MRCA News and Discussion

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 29 Aug 2010 19:40

Karan M wrote:
Henrik wrote: What absolute rubbish.
The fact that you cant even post a logical rejoinder to the clear weaknesses of the Gripen NG shows that the truth may have got your undies in a bunch but there's precious little you can do about it.

Heck, its overall weaknesses apart, most of the other MRCA contenders either have demonstrated capabilities (eg AESA on the F-16, F-18, and now even the Rafale) or export sales for variants similar to what the IAF will procure (eg Typhoon bar the Captor-E, F-16, F-18). The Gripen has neither & the Indian AF has to rely on presentation skills to believe all will be well. Yeah,sure.

Oh please, enlighten me on the so called "overall weaknesses". Because apperently I have no clue.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Aug 2010 19:47

I already did in the previous post, which you couldn't even respond to, bar a flame one liner.

Now, if you dont have a clue, and asked nicely, I might have spent some of my time, giving you one or even several.

But all you have is salt & vinegar & a tough guy attitude - guess, what go look up what I said again, this time with a sane head, and learn on your time.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 29 Aug 2010 19:49

Willy wrote:BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!! THE GRIPEN IS THE FRONT RUNNER AND IS SURE TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the sort of thing that will keep popping up in here for the next couple of years.

Or, F-16IN IS SURE TO WIN EVEN THOUGH IT IS A FAT OVERGROWN PIG THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ANACONDA THAT JUST SWALLOWED A HORSE!!!!!!!!1111

Or something like that..

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 29 Aug 2010 19:57

Karan M wrote:I already did in the previous post, which you couldn't even respond to, bar a flame one liner.

Now, if you dont have a clue, and asked nicely, I might have spent some of my time, giving you one or even several.

But all you have is salt & vinegar & a tough guy attitude - guess, what go look up what I said again, this time with a sane head, and learn on your time.

Oh please, take a deep breath and get over yourself. You claimed that Rafale was superior to Gripen NG in A2A.. That I claim to be complete rubbish.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 29 Aug 2010 19:57

Karan M wrote:I already did in the previous post, which you couldn't even respond to, bar a flame one liner.

Now, if you dont have a clue, and asked nicely, I might have spent some of my time, giving you one or even several.

But all you have is salt & vinegar & a tough guy attitude - guess, what go look up what I said again, this time with a sane head, and learn on your time.

Oh please, take a deep breath and get over yourself. You claimed that Rafale was superior to Gripen NG in A2A.. That I claim to be complete rubbish.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 29 Aug 2010 20:28

Henrik,
Can you give some details regarding the international exercises Gripen has participated in? All I can get from internet are Red Flag, NATO red arrow exercise involving F-15, F-16, F-18 as fighters and one against Norwegian F-16s. Is there any news report giving info regarding gripen performance against F-16 and F-18 (preferably from a non Swedish source) in the above exercises?Has Gripen ever participated in an exercise involving Mirage 2000, Eurofighter or Rafale? If so, could you give some information regarding the same?
I am asking only because I am a Gripen fan and curious about it. I know that Gripen NG would be a totally different beast as compared to Gripen C/D but any info would nevertheless be welcome.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 30 Aug 2010 06:40

Most of the MMRCA Contenders in Colourful Paint Schemes at the Tiger Meet

Gripen NG at Fairford 2010

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 30 Aug 2010 06:50

Every Air force in the world is having a Squadron named has "Tiger squadrons" nice paint job ,are they using now machine operated robots for this fine digital prints ?

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 30 Aug 2010 12:49

Why did not the "Offsets Technical Committee" and the IAF technical evaluation committee, do their work in parallel as opposed to doing it in tandem? Right now the Technical Evaluation is over and Offset Technical work is being evaluated. These two tasks should have been done in parallel, with their results being made available simultaneously. Their results can then be combined to arrive at a suitable candidate.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 31 Aug 2010 03:40

Global giants line up for $10-bn IAF aircraft deal

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 31 Aug 2010 11:45

New Candidate for the MRCA contest - lowest cost entrant, complete TOT!

http://news.yahoo.com/video/dallascbs11 ... e-21658755

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Sep 2010 00:28

MMRCA BUZZ: What Makes The IAF Nervous About The Americans

An IAF officer I spoke to six months ago to get a sense of how the Indian Air Force perceives partnerships with the United States as a potential outcome of the MMRCA competition, used a simple but strange metaphor to illustrate his opinion. Imagine India on the one side of a deep and wide ravine. Across this wide ravine is a gleaming suspension bridge. It looks great and appears superbly stable -- but in rough weather, there's every chance it will shake. In the past, when India has tried to cross this bridge, it has been forced to quickly retrace its steps midway when the bridge was buffeted by unkind winds that threatened to cast India into the ravine. So now, here's the question. Does the weather ever really change that much?

