MRCA News and Discussion

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 May 2010 18:59

^^Nice. Things are looking good for the Gripen. If it makes it to the top of the IAF's final list, the MoD won't even look at any of the others thanks to the low initial and lifetime costs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 May 2010 22:19

Henrik wrote:No it won't be a true 5th gen. Just take a look at the F-35, PAK-FA and F-22, no easy, simple "make-overs" here. A cow is still a cow, even if you put it in a tracksuit.

Funny you say that because as per Saab, the Gripen is a 5th generation fighter..had read it a long time ago on Keypub forums when there was a thread about how to classify aircraft generations..would you call the Gripen C/D or even Gripen NG a 5th generation fighter?

ivanpinto · Post by **ivanpinto** » 21 May 2010 23:42

Gripen would definitely be the best choice with the least strings attached, best TOT package and least TCO over a 20year period.

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 22 May 2010 14:17

avinash.rd wrote:Dassault-UAE may team up on Rafale bid
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 273671422/

If the whole world think that Rafale is overpriced, then I wonder why UAE wants to invest in the Rafale? May be for ToT!!

Also, The F4 model would be a true "fifth-generation" aircraft and would be available for delivery from 2014 onwards!!!
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=AIR

very good pdf on Rafale
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source ... PXpw04TS9g

thx for these interesting datas!

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 22 May 2010 14:22

The French Dassault Rafale, the European Consortium Eurofighter Typhoon and the American Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet are all twin-engined fighters in the 25-30 ton class. All of them are reportedly very expensive, with reported prices ranging from Euro 48 million for the Rafale to Euro 88 million for the Eurofighter and US$ 58 million for the Super Hornet. Admittedly, these are only notional figures and no vendor/buyer is likely to divulge the real/actual price and the services, equipment, spares/maintenance support that it might include. Would the IAF want to purchase such ‘heavy duty’ and expensive (?) aircraft?

http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/05/mm ... n-air.html

There was some talk of the contract being split between two vendors and a separate tender for the AESA radar. This, in my opinion, might have been conjectured to meet the Tejas LCS radar requirements. India is already committed to buying six C-130J, 10 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft and other equipment from the US and hence it might become somewhat easy to buy additional GE 404 or more powerful engines for the indigenous LCA.

In the final analysis, it seems that the political factor is likely to influence the choice of the MMRCA more heavily than just the performance parameters. As an old fighter pilot, however, I would always pitch for a light, easily manoeuvrable, agile and relatively inexpensive fighter that delivers every time, generates high sortie rates and is easy to maintain and train on a day to day peace time schedule. What counts in war is the number of fighters one can launch every hour, every day, day after day, with full confidence and ease of operation.

http://www.praguepost.com/news/4332-gri ... pened.html

i agree with him, LCa would be better than any foreign 4th gen aircraft

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 22 May 2010 15:18

Kartik wrote:
Henrik wrote:No it won't be a true 5th gen. Just take a look at the F-35, PAK-FA and F-22, no easy, simple "make-overs" here. A cow is still a cow, even if you put it in a tracksuit.
Funny you say that because as per Saab, the Gripen is a 5th generation fighter..had read it a long time ago on Keypub forums when there was a thread about how to classify aircraft generations..would you call the Gripen C/D or even Gripen NG a 5th generation fighter?

No, I wouldn't. And I don't see SAAB advertising it as one either, and certainly not charging you 5th gen money for it.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 22 May 2010 15:25

Shatack wrote:
There was some talk of the contract being split between two vendors and a separate tender for the AESA radar. This, in my opinion, might have been conjectured to meet the Tejas LCS radar requirements. India is already committed to buying six C-130J, 10 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft and other equipment from the US and hence it might become somewhat easy to buy additional GE 404 or more powerful engines for the indigenous LCA.

In the final analysis, it seems that the political factor is likely to influence the choice of the MMRCA more heavily than just the performance parameters. As an old fighter pilot, however, I would always pitch for a light, easily manoeuvrable, agile and relatively inexpensive fighter that delivers every time, generates high sortie rates and is easy to maintain and train on a day to day peace time schedule. What counts in war is the number of fighters one can launch every hour, every day, day after day, with full confidence and ease of operation.
http://www.praguepost.com/news/4332-gri ... pened.html

i agree with him, LCa would be better than any foreign 4th gen aircraft

That description fits the Gripen perfectly, I couldn't describe the Gripen system better myself. This was exactly the same demands the SwAF had when they requested it. You could almost think that he works for SAAB for saying that!

