the next few days. They are free to fly the Demo there if they want though they will be firing an AMRAAM off a D platform.

My sources tell me that Indian Air Force pilots loved the jet while it was here, particularly its man-machine interface and the intuitive nature of the setup ...

Please note the following riders to this post:

1. I do not endorse any of the MMRCA competitors.
2. I sincerely hope the Indian Air Force gets the plane it wants and the decision is NOT a political one.
3. I am not aware of the performances of the other competitors though I have NOTHING to suggest that they have done badly.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior New Anchor
NDTV

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 01 Apr 2010 18:57

Vishnu wrote:The D restarted and took off from Leh with a loadout of 2.6 tonnes which included air to air missiles and underwing fuel tanks. The heat test went off very well in Jaisalmer. It meant placing the aircraft in the sun for a designated period of time, firing her up and flying her at maximum speed at low altitude while checking out all the systems. They also dropped a bomb flying out of Jaisalmer. They also did tanking ops.

That makes it only the 2nd aircraft to breeze the Leh trials (still a mystery about the other one).. Awesome news this!

It breaks the myth 'good things no cheap, cheap things no good'

2. I sincerely hope the Indian Air Force gets the plane it wants and the decision is NOT a political one.

hmmmmm..... what are the chances? I think once a shortlist is drawn its going to be all politics...

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 Apr 2010 18:59

Vishnu, irrespective of which candidate is best or which gets chosen, Girpen's performance just goes to show what LCA can achieve with the right support and project management.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 19:11

vishnu, that's some good news !

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Apr 2010 19:13

The technical reports will have to be fuzzy to allow for political leanings. For that all they have to do is make sure that the total points are (about) the same. And, that should be easy to do.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Apr 2010 19:14

I am not surprised about the Grip. However, I am surprised about the rest.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Apr 2010 20:08

NRao wrote:I am not surprised about the Grip. However, I am surprised about the rest.

I wasn't surprised about the Mig too, given the Russian philosophy and our own experience of operating Mig-29s from Leh.

The SH was always known to be sluggish. So no surprises there too. However, I am more surprised about Rafale and EF! I expected them to do much better!

kit · Post by **kit** » 01 Apr 2010 20:20

Vishnu wrote:This piece of information will set this thread buzzing for sure.

The Gripen Ds did sensationally in their tests when they were in India recently. The D restarted and took off from Leh with a loadout of 2.6 tonnes which included air to air missiles and underwing fuel tanks. The heat test went off very well in Jaisalmer. It meant placing the aircraft in the sun for a designated period of time, firing her up and flying her at maximum speed at low altitude while checking out all the systems. They also dropped a bomb flying out of Jaisalmer. They also did tanking ops.

And ... no need to hold your breath any longer ... the Demo will be here in mid May and will likely do the Leh trip again and anything that the Indian Air Force requests. They were earlier unable to bring in the Demonstrator because of tasking with the Swedish Air Force which happened at exactly the same time that they were supposed to come to India.

Indian Air Force pilots travel to Sweden in the next few days. They are free to fly the Demo there if they want though they will be firing an AMRAAM off a D platform.

My sources tell me that Indian Air Force pilots loved the jet while it was here, particularly its man-machine interface and the intuitive nature of the setup ...

Please note the following riders to this post:

1. I do not endorse any of the MMRCA competitors.
2. I sincerely hope the Indian Air Force gets the plane it wants and the decision is NOT a political one.
3. I am not aware of the performances of the other competitors though I have NOTHING to suggest that they have done badly.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior New Anchor
NDTV

Amen to that ! The "strategic political" decision making with respect to the MRCA is I should say stupid ! Political equations have changed quite a bit in the "strategic" front since Obama took over.Get something you can rely on and definitely not something prone to sanctions

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 01 Apr 2010 20:49

^^ Gripen is underdog right from day 1. Whoever, is the eventual winner it should not be US because I dont want our nation to deal with double dealers who provides so called allies with BVR's to fight against militants (

) and now ships (again poor talibans who are escaping by high-speed race boats to yemen/somalia) probably nuke reactor the next ( so that pakis generate power in pissfull way) in the name of War on Terror. Go for Russian/European bird...

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 01 Apr 2010 20:57

Rahul M wrote:biofuel is a gimmick with no practical benefits except in a handful of specific cases.

Care to explain, How?

Cheers....

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Apr 2010 00:56

johnny_m wrote:The people who think sale of U.S F 16s to Pakistan will affect American chances of winning the MRCA may need to think again:...