...
...
The chief cause of nervousness in the IAF regarding any potential hardware from the US is, quite clearly, the potential attendant erosion of autonomy. Nothing in the last six years has changed that perception

...
...
A related aspect is operational flexibility. During Kargil, the IAF reportedly did things to some of its Mirage-2000s that would have amounted to serious violations of the Indian government's contract with Dassault. It is understood, but not confirmed, that the French government was quietly engaged after the war and the two sides were able to agree that it was not a problem, and that no penalties would be slapped on the Indian government for what were, in reality, war exegencies, even though it was clear that there had been serious breaches of the technology agreement. The use of US aircraft would be far more potentially restricted and regulated by complex rules, legalese and guidelines. It's not that the IAF isn't used to this sort of thing. It's just that there's likely to be exponentially more to pore over before scrambling an American jet from an Indian base. Here's another point: Buying and operating US aircraft, some in the IAF believe, would "completely subvert" one of the most deeply entrenched "ways" of doing things in India -- using a generous dose of improvisation. "Will the American be fanatically remote controlling with India as well? It is hard to say," says the officer quoted above.

...
...
Next, of course, trust. Reliability and trust are major issues, and this has little do with any sort of hangover of the 1998 post-Shakti sanctions.
...
...
For instance, the IAF is still wondering why the US government didn't allow Boeing to provide a technological and flight test consultancy to the Tejas programme. Recently, it was revealed that Lockheed-Martin was unable to obtain approvals from the US government to consult for the Naval Tejas programme (both contracts went by default to EADS). The point is, the consultancies were "small-fry contracts that held nothing of advantage to either of the American companies or the government," says a Group Captain. He adds, "Such denials are taken very seriously. What could the possible reason be for the US government to deny two small consultancies? It has not been reported much, so it is forgotten. For the service, it was a jolt. The implications are plain for anyone to deduce."
...
...
Some of these concerns have a greater emphasis than others in ongoing dialogue between the IAF and the MoD, but all figure at various levels without exception. It must be said that there is, at the same time, a powerful section within the IAF -- with compelling arguments of its own on all the concerns listed above -- that the only way the IAF can make its next aerospace leap, is with technology from the United States, and that any other, would be a compromise on such a valuable opportunity to shift away from rusty strategic predilections of the past.
...

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 01 Sep 2010 09:55

MMRCA BUZZ: What Makes The IAF Nervous About The Americans
Most of the information Shiv posted isn't anything knew. India's apprehensions about choosing a US plane are pretty obvious.
This is the most interesting bit.

A related aspect is operational flexibility. During Kargil, the IAF reportedly did things to some of its Mirage-2000s that would have amounted to serious violations of the Indian government's contract with Dassault. It is understood, but not confirmed, that the French government was quietly engaged after the war and the two sides were able to agree that it was not a problem, and that no penalties would be slapped on the Indian government for what were, in reality, war exegencies, even though it was clear that there had been serious breaches of the technology agreement. The use of US aircraft would be far more potentially restricted and regulated by complex rules, legalese and guidelines. It's not that the IAF isn't used to this sort of thing. It's just that there's likely to be exponentially more to pore over before scrambling an American jet from an Indian base

What exactly did the IAF modify on the Mirages? The addition of the Israeli LGB's are the only thing im aware of. I doubt that would constitute a serious breach of tech agreement. Anyone have any ideas?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 01 Sep 2010 11:15

That was something new for me as well. Any and all modifications to weapon systems that India purchases must be allowed. At the most the manufacture may say that this is not recommended or that it will void warranty but there should be no political or technical usage barriers. Maybe the services will now see the light that indigenous technology is the only one where jugaad can be done to their hearts content and stop hankering after foreign maal except when absolutely necessary (since there is no other choice).

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 01 Sep 2010 12:23

If i recall correctly, i have read somewhere that during Kargil, Mirage were modified to carry nukes... till date Indian mirages are the only mirages other than Mirage 2000N (with French airforce - official designated to carry nukes) capable of carrying nukes..
Might be this modification is what we are guessing!!