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 22 May 2010 23:58

Well considering this EJ-200 vs F-414 discussion I just want to point at the respective dry thrust of the engines.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 23 May 2010 00:39

There is so much talk on gripen and its capabilities here. One thing that I believe is that at least gripen is not purposeful .
As per the MRCA-contract guidelines ,the aircraft that doesn't fits into the specific requirements is GripenNg ,.
If it was just another contract,things would have been different ,but the preconditions specific to India,IAF and the Industry itself cant work well with the gripen..
It will be amongst Russia/usa/france.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 May 2010 01:44

Samay wrote:There is so much talk on gripen and its capabilities here. One thing that I believe is that at least gripen is not purposeful .
As per the MRCA-contract guidelines ,the aircraft that doesn't fits into the specific requirements is GripenNg ,.
If it was just another contract,things would have been different ,but the preconditions specific to India,IAF and the Industry itself cant work well with the gripen..
It will be amongst Russia/usa/france.

Could you please specify those conditions that were stated in the MRCA-tender? Personally I don´t really know what fighter the MRCA is suppose to replace and what kind of fighter the IAF originally asked for. What requirement does´nt the Gripen NG have that the IAF demands in the MRCA-tender?

Kartik
"Funny you say that because as per Saab, the Gripen is a 5th generation fighter..had read it a long time ago on Keypub forums when there was a thread about how to classify aircraft generations..would you call the Gripen C/D or even Gripen NG a 5th generation fighter?"

I have never heard SAAB calling the Gripen a "5th gen. fighter", the opposite actually, AFAIK SAAB has always called the Gripen "the 1st 4th gen. fighter in operational service" etc. Could you give me a source to such a claim? (Personally I think this "generation"-crap is such ridiculous. If it were up to me I would call the new Gripen, SAAB Gripen E/F. That is more logical...)

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 23 May 2010 05:30

If we like saab that much then why we don't work with
saab/kaveri combination.Saab do have lot of experience in engine devolpment with other manufactures.Saab with one engine/LCA with two engines.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 23 May 2010 06:09

kuldipchager wrote:If we like saab that much then why we don't work with
saab/kaveri combination.Saab do have lot of experience in engine devolpment with other manufactures.

Saab's Gripen itself uses an American engine.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 May 2010 06:41

kuldipchager wrote:Saab with one engine/LCA with two engines.

do you mean a 2 engined LCA!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 May 2010 06:51

Wickberg wrote: I have never heard SAAB calling the Gripen a "5th gen. fighter", the opposite actually, AFAIK SAAB has always called the Gripen "the 1st 4th gen. fighter in operational service" etc. Could you give me a source to such a claim? (Personally I think this "generation"-crap is such ridiculous. If it were up to me I would call the new Gripen, SAAB Gripen E/F. That is more logical...)

It was a figure that a poster named Robban posted. I'm sorry, I remembered it wrongly. Saab apparently classifies the F-22 and the F-35 as 4th generation and the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon are all in the same generation as these 2 US fighters..apparently, carrying weapons internally and being shaped for stealth are not that important as per Saab. You can see the Tunnan, Draken and Viggen in the earlier generations.

image link

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 May 2010 15:44

Asit P wrote:
Saab's Gripen itself uses an American engine.

Don´t wanna be a besserwisser but the Gripen actually uses an engine produced by Volvo Aero called RM12. GE and Volvo Aero has a close collaboration and the RM12 contains about 50% Swedish designed and produced parts. So you could call it an american/swedish engine if you wanna nitpick...

/end besserwissering

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 May 2010 15:59

Kartik wrote: It was a figure that a poster named Robban posted. I'm sorry, I remembered it wrongly. Saab apparently classifies the F-22 and the F-35 as 4th generation and the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon are all in the same generation as these 2 US fighters..apparently, carrying weapons internally and being shaped for stealth are not that important as per Saab. You can see the Tunnan, Draken and Viggen in the earlier generations.

image link

But is that figure an actual official SAAB-release? I know Robban is a well-informed guy and is talented at photoshop and some of his own creations sometimes have been mistaken on forums as something coming from SAAB. Personally I have never seen that particular image on the SAAB webpage.
This is really a non-issue to me since I think all this generation-stuff is bollocks I just wanted to highlight the fact that just because you see a very professional fact-sheet image on a forum it does´nt guarantee that it is an official release from the manufacturer...