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/30/indi ... -naik.html

take such statements from the ACM with a pinch of salt. the IAF's role is not to think about politics, and that's essentially what he's stressing there, but the evaluators are human and are bound to be influenced by such reports. Plus, the deal has a strategic and political angle to it cannot be underestimated at all. Will the MoD, Fin Min and other govt. agencies that are involved in the selection be as impartial even when they read about brand-new F-16 Block 52s being handed over to the PAF ?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Apr 2010 01:05

Klaus wrote: So this just adds fuel to the fire that the Grippy has US made components and a UK based marketing lobby, possibly even esteemed middlemen pulling the strings? Although it still makes me wonder how they have been kept on the sidelines of the juicy bone which is the MRCA, if at all.

So does this clamp the argument of Sweden not having any political mileage vis a vis India tightly shut? Or do the naysayers and doubters continue...

The British connection for marketing does not exist anymore. BAe divested its share of Saab Aerospace recently and that essentially means they will not participate in marketing for the Gripen any more. So BAe will be fully involved in the Typhoon since they have a big share in its production in the UK.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Apr 2010 01:08

neerajb wrote:
Rahul M wrote:biofuel is a gimmick with no practical benefits except in a handful of specific cases.
Care to explain, How?

Cheers....

Perhaps this article is a good start.

Biofuels Aren't Really Green
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewab ... lly-green/

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Apr 2010 01:23

putnanja wrote:I wasn't surprised about the Mig too, given the Russian philosophy and our own experience of operating Mig-29s from Leh.

The SH was always known to be sluggish. So no surprises there too. However, I am more surprised about Rafale and EF! I expected them to do much better!

What makes you say you weren't surprised about the MiG but surprised about Rafale and Typhoon ? Now we have 2-3 conflicting reports and I'd say nothing is clear except that the Gripen did very well..
Shiv Aroor said only 2 cleared Leh trials and he has good sources..no idea which ones cleared though. Arun_S (a very respected ex-BRFite) said that the F-16 and F-18 flunked and that the Typhoon and MiG-35 cleared..Now Vishnu says (and I believe him totally) that the Gripen D did well too. Something doesn't add up.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 02 Apr 2010 01:25

Rahul M wrote:biofuel is a gimmick with no practical benefits except in a handful of specific cases.

Gimmick, how so, last i heard we are still importing tons from other nations, bio fuel may not cost any less but we dont have to rely on imports during war time and thus dedicate assets to protect crude shipping convoys thus freeing up those assets for the war etc. you seem to be more like the gimmick boss. Last year didnt it come down a point where we didnt have more than a few days worth of diesel left in the country? Handful of cases, the world war-2 was won disrupting German logictics. The Taliban could give the soviets a run for their money because of their simple and easy transport system, the humble donkey which crossed miles of harsh terrain delivering US made stingers and French made Milan anti tank weapons was invaluable in keeping a low profile and getting things done. War cant be fought or won without good logistics. Bio fuel which can be made from human/animal waste or even some types of algae or some types of weeds and plants are easy to grow and can be grown locally in every state, thus reducing our transport costs of fossil fuel movements from port areas to internal zones. Wars can be really effective if you can keep the bill down.

so to say the SH flying with Bio fuel is certainly no gimmick, just come out and say that you dont like US stuff, i'll accept that but to call that a gimmick shows lack of sense and long term vision. Whether bio fuel are cleaner or greener or not, the real advantage is the aspect of domestic production thus reducing dependence on imports and all the related hassles.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 01:31

Kartik wrote:
putnanja wrote:I wasn't surprised about the Mig too, given the Russian philosophy and our own experience of operating Mig-29s from Leh.

The SH was always known to be sluggish. So no surprises there too. However, I am more surprised about Rafale and EF! I expected them to do much better!
What makes you say you weren't surprised about the MiG but surprised about Rafale and Typhoon ? Now we have 2-3 conflicting reports and I'd say nothing is clear except that the Gripen did very well..
Shiv Aroor said only 2 cleared Leh trials and he has good sources..no idea which ones cleared though. Arun_S (a very respected ex-BRFite) said that the F-16 and F-18 flunked and that the Typhoon and MiG-35 cleared..Now Vishnu says (and I believe him totally) that the Gripen D did well too. Something doesn't add up.

I think gripen hadn't completed trials at the time shiv came out with the news ? probably arun ji's comments are also from that time ?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Apr 2010 01:44

Kartik wrote:
putnanja wrote:I wasn't surprised about the Mig too, given the Russian philosophy and our own experience of operating Mig-29s from Leh.