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 01 Sep 2010 12:53

putnanja wrote:MMRCA BUZZ: What Makes The IAF Nervous About The Americans

...
...
Next, of course, trust. Reliability and trust are major issues, and this has little do with any sort of hangover of the 1998 post-Shakti sanctions.
...
...

If we buy any of the American fighters, be it F-16 or F/A-18 SE, we will become dependent on the yanks. And if the yanks dont want us to fight a war with the pakis or the chinks, say because the climate in washington is not conducive to such a war, then these F-16 and F/A-18 will become a stone around our neck.

We can still use these fighters, i.e. F-16 and F/A-18 SE, as bargaining chips with the other vendors. To ruthlessly drive down the acquisition cost, ToT and lifecycle cost.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Sep 2010 12:57

b_patel wrote:MMRCA BUZZ: What Makes The IAF Nervous About The Americans
Most of the information Shiv posted isn't anything knew. India's apprehensions about choosing a US plane are pretty obvious.
This is the most interesting bit.
A related aspect is operational flexibility. During Kargil, the IAF reportedly did things to some of its Mirage-2000s that would have amounted to serious violations of the Indian government's contract with Dassault. It is understood, but not confirmed, that the French government was quietly engaged after the war and the two sides were able to agree that it was not a problem, and that no penalties would be slapped on the Indian government for what were, in reality, war exegencies, even though it was clear that there had been serious breaches of the technology agreement. The use of US aircraft would be far more potentially restricted and regulated by complex rules, legalese and guidelines. It's not that the IAF isn't used to this sort of thing. It's just that there's likely to be exponentially more to pore over before scrambling an American jet from an Indian base
What exactly did the IAF modify on the Mirages? The addition of the Israeli LGB's are the only thing im aware of. I doubt that would constitute a serious breach of tech agreement. Anyone have any ideas?

And the small matter of them compatible with R-27 and R-73 missiles, droping dumb bombs and other Isearely/ Russian equipment. Somthing you can't do on american stuff, let alone deploy them without informing them- EUMA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2010 14:13

^^^ Not the R-27 but the R-73 , they tried with R-27 but failed at it.

I think they have integrated the Israel Lantrin Navigation/Guidance pod.

But you can bet even if we try to integrate an DRDO developed Dumb Bomb , we will need an approval from Lockmart or Boeing , Life will be fun for IAF with an American fighter will keep them busy much like it kept PAF busy

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Sep 2010 22:00

nrshah wrote:If i recall correctly, i have read somewhere that during Kargil, Mirage were modified to carry nukes... till date Indian mirages are the only mirages other than Mirage 2000N (with French airforce - official designated to carry nukes) capable of carrying nukes..
Might be this modification is what we are guessing!!

Nope. The Mirages were modified to be nuclear capable well before Kargil so that is not what he is referring to. Although one can be sure that the Pakis had more trouble with the US that we did with the French, when they modified some of their F-16s to carry nukes.

The modifications that Shiv Aroor is talking about during Kargil were mods that allowed it to carry Paveway LGBs and some really old Spanish origin dumb bombs from the 1970s. They didn't have adequate numbers of pylons for those, so jugaad was done to make some new ones here itself. New toss bombing techniques were developed literally overnight and tested at Pokhran and then used to drop them (the dumb bombs) on the infiltrators. All this was done in record time without Dassault involvement which in most cases will be a breach of contract (regarding new weapons being integrated and used without OEM permission).

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Sep 2010 00:10

^^I never knew modifying the Mirages to carry LGBs constituted a contract violation. The fact that Dassault did not raise a hue and cry needs to be kept in mind during the MRCA selection if we ever reach a stage where the Rafale is being compared to an AmirKhan jet for final selection.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 02 Sep 2010 00:14

self deleted...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2010 00:14

nachiket wrote:^^I never knew modifying the Mirages to carry LGBs constituted a contract violation. The fact that Dassault did not raise a hue and cry needs to be kept in mind during the MRCA selection if we ever reach a stage where the Rafale is being compared to an AmirKhan jet for final selection.

not the LGB's per se, but the vintage bombs that were not validated by Dassault as being ok to use on the Mirages.