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 23 May 2010 16:48

Wickberg wrote: Don´t wanna be a besserwisser but the Gripen actually uses an engine produced by Volvo Aero called RM12. GE and Volvo Aero has a close collaboration and the RM12 contains about 50% Swedish designed and produced parts. So you could call it an american/swedish engine if you wanna nitpick...

/end besserwissering

So I guess we will get the full ToT of engine,isnt it ?

abrahavt · Post by **abrahavt** » 23 May 2010 16:56

Saab still needs Uncle's permission to offer TOT for the engine and that is by no means certain. Given all the foot dragging over the LCA consultancy I wonder how much the US will allow especially if the F-18 loses.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 May 2010 18:46

Samay wrote: So I guess we will get the full ToT of engine,isnt it ?

abrahavt
Saab still needs Uncle's permission to offer TOT for the engine and that is by no means certain. Given all the foot dragging over the LCA consultancy I wonder how much the US will allow especially if the F-18 loses.

When the Gripen was designed in the 80s SAAB wrote waterproof contracts with the suppliers from foreign countries so they could not do what PW/USA did to the Viggen/India deal back in the late 1970s. Every crucial part of the Gripen that is foreign can not be a subject to restrictions unless the UN and the parliament of Sweden should embargo India (which is not going to happen). LM and Boeing representatives sometimes play the card of "USA produce the engine of Gripen therefor we make the rules and decide what country the Gripen can be sold". That is total bollocks and PR-lies. There are water-proof contracts regarding any foreign part in the aircraft.
So no, SAAB does´nt need any ucle Sam permission to ToT over the engine, and Uncle Sam does´nt need any Swedish approval to sell the F414 (it contains many parts of the Swedish RM12 and Volvo Aero is a major part of the F414). There are contracts signed which can not be broken.
Sometimes you read posts from uneducated folks that dismiss the Gripen cause "it contains parts from USA that can be sanctioned." Well, the people who thinks that are just uneducated fools who don´t know anything about todays (or yesterdays) international market of defense industry.

As an example; Sweden is not an official NATO-member. But Sweden has greater deal of cooperation with US defense institutions then any other NATO-member then UK. USA/Sweden/Australia/UK has a industrial assignment were they cooperate in matters of defense industries. We share (trade) technologies and informations that are important to each others.
It´s kind of hush-hush but still in the open. If the general public in Sweden would know about many of them would probably go apeshit. It´s just the reality and the way things have been since after WW2.
Thats the way all over the globe, Rafale claim they are all french but in fact the aircraft contains thousands of parts that are designed and produced elsewhere, you just can´t get away from that fact in these times of internationalizing....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2010 20:25

abrahavt wrote: Saab still needs Uncle's permission to offer TOT for the engine and that is by no means certain. Given all the foot dragging over the LCA consultancy I wonder how much the US will allow especially if the F-18 loses.

There is BIG difference between "consultancy" and "ToT".

In the prior the consultant has to provide solutions to a particular problem for which they have been hired. As part of such an engagement the consultant will necessarily have to part with technical knowledge that is unknown to the agency that hired that consultant. Thus there is the potential of knowledge transfer at a very, very granular level. This knowledge transfer is what - I suspect - the State Department was against, and NOT the knowledge of how to build something (which is quite different than how to solve something). ToT does not have to mean that the vendor has to part with granular details, they could supply that granular details and have India build from a much higher level (as is being suggested for the AESA radars).

The two should not be confused.

The time lost ("foot dragging") is an issue WRT the delivery of the NLCA for sure. The IN has lost some time - a year or so.

But, what I am confused about is how did someone within LM or the Indian establishment feel so confident that they were willing to risk such a wait!! Or to risk such a wait they must have felt rather confident that the SD would approve.

Nair · Post by **Nair** » 23 May 2010 21:03

Wickberg wrote:
Samay wrote: So I guess we will get the full ToT of engine,isnt it ?
abrahavt
Saab still needs Uncle's permission to offer TOT for the engine and that is by no means certain. Given all the foot dragging over the LCA consultancy I wonder how much the US will allow especially if the F-18 loses.