The SH was always known to be sluggish. So no surprises there too. However, I am more surprised about Rafale and EF! I expected them to do much better!
What makes you say you weren't surprised about the MiG but surprised about Rafale and Typhoon ? Now we have 2-3 conflicting reports and I'd say nothing is clear except that the Gripen did very well..
Shiv Aroor said only 2 cleared Leh trials and he has good sources..no idea which ones cleared though. Arun_S (a very respected ex-BRFite) said that the F-16 and F-18 flunked and that the Typhoon and MiG-35 cleared..Now Vishnu says (and I believe him totally) that the Gripen D did well too. Something doesn't add up.

Mig-29s have operated earlier from Leh airfields. And even though Mig-35 is heavier, it has got a more powerful engine too. I thought Rafale and EF had better aerodynamic profiles compared to SH and F16 and better T/W ratios too. Hence my surprise about EF and Rafale not making it ( if it is true).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 01:47

brahmananda, don't be so eager to indulge in ad hominem attacks and arrogant comments on the assumption that you are invariably correct. for all you know, you could be horribly wrong.
even otherwise, if you can't participate in a decent fashion on BR, your stay on this board will unfortunately be very limited.

neerajb wrote:
Rahul M wrote:biofuel is a gimmick with no practical benefits except in a handful of specific cases.
Care to explain, How?

Cheers....

simply put, the requirements in terms of available land, water etc far outweigh the benefits. to fulfill our domestic needs of fossil fuel with biofuel, the land required would be more than the total available arable land that is even if we substitute all food crops and other crops by jathropa and the like !

hence it only makes sense for some organisations like the railways, who are planting jathropa in their fallow land (of which they have plenty) and are planning to run their diesel locos on it.

you can check the article posted by pratik.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 02 Apr 2010 02:30

Arable land: some of the best known usage of land is in Israel where farmers in the desert have some of the highest yields in the world. so please dont tell me to have very yields from even un-arable land isnt possible. when there is a will there is always a way. Not all bio fuels need land by the way.

Water: We all need water the Indian subcontinent will face massive shortages of it once climate change really kicks in, so its in our best interest to invest in desalination plants across our coastline, rain water harvesting, reforestation for timely rains etc and other methods of having lots of water.

Bio fuels can be made from Algae, used veggie oil and other things and dont need large amounts of land or water. I dont really know what kind of inputs are required to make jet fuel but here are some in the link below.

http://www.diversified-energy.com/index ... ion=centia

If the idea of using bio fuels wasnt attractive enough, BEST wouldnt be working towards having a bio diesel bus fleet to cut down on it carbon foot print. Bio diesel is being used as we speak in AP, karnataka and Guju transport companies. Ethonal which is also a famous bio fuel is widely used in Brazil.

I also said bio fuel doesnt have to greener, it just has to be locally made. Thats the core of my point.

By the way regardless of what you say about their usage, the Indian Govt. is surely interested enough to actually begin R&D on it.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/201 ... 090500.htm

Next time take a train ride between any two major cities within our country and see how may un-used arable land is out there.
Jathropa is grown in poor soil and i am sure we have enough poor soil for adequate production.

Virgin atlantic flew a 747 in 2008 with bio fuel blend of coconut oil and some other oil. Hey isn't our entire coastline full of coconut trees?

Not saying its THE solution but its part of it. especially for our military which uses lots of vehicles.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Apr 2010 02:42

Brahmananda, there are quite a few fallacies in your argument. Unfortunately, rebutting each one of them will be OT for this thread.

Everyone thinks what they are saying is true, no one willingly says lies. So there is no reason to be arrogant towards other postors.Please modify the tone of your arguments. It just leads to flame wars and things go rapidly downhill from there

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 02 Apr 2010 03:13

Rahul M wrote: simply put, the requirements in terms of available land, water etc far outweigh the benefits. to fulfill our domestic needs of fossil fuel with biofuel, the land required would be more than the total available arable land that is even if we substitute all food crops and other crops by jathropa and the like ! hence it only makes sense for some organisations like the railways, who are planting jathropa in their fallow land (of which they have plenty) and are planning to run their diesel locos on it.

you can check the article posted by pratik.

Sirji

With all due respect, you are misplaced on a lot of facts.
1. Your assumption is that we want to fulfill our domestic needs of fossil fuels with biofuels.
This isnt the case, because biofuel can be very easily be blended with the fossil fuel. So, even a 20-30% blend will improve self-reliance. 20-30% can be easily generated from the available fallow land.
2. Resource requirements of water etc have been significantly lowered in variants of Jatropha Karanjia and others, to an extent that no external nutrition is required.
3. Not only railways, Jatropha cultivations is present on commercial scale , without food crop substitution, in Chattisgarh, Haryana, Rajasthan and more recently, wasteland in UP.