Devesh Rawal · Post by **Devesh Rawal** » 02 Sep 2010 00:42

Have to chime in here, can't keep quiet. Why do we keep fanning the paranoia of everything American being tied with strings. The global order has changed. India is changing - why do we keep harping back on things that are not necessarily a 100% fit for today's scene. I mean the US and India have similar democratic structures. The US didn't 'disable' the use of Israeli AF's machines in umpteen wars in the past 40 years. Why can't our partnership grow beyond this fearmongering about everything american. India's finally playing a dominant role and growing some backbone - I hope it keeps going. At the end of the day the best package (TOT) will hopefully make a lot of difference to the domestic industry...

India (GOI and its citizens) must be *bold* enough to engage the US as an ally and move beyond the old history. Being an ally means we can also dictate our terms and not just be a compliant lackey (like Pak). In WWII, the reason Bihar and Bengal saw stationing of american fighter squadrons (and not RAF) was because the US was considered a 'neutral' entity and a friend, considering that we were trying to kick out the Brits while helping the allied effort against Japanese imperialism. Anyway, looking to the future with hope.

AnuragK · Post by **AnuragK** » 02 Sep 2010 00:47

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/wh ... icans.html

EUMA, LSA, CISMOA, BECA, etc. Is India getting a free dole from the US? Or, is the US subsidizing the stuff heavily? Or, is the purchase being made out of an extended interest-free credit line offered by the US? These are only a few questions in a long list. If India and the US are entering into a normal commercial transaction at market value, which apparently it is, then the transaction should be governed by market dynamics and if the same does not suit any of the parties, then so be it. US can find its own suitable market and India its own suitable supplier. I do not see why GoI can not put this simple point across. Either the GoI is hiding the truth from its public, or is too weak-kneed/chicken-hearted to face up to some home truths. As it is, GoI has already acquiesced to EUMA and signed the dotted line after some political grandstanding, as if we the people of India are blind fools and cannot see through. I am quite sure the other three will follow the same course and will be a done deal during Obama's visit.
Agreed that the American Shylock will extract its pound of flesh for the hevylifting done for the Nuclear Deal and India is not shying away from paying back for the same. But certainly, this is not the way forward. If GoI has run out of imagination and ideas as to how to tackle this pressure, we the people have umpteen viable solutions to offer so as to more than satisfy the Shylock without jeopardizing our core military operational freedom. For the sake of brevity and space, it is not possible to give the course to be adopted to counter this dilemma, here, but can be offered in a suitable forum elsewhere.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Sep 2010 04:17

as a measure of good faith, US should have been asked to lift sanctions on ALL indian entities before obama even got an invite to new delhi.

isnt it the height of shamless behaviour that DRDO/ISRO still come under overt and covert sanctions, yet we fork over billions of $$, sign all types of restrictive agreements AND invite POTUS for a hand holding and free lecture session here?

does obama get a invite to teheran or pyongyang? does he get invited to beijing before he pays heavily for the privilege of scraping and grovelling before the panda?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 02 Sep 2010 04:50

GD, some nations have self respect. Others, like India do not. Do you see the Israeli gov't paying for tickets to Hitler youth camps for neo-Nazis? The GOI, however, subsidizes trips to Mecca for ROPers who reside in India. A little thank you for all the wonderful things that "religion" has done for India.

I can never forget the spectacle of the mob of SDRE MPs tripping over each other to kiss Slick Willie's hand when he visited India in 1999. There were numerous sanctions on India and Clinton had issued a joint diktat with the masss murders in China ordering India to go nuke nood. Is there any wonder India is treated with contempt by one and all?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 02 Sep 2010 08:05

tejas wrote:Is there any wonder India is treated with contempt by one and all?

How did I miss that?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 02 Sep 2010 09:33

Singha wrote:as a measure of good faith, US should have been asked to lift sanctions on ALL indian entities before obama even got an invite to new delhi.

isnt it the height of shamless behaviour that DRDO/ISRO still come under overt and covert sanctions, yet we fork over billions of $$, sign all types of restrictive agreements AND invite POTUS for a hand holding and free lecture session here?

does obama get a invite to teheran or pyongyang? does he get invited to beijing before he pays heavily for the privilege of scraping and grovelling before the panda?

Boss, why are you surprised? Shamelessness is par for the course for the current dispensation at the center.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 02 Sep 2010 11:23

But what kind of modifications would we want on american fighters... that we could not have done with the MKIs or others in our inventory.... why do we need every aircraft in our inventory to fire every possible weapon ... you can not have a Ferrari which is fuel-efficient,yet fast and sleek isn't it... at least unless we make one ourselves and prove it can be done.... and if we are always so capable of making such mods ... why not make them on LCA and MKI where we greater latitude... it tells me that the IAF really doesn't know or can plan for what it wants and the scenarios it thinks about and what kind of planes it wants for those scenarios... I guess after the MRCA trials the IAF may start feeling like the proverbial kid in the candy store..