When the Gripen was designed in the 80s SAAB wrote waterproof contracts with the suppliers from foreign countries so they could not do what PW/USA did to the Viggen/India deal back in the late 1970s. Every crucial part of the Gripen that is foreign can not be a subject to restrictions unless the UN and the parliament of Sweden should embargo India (which is not going to happen). LM and Boeing representatives sometimes play the card of "USA produce the engine of Gripen therefor we make the rules and decide what country the Gripen can be sold". That is total bollocks and PR-lies. There are water-proof contracts regarding any foreign part in the aircraft.
So no, SAAB does´nt need any ucle Sam permission to ToT over the engine, and Uncle Sam does´nt need any Swedish approval to sell the F414 (it contains many parts of the Swedish RM12 and Volvo Aero is a major part of the F414). There are contracts signed which can not be broken.
Sometimes you read posts from uneducated folks that dismiss the Gripen cause "it contains parts from USA that can be sanctioned." Well, the people who thinks that are just uneducated fools who don´t know anything about todays (or yesterdays) international market of defense industry.

As an example; Sweden is not an official NATO-member. But Sweden has greater deal of cooperation with US defense institutions then any other NATO-member then UK. USA/Sweden/Australia/UK has a industrial assignment were they cooperate in matters of defense industries. We share (trade) technologies and informations that are important to each others.
It´s kind of hush-hush but still in the open. If the general public in Sweden would know about many of them would probably go apeshit. It´s just the reality and the way things have been since after WW2.
Thats the way all over the globe, Rafale claim they are all french but in fact the aircraft contains thousands of parts that are designed and produced elsewhere, you just can´t get away from that fact in these times of internationalizing....

Thats all well and good..but all these contracts signed will be with GE right? So if the US congress imposes sanctions or prohibits transfer of technology by GE then what can GE do. It will be a similar state to what happened with the LCA consultancy the company wants to do business but the govt prohibits them from it.

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 23 May 2010 21:17

Henrik wrote: That description fits the Gripen perfectly, I couldn't describe the Gripen system better myself. This was exactly the same demands the SwAF had when they requested it. You could almost think that he works for SAAB for saying that!

exept that Indian has maybe other geopolitical ambitions than getting 14 gripens c/d as bribed south africans ordered? nan?

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 23 May 2010 21:22

Thats all well and good..but all these contracts signed will be with GE right? So if the US congress imposes sanctions or prohibits transfer of technology by GE then what can GE do. It will be a similar state to what happened with the LCA consultancy the company wants to do business but the govt prohibits them from it.

especially when US friends Pakish are involved, moolah are so powerfull, they even buys Saab AEW aircrafts under US control!

Shatack · Post by **Shatack** » 23 May 2010 21:27

Wickberg wrote: Thats the way all over the globe, Rafale claim they are all french but in fact the aircraft contains thousands of parts that are designed and produced elsewhere, you just can´t get away from that fact in these times of internationalizing....

each sensitive parts of the rafale are french, somes few spares can be build elsewhere, but for concurential cost only.. they can switch easily.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 23 May 2010 21:47

Wickberg wrote:
Samay wrote: So I guess we will get the full ToT of engine,isnt it ?
abrahavt
Saab still needs Uncle's permission to offer TOT for the engine and that is by no means certain. Given all the foot dragging over the LCA consultancy I wonder how much the US will allow especially if the F-18 loses.

When the Gripen was designed in the 80s SAAB wrote waterproof contracts with the suppliers from foreign countries so they could not do what PW/USA did to the Viggen/India deal back in the late 1970s. Every crucial part of the Gripen that is foreign can not be a subject to restrictions unless the UN and the parliament of Sweden should embargo India (which is not going to happen). LM and Boeing representatives sometimes play the card of "USA produce the engine of Gripen therefor we make the rules and decide what country the Gripen can be sold". That is total bollocks and PR-lies. There are water-proof contracts regarding any foreign part in the aircraft.
So no, SAAB does´nt need any ucle Sam permission to ToT over the engine, and Uncle Sam does´nt need any Swedish approval to sell the F414 (it contains many parts of the Swedish RM12 and Volvo Aero is a major part of the F414). There are contracts signed which can not be broken.
Sometimes you read posts from uneducated folks that dismiss the Gripen cause "it contains parts from USA that can be sanctioned." Well, the people who thinks that are just uneducated fools who don´t know anything about todays (or yesterdays) international market of defense industry.