Naysayers like that IEEE article will always be present (ala Climate Change, DRDO-DPSUs etc) but let me tell you from experience, Indian companies are doing fabulous research that is translating into actual production. The focus is not only just on getting 'green' but also import reduction (plus Jatropha oil production breaks even when oil crosses $40).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 03:25

and those coconuts are used as food, and a source of cooking medium and hair oil.

we should forego all that I expect ?

instead of lecturing me on fallow land around railway lines (which I've already pointed out btw) kindly go ahead and calculate biofuel produced per hectare of land, India's total demand, how much land it is required to meet even 50% of that demand and total available land in India. please, no more of this before you put those figures on the table.

no one said biofuel is not useful but to claim it is some kind of wonder solution is a gimmick.

as for our fossil fuel reserves and so on, the experiment with biofuels should be done on privately held vehicles, not with critical platforms of the air force. neither can the air force be expected to maintain yet another type of fuel (jathropa gives biodiesel AFAIK) solely for one category of aircraft.

By the way regardless of what you say about their usage, the Indian Govt. is surely interested enough to actually begin R&D on it.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/201 ... 090500.htm

did they say they are planning to use it on fighter planes ? or that they are overjoyed by the boeing declaration ?

Not saying its THE solution but its part of it. especially for our military which uses lots of vehicles.

especially NOT for the military, the practical benefits of f-18 flying on biofuel is less than zero.
if there is a need for cutting consumption of fossil fuels, the military should be the last organisation to get affected by it.

problems with temporary shortages are much more easily solved by maintaining a strategic reserve which even countries with large oil deposits maintain.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 03:28

nikhil, fine, let's assume I'm wrong (I could be). the easy way to convince me would be to calculate the land required to produce 30% (your figure) of our annual domestic need. please calculate and post it in the mil misc thread.
regards.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 06:16

please cont. on biofuels in mil misc thread.

sunnyv · Post by **sunnyv** » 02 Apr 2010 06:18

RahulM- Few weeks back i asked you about network and Datalinks between aircrafts

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 90#p830590
I am waiting for details plz

Even Greater Protection for the Rafale Thanks to DDM NG

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... afale.html#

Modified imagery obtained during flight tests by MBDA’s new DDM NG missile warning receiver, which has now been ordered for the latest batch of Rafale fighters. (MBDA photo)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 06:36

boss, I will get back to you whenever I can locate the notes.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Apr 2010 07:41

I know this is the wrong thread for this article, but I just had to post it..while relations with the US have improved this article to a great degree illustrates how the US can and will impose its own conditions. It also illustrates how big a difference having a strong leader can make..Just juxtapose MMS into Indira Gandhi's position and its not hard to see what would have resulted.
Article link

‘This woman suckered us’, said Nixon of Indira
Written by (Author ) Editorials, World Mar 3, 2010 “She suckered us. Suckered us…..this woman suckered us.” So said an enraged US president Richard Nixon of Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi after learning that war had broken out on the subcontinent on Dec 3, 1971, and Indian forces had made a decisive push towards then East Pakistan that it recognised as Bangladesh three days later.
Nixon, who had met Gandhi just a month earlier in Washington, had sought assurances from her that India would not take any precipitate military action pending efforts by the US to find a political solution that would not “shatter the cohension of West Pakistan” and end up “overthrowing President Yahya (Khan)” who was pivotal to America’s China initiative afer 22 years of diplomatic freeze.

Nixon had then made it clear to Mrs Gandhi that “nothing could be served by the disintegration of Pakistan” and even warned darkly that “it would be impossible to calculate with precision the steps which other great powers might take if India were to initiate hostilities”.

Nixon’s presentations were heard with “aloof indifference” by Mrs Gandhi, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was quoted as telling author Kalyani Shankar in her just published book “Nixon, Indira and India – Politics and Beyond (Macmillan/Rs. 445).

Nixon’s frustration at not being able to make Mrs Gandhi back off from war reflected in his telephone conversation with Kissinger on Dec 6. Almost fumbling for words without breaking into expletives at the turn of the situation in the subcontinent at a time when Yahya Khan’s propping up was imperative for American foreign policy interests, Nixon wondered if he was “too easy on that goddamn woman when she was here”.

Even as Kissinger tried to pacify a fuming president by saying he was only following advice to be “gracious” to a visiting dignitary, Nixon agreed at one point with Kissinger that he should have probably “brutalised” her and followed up by threatening: “But let me tell you she is going to pay. She is going to pay.”