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 02 Sep 2010 11:36

sawant wrote:But what kind of modifications would we want on american fighters... that we could not have done with the MKIs or others in our inventory.... why do we need every aircraft in our inventory to fire every possible weapon ... you can not have a Ferrari which is fuel-efficient,yet fast and sleek isn't it... at least unless we make one ourselves and prove it can be done.... and if we are always so capable of making such mods ... why not make them on LCA and MKI where we greater latitude... it tells me that the IAF really doesn't know or can plan for what it wants and the scenarios it thinks about and what kind of planes it wants for those scenarios... I guess after the MRCA trials the IAF may start feeling like the proverbial kid in the candy store..

It is same as this is my property...even if it destroy it, it should not be a cause of concern to the builder....
However, foolish the modification may be, but what and why hell on earth some body should stop me doing that when i have already paid for the same.....

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 02 Sep 2010 12:28

nrshah wrote: It is same as this is my property...even if it destroy it, it should not be a cause of concern to the builder....
However, foolish the modification may be, but what and why hell on earth some body should stop me doing that when i have already paid for the same.....

This is because, the concept of buy and forget is pretty much Indian whereas in defense sales, *SALE* is just the begining of a much bigger engagement like upgrades, maintanence, training. This is exactly why even though with a huge offset clause, all companies are vying for this deal, obviously everyone is looking at the future and so the lookout for an aircraft with a *future* (35-40 yrs dev span).
Somehow, I have a faint hope that Obama will offer us the F-35 STOVL this november keeping in mind that the yanks did hint on the chinks entering the gilgistan belt with force. The LCA in numbers is an absolutely necessacity, the only fighter which can be changed, broken down, added with any new weapon systems etc at India's will.

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 02 Sep 2010 14:20

IMHO..
Today's or future war is all about the use of better technology in the battlefield. As is known, the best technology is available in the US market, Russians plays a catchers up game to them.
1. If the need of the hour is technology now, then go for US planes (strings attached unfortunately, some in mind, some reality, some real concern).
2. If the need of the hour is get the better available with full scope of becoming best, then Gripen NG is the plane we need. But this becomes a non-tangible asset, a term which some articles show that IAF is not comfortable with, thats why the computation is coming back to unit cost then life-cycle cost( refering to shiv's livefist blog article).
3. If need is better available + political, then typhoon is the plane for us.

If the defense/intelligence establishment have gathered enough information about the chinese pinpricks becoming bigger, than quietly India would need AESA NOW. Under any circumstances, we cannot afford to loose the airspace. Something really fishy & smelly is happenning in the Pakistan-China side which is not comfortable.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 02 Sep 2010 15:04

The reason for conditions to modifications to the sold platform could be similar to the revocation of 'Warranty' when uou fiddle the electronic item by opening up its internals. Here also Manufacturers are held responsible for failures and malfunctions of the platform. Most importantly it thier International reputation is at stake viz-a-viz the platform in question.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2010 15:57

In the latest VAYU,a nice feature has been done on the celebrations of the 50 yr. history of the IN's "White Tiger" sqd.The event brought together a host of veteran IN naval aviators including Adm,Prakash,who was quoted as saying that "best is the enemy of good".He spoke about how we took decades in finally going in for Hawk trainers when we could've within a couple of years used developed/instead the Gnat trainer! The same philosophy seems to have bedevilled the LCA project and might also plague the MMRCA deal too.As many have rightly said,when we have the superplative SU-30MKI,which is being acquired in large number with even more lethal upgrades planned,carrying Brahmos which no western aircraft is capablew of,why do we need to acquire another similar aircraft at even greater unit cost? The MMRCA all along was conceived as an interim solution to arrest falling numbers and associated capability until the 5th-gen fighter took shape and was in production.In the "White Tiger" feature,we are told that LUSH Sea Harriers have proved themselves against almost all IAF opposition ,including M-2000s.MIG-21 Bisons,etc.