As an example; Sweden is not an official NATO-member. But Sweden has greater deal of cooperation with US defense institutions then any other NATO-member then UK. USA/Sweden/Australia/UK has a industrial assignment were they cooperate in matters of defense industries. We share (trade) technologies and informations that are important to each others.
It´s kind of hush-hush but still in the open. If the general public in Sweden would know about many of them would probably go apeshit. It´s just the reality and the way things have been since after WW2.
Thats the way all over the globe, Rafale claim they are all french but in fact the aircraft contains thousands of parts that are designed and produced elsewhere, you just can´t get away from that fact in these times of internationalizing....

Good post, does this also apply to the F414 or is this for the GE engines in general? I see that Sweden does not require US permission, but doesn't the US still manufacture certain parts giving it the chance to withhold shipments? I'm not saying it is likely but I feel that's the concern that people on this forum are voicing.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 May 2010 22:15

Cancel the MRCA deal; Ramp up LCA production; Tie up with Saab for the LCA Mk 2 which could use Gripen techs that we've liked.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 May 2010 22:19

Carl_T wrote: Good post, does this also apply to the F414 or is this for the GE engines in general? I see that Sweden does not require US permission, but doesn't the US still manufacture certain parts giving it the chance to withhold shipments? I'm not saying it is likely but I feel that's the concern that people on this forum are voicing.

This apply to the the F414 as well, considering that particular engine is the logical result of a modification of the RM12 (which is is once again , half Swedish). US can probably manufacture or buy any parts they want but any breach in an international contract would severely bite them selves in the ass twice as hard. Sweden for example could simply just refuse them more deliveries of its navies fighters selfprotect-systems or its armies Excalibur and AT4s... That would never happen now since all such discussion does not take place in the parliament, its now a government vs government affair. No need for nosy journalists or left-wing politicians to raise their voices...

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 24 May 2010 01:27

Wickberg wrote:GE and Volvo Aero has a close collaboration and the RM12 contains about 50% Swedish designed and produced parts. So you could call it an american/swedish engine if you wanna nitpick...

That was no nitpicking Wickberg. It was just a way of letting 'kuldipchager' know that Saab is not in a condition to don the role of a consultant for India's Kaveri program.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 May 2010 01:47

I'd sure like to see all those documents that the Swedes signed which give it access to US technology or even allow it to state that it can transfer them without problems.

As things stand, in the Brazilian MMRCA contest, it was clearly stated that one of the reasons the Rafale was preferred by the political leadership, was because the Swedes asked Brazil to negotiate with all the individual OEMs for TOT.

Anyone who thinks the US laws are secondary to some deal signed with SAAB need to provide evidence of their claims.

As things stand, the Gripen NG is not only a threat to the LCA program (which the Swedes will do their best to scuttle, given the chance of another 140-180 aircraft orders for a plane which otherwise does not have a secured future), but also stands far lower in combat performance to the F/A-18 E/F (which has greater payload, more powerful radar & avionics), EF and Rafale (outclassed in all departments). The only thing it claims is low cost. If thats the only criterion, then forget about winning the war, but just holding peacetime contests.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 May 2010 02:05

Why do you feel Gripen is a "threat" to the LCA Program? It is repeated ad nauseum so please do explain.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 24 May 2010 02:23

Asit P wrote: That was no nitpicking Wickberg. It was just a way of letting 'kuldipchager' know that Saab is not in a condition to don the role of a consultant for India's Kaveri program.

Sorry I don´t know what "kuldipchager" actually means but I get the jezt of it.
It seems like India is trying to reinvent the wheel, it´s already been done. Move on and get it done. Its not 1989 anymore.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 May 2010 02:29

Carl T

Its fairly straight.

The issue is that the Gripen NG is an aircraft which is quite similar in some ways to what the LCA MK2 is being made into. Furthermore, once considerable investment is made into infrastructure etc for a Gripen NG, expect a campaign to be run pointing out how much better the Gripen NG is and how it should be chosen since its already there
Assiduous marketing will be done by all those who stand to gain fiscally as well. And I would encourage you to look on your own, lest you think I am biased, into what this marketing has involved in certain other competitions
India, in many ways, is as vulnerable or more.

The IAF's involvement in the LCA has ranged from disinterest and hostile to lukewarm. There simply is no overarching authority in India which does procurement and safeguards Indian programs from cancellation/irrelevance under the flimsiest of pretexts. As such, the Gripen NG is the worst of all the competitors from the combination of technology deniability (we will have to deal with multiple lines of authority worldwide), and also the direct commercial conflict posed to an indian program in development.