Nixon even asked Kissinger whether the Chinese would make threatening moves towards India. But the Chinese, much to the chagrin of the Americans did not agree to “intimidate the Indians”, as the author points out, because the Chinese thought that “independence for East Pakistan was a foregone conclusion.

“It (China) was prepared to endorse UN proposal for a standstill ceasefire and forgo a demand for mutual troop withdrawal,” the book states.

When even the Soviets refused to put presssure on New Delh for a ceasefire, Nixon ordered the Seventh Fleet into the Indian Ocean in a threatening gesture. The Fleet, consisting of an aircraft carrier and four destroyers, was to move towards Karachi with the publicly stated aim that they would stand by for “possible evacuation” of Americans although the intention was to browbeat India in case the government in New Delh did not agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal.

India did finally agree to a ceasefire, but that was only on Dec 17 after Indian forces marched into Dhaka (then Dacca). There was a ceasefire also in the west with India assuring that it had no desire to seize the territory of West Pakistan, an assurance it delivered to Wasington via Moscow.

The book provides a fascinating insight for foreign policy researchers into the Nixon era and his famous tilt towards Pakistan based on now declassified ’top-secret’ documents and top-level telephone transcripts pertaining to Nixon’s visit to India in 1969 and Mrs Gandhi’s visit to Washington in 1971 that were obtained from the United States National Archives and the National Security Archives.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Apr 2010 08:56

*deleted*

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 02 Apr 2010 16:13

Maybe the General Electric F404/F414 is the real star at Leh... ?

Used on: LCA Tejas, JAS Gripen, Super Hornet

sathyaC · Post by **sathyaC** » 02 Apr 2010 18:37

dorai wrote:Maybe the General Electric F404/F414 is the real star at Leh... ?

Used on: LCA Tejas, JAS Gripen, Super Hornet

no way man the Tejas and the Grripen are very good light wight birds better lift so they did good we can say sure that the useless teens did bad than all other birds over their
Tejas and the Gripen are the real stars
not the F404

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2010 19:38

sathyaC wrote:
dorai wrote:Maybe the General Electric F404/F414 is the real star at Leh... ?

Used on: LCA Tejas, JAS Gripen, Super Hornet
no way man the Tejas and the Grripen are very good light wight birds better lift so they did good we can say sure that the useless teens did bad than all other birds over their
Tejas and the Gripen are the real stars
not the F404

I am not in favor of the teens winning the bid either, but calling them useless (an often used term) is very far from reality. They were not designed for take off from such a rarefied environment. General Electric F404/F414 is known to be one of the best engines around. With a little research one can find that out. Besides you can judge it by how common it is, right? Why would so many aircraft designers from around the world with much more information than us use them otherwise?

I also agree that emotions fly high when regarding the past with US, and fear of sanctions. But one should also take the changing world order in view as well. India is no longer a pushover country on whom developed countries can impose sanctions without adversely affecting themselves as well.

So let us use our sensibility rather than emotions in making such landmark deals.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Apr 2010 20:43

So, from all available sources and educated guesstimates, the a/c that did well at Leh =

Gripen, MiG-35, LCA.

In some ways this is understandable - MiG-35 for the various reasons already pointed out (high TWR + Lifting body). But what about the Gripen?

How did the Gripen manage so well despite being somewhat low on the TWR? Somethings to note - the Gripen is rumored to have an incredibly low drag airframe, which might come handy here.

However, this also raises the possibility that the problems were not related to take off with meaningful loads but more to do with cold startup. One thing that the Gripen is used to is cold, so is the fulcrum.

Still, I'd be happy to see either the fulcrum or the NG in IAF roundels as low cost entries, the Gripen is esp. tempting considering Saab's willingness to integrate weapons from a variety of sources - Meteor/Derby for example; would give the IAF some cool versatility in operational tactics. Would love to see the Rafale or Tiffy as well at the high end. I guess moi shall echo what seems to be a popular BR sentiment - we no want teens - they are not only sluggish and fat; they are most prone to being white elephants thanks to political shenanigans, not to mention the baksheesh being doled out to TSP.

CM

jai · Post by **jai** » 02 Apr 2010 21:02

Wish IAF/GOI would Increase and split the order in two - go for 100 Gripen and 100 EF/Rafales

Hi Kartik - Noobie question - can the Mig 29 be upgraded to Mig 35 specs/performance ?

Fellow BFRites - If there is any previous discussion on this, request you to please point me to it. Thanks !!