The only reason for "upping" the capability of the MMRCA is the spread of a potential lethal disease of "Sino-sitis" afllicting the nation's health.This requires v.strong anti-biotics to defeat of "high strike strength".It is here that concern of the contenders' strike capability and the ability to fight their way in and out of any trouble from both enemy air and ground forces,where inferior versions of Flankers will be pitted against our airborne forces,will determine the decision which should also be a cost effective one

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2010 21:33

nrshah wrote: It is same as this is my property...even if it destroy it, it should not be a cause of concern to the builder....
However, foolish the modification may be, but what and why hell on earth some body should stop me doing that when i have already paid for the same.....

Its not the same. You don't go back to the builder showing a warranty and asking him to repair your property when something is wrong nor does the builder give you reams and reams of documents to show you how to use your house as per the specifications that he built it to.

Its like a car- if you buy a car and then modify its axle and fit larger tires, car companies will wash their hands off the warranty. They will no longer be responsible if things break down in your car and you will have to pay for it yourself. It is your own personal responsibility now.

And even this is not anywhere near the same as aircraft which have hundreds or thousands of parts which will generally have to be sourced from the OEM or its suppliers. Warranties, liabilities, and the Original Equipment Manufacturer's guidance on how a part should be used are considered to be very important. The OEM has the original design data and without using those or without access to those, modifications made could be detrimental to the aircraft. For instance- repairs done in a manner that do not follow the OEM's repair manuals can be a flight risk.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Sep 2010 21:59

Cross-posting from Keypub forums

The acquisition of the Saab Gripen fighter by the South African Air Force (SAAF) has further strengthened the country's expertise in the sphere of airborne radars, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) chief radar and electronic warfare systems engineer Francois Anderson said on Wednesday.

The Gripen is equipped with the Saab EDS (previously Ericsson) PS-05A radar. "We have more information on the PS-05A than on any other foreign radar ever acquired by South Africa," he stated.

The CSIR has decades of experience with radar in general and many years of experience with radars for fighter aircraft. Indeed, the Council is the designated defence evaluation and research institute for radar systems for the Department of Defence.

It was this existing expertise which allowed the CSIR to extract maximum benefit for the country and the SAAF from the acquisition of the PS-05A: the South African specialists knew the right questions to ask the Swedes and knew the kind of information to ask for. And, because the CSIR experts were involved in the acquisition programme from the very beginning, including during the contract negotiations, they were able to persuade the Swedes to provide all the information the South Africans desired.

During a series of visits to the then Ericsson in Sweden, the CSIR collected formal technical information and detailed notes on the PS-05A. Armed with this information, and with its knowledge of the Southern African environment, the CSIR was then able to request modifications to the functioning of the radar to meet South African conditions.

Thus, a weather-mapping mode was added, because of the frequency of severe thunder and hailstorms in South Africa -- nobody wants to fly a very expensive fighter through a hailstorm if it can be avoided. And the air-to-sea mode of the radar was adjusted, to cope with the significant difference in sea conditions between the Baltic Sea and the South Atlantic and South Indian Oceans.

One very important aspect of the PS-05A radar programme in South Africa is that it has resulted in the development of a team of young radar professionals in this country.

The programme has also seen the development of close and trusting relationships between the CSIR, Saab and Saab EDS, and between the CSIR, the SAAF and South Africa's defence acquisition agency, Armscor, which have helped unlock further value for South Africa.

article link

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2010 22:50

The problem comes from "the power to say yes is with very few people while the power to say no is with everyone." This leads to constant undercutting and delays.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Sep 2010 16:11

Power to say yes is with same no. of people, but most don't have the b@lls to do so in an environment of cover-thy-@ss.

I wonder if India will be inviting South Africans in 5yrs for MMR consultancy or some aircraft's mid-life upgrade contracts.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 03 Sep 2010 16:20

Grippen does open some very interesting possibilities for IBSA cooperation. It can even become along with F-35 JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon, a model of cross country cooperation.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Sep 2010 16:30

Christopher Sidor wrote:Grippen does open some very interesting possibilities for IBSA cooperation. It can even become along with F-35 JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon, a model of cross country cooperation.

I will tell you something that is not very well known. I also came to know it from a forumite (don't remember which forum) back in 2000 or 2001.

Back then in 1980's, Britain was considering a light fighter and to rationalize cost they wanted a partner. Those days 2 countries were planning to develop such a fighter. Sweden and India. British proposal did not cut ice with these 2 countries. Anyway, even Britain dropped the idea later.

I know its not directly related to what you said, I just wanted to share it.