The deal will be sold to india by attempting to cancel the LCA MK2 and trying to tie that into clearance for the MCA. You can expect many key "personnel" in several organizations to push for this by attacking the LCA program and the developer for being anti-national and not agreeing to an import. The same manner in which the Arjun 2 has been touted as the quid pro quo for giving the Arjun 1 only 124 more orders, when as things stand it is the far superior system to its peer, and deserves more.

Frankly, there is no country as foolish as India when it comes to procurement, and we (as in Indian citizens) have no business in keeping swedens industry afloat at the cost of our own (which will be passed off as "dont re-invent the wheel" etc).

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 24 May 2010 02:50

Mrinal wrote:Carl T

Its fairly straight.

The issue is that the Gripen NG is an aircraft which is quite similar in some ways to what the LCA MK2 is being made into. Furthermore, once considerable investment is made into infrastructure etc for a Gripen NG, expect a campaign to be run pointing out how much better the Gripen NG is and how it should be chosen since its already there
Assiduous marketing will be done by all those who stand to gain fiscally as well. And I would encourage you to look on your own, lest you think I am biased, into what this marketing has involved in certain other competitions
India, in many ways, is as vulnerable or more.

The IAF's involvement in the LCA has ranged from disinterest and hostile to lukewarm. There simply is no overarching authority in India which does procurement and safeguards Indian programs from cancellation/irrelevance under the flimsiest of pretexts. As such, the Gripen NG is the worst of all the competitors from the combination of technology deniability (we will have to deal with multiple lines of authority worldwide), and also the direct commercial conflict posed to an indian program in development.

The deal will be sold to india by attempting to cancel the LCA MK2 and trying to tie that into clearance for the MCA. You can expect many key "personnel" in several organizations to push for this by attacking the LCA program and the developer for being anti-national and not agreeing to an import. The same manner in which the Arjun 2 has been touted as the quid pro quo for giving the Arjun 1 only 124 more orders, when as things stand it is the far superior system to its peer, and deserves more.

Frankly, there is no country as foolish as India when it comes to procurement, and we (as in Indian citizens) have no business in keeping swedens industry afloat at the cost of our own (which will be passed off as "dont re-invent the wheel" etc).

mRinal. You seem like a smart guy who knows all cons and pros.
What is your advice to the Indian MoD? Pretend you were king of the Indian MoD and you could do whatever you wanted (within a reasonable amount) . What would the future of IAF look like?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 May 2010 03:14

Mrinal wrote:Carl T

Its fairly straight.

The issue is that the Gripen NG is an aircraft which is quite similar in some ways to what the LCA MK2 is being made into. Furthermore, once considerable investment is made into infrastructure etc for a Gripen NG, expect a campaign to be run pointing out how much better the Gripen NG is and how it should be chosen since its already there
Assiduous marketing will be done by all those who stand to gain fiscally as well. And I would encourage you to look on your own, lest you think I am biased, into what this marketing has involved in certain other competitions
India, in many ways, is as vulnerable or more.

Thanks for the response. Would you say the same if the IAF made a commitment to buying a significant number of LCAs?

IMVHO, the LCA is a long term strategic as well as military investment whereas this is MRCA seems to me a "s**t we need some new planes!". Hence I think we should pursue the most economical program rather than gunning for the plane with the most goodies. I think the issue of numbers ensures that we need a low cost plane considering I think the PLAAF has 300 more fighter aircraft than we do.

Furthermore we can probably integrate some of the Gripen tech into the LCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 May 2010 03:37

I would like to suggest that the PAK-FA will also kill the MCA.

Some people like to live too far into the past.

And, in constant fear (of things that do not even exist).

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 24 May 2010 16:28

NRao wrote:I would like to suggest that the PAK-FA will also kill the MCA.

Some people like to live too far into the past.

And, in constant fear (of things that do not even exist).

Well said sir !!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 May 2010 15:01

In view of the COAS's latest warnings about FMS,we should pay maximum attention to this aspect of strings regarding TOT and after sales support attached to the deal.Any serious dubts regarding these crucial aspects no matter what performance/price the aircraft gives,should be the overrriding factor.Performance at price should come secondary.It is of little use to the IAF if we buy an aircraft that effectively is in the IAF's inventory on paper only but cannot fly or perform because of sanctions.In that respect the pursuance of the LCA MK-2 perfection must be made at the greatest speed if the aircraft is to remain relevant three decades after it was first conceived.At the pace it is now going,it will prove to be another HF-24,great potential but arrivng with an inadequate engine and ultimately is overtaken by the law of time,technology and change.

The doubt about the Gripen is relevant and we should see its track record in the nations that it is in service,incuding friend S.Africa.If they have received good support and little interference from the US or other OEMs ,then it will be to its advantage in the assesment.Another conditon we could impose upon the Swedes is that they procure the nneccessary spares,etc. and hold them in stock for 5 yr. periods,where we guarantee to lift them when required.Something similar on lines with the newly established Indo-Russian companies that are servicing all Russian warships and weapon systems.This eliminates any undue delay when spares are urgently needed.The setting up of production facilities and TOT should also be examined in detail if yet again the Swedes will have to source from different entities.We want a one-stop/shop solution when required.It is here where the EF scores but its frightening cost can put the IAF off.The two US aircraft also come with the dreaded baggage of sanctions.The Russian and French are the best reg. strings attached.The SU-30MKI has been a resounding success and as MIG-29 engines and parts are already being made here,it will be a significant advantage,but yet again throw us into the Russian camp.

In the final analysis,having your own system is best where you are in control,so we should start lobbying ffirst for faster and full development of the LCA no matter what aircraft is chosen.Given our large needs foir numbers too,operating two single-engined small types will not be too problematic and ensure keen competition and comparison between the two.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 25 May 2010 16:27

Gripen NG demo flies from its nest
25 May 2010, in News

Last week the Gripen NG demo was making its Iinternational debut by taking part in the last phase of the Indian evaluation trials for the MMRCA (Medium Multi- Role Combat Aircraft) tender in India.

To date the aircraft has flown some 135 test flights in Sweden and is now testing its wings abroad, showing the international arena that next generation Gripen fighter development is on track.

"This achievement just shows the expertise and high technology capability that Sweden boasts in developing and manufacturing a fighter aircraft of this calibre. Several International pilots have already flown and evaluated the Gripen NG demo in Sweden, including pilots from Brazil and India and we are confident that this aircraft meets, or exceeds every operational requirement raised by the Indian Air Force," says Eddy de la Motte, Gripen Campaign Director, India.

The harsh environment of the Leh airbase, 3300m high up in the Himalayas, proved to be no match for the Swedish fighter where it cleared the high altitude trials.

The Gripen NG demo is the flying platform which is being used to train and develop the new technologies and features incorporated into the Gripen NG. The Gripen NG has been specifically developed to meet the operational requirements of countries such as India and Brazil, which requires a next generation fighter with significantly increased combat range and endurance, increased payload and super cruise capability.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... -its-nest/

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2010 16:34

..............warnings about FMS,we should pay maximum attention to this aspect of strings regarding TOT ............

FMS does NOT have ToT for heaven's sake.

And, I suspect you are advising the GoI from not signing some agreements with the US.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 25 May 2010 16:36

dorai wrote:

Gripen NG demo flies from its nest
25 May 2010, in News

Last week the Gripen NG demo was making its Iinternational debut by taking part in the last phase of the Indian evaluation trials for the MMRCA (Medium Multi- Role Combat Aircraft) tender in India.

To date the aircraft has flown some 135 test flights in Sweden and is now testing its wings abroad, showing the international arena that next generation Gripen fighter development is on track.

"This achievement just shows the expertise and high technology capability that Sweden boasts in developing and manufacturing a fighter aircraft of this calibre. Several International pilots have already flown and evaluated the Gripen NG demo in Sweden, including pilots from Brazil and India and we are confident that this aircraft meets, or exceeds every operational requirement raised by the Indian Air Force," says Eddy de la Motte, Gripen Campaign Director, India.

The harsh environment of the Leh airbase, 3300m high up in the Himalayas, proved to be no match for the Swedish fighter where it cleared the high altitude trials.

The Gripen NG demo is the flying platform which is being used to train and develop the new technologies and features incorporated into the Gripen NG. The Gripen NG has been specifically developed to meet the operational requirements of countries such as India and Brazil, which requires a next generation fighter with significantly increased combat range and endurance, increased payload and super cruise capability.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... -its-nest/

Thanks for the update Dorai..

If Gripen makes it to the shortlist (can't see why not), it is going to give the others a run for their money $$$