MRCA News and Discussion

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 14 Dec 2009 15:56

Kickback in defence deal UPA develops cold feet on BEL-Thales tie-up

Any comments wrto MRCA?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Dec 2009 20:56

Ash_Oz.. award of contract or approval of a purchase is not a done deal, until the order is placed or some business transaction happens.

--

another kickback!~ and from Thales .. another problem for Rafale!!

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 15 Dec 2009 01:47

Swiss evaluation committe prefers Rafale:

http://info.rsr.ch/fr/rsr.html?siteS...temId=11603422

Google translated:

Quote:
The Rafale has the wind in its sails

Specialists in military aviation have their favorite to replace Tiger Swiss. The "Neue Luzerner Zeitung revealed yesterday that the evaluation committee had chosen the Rafale from the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault. This morning, the newspaper Lucerne returns on their information by referring to the surprise of parliament in central Switzerland to the swiftness of this choice.

It seems that the rafale won the technical evaluation in switzerland over the Typhoon and the Gripen.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Dec 2009 02:08

Eurofighter will last 30 to 40 years: German envoy

NEW DELHI: Eurofighter, one of the six contenders for the multibillion-dollar tender for 126 medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA), offers a cutting-edge technology without the End User Monitoring clause, German ambassador Thomas Matussek has said.

“It is really a next generation plane and it will be in service for the next 30 to 40 years,” he told The Hindu. “It also comes without any End User Verification, complete transfer of technology and production.”
...
...
Mr. Matussek said the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) would shift its entire technology, which means that in the event of war, the country will not have to worry about supplies from overseas.
...

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 15 Dec 2009 12:17

The Swiss competition is not so relevant with regards to the MMRCA. Only Rafale and Eurofighter (without aesa) there... Gripen In/NG, SH, Mig-35 and F-16IN did not participate in Switzerland.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 16 Dec 2009 01:25

The rafale in the swiss test evaluation was fitted with an AESA.

Secondly you cannot reduce a fighter jet performance only to his radar even if it is an imprtant factor.

The swiss evaluation is probably regarded as the most serious in term of process.

The new Fox Three issue has been released !
A mine of infos about the rafale :

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sp ... ox3_14.pdf

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2009 05:14

Indeed.. but any updates on using Snecma-Kaveri-2 for Rafale in the offers?

and what type of AESA modules for delivery by 2012/15 timeframe - GaAs or GaN?

what about issues about Thales corruption report that was going around in media circles? would that hamper Rafale's MRCA bid by any means?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Dec 2009 06:40

Eurofighter has cleared the Helmet-Mounted Symbology System (HMSS) for its Typhoon... for full operational use from 2010!

Check link from Jane's defense weekly,

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Dec 2009 06:59

SaiK wrote:Indeed.. but any updates on using Snecma-Kaveri-2 for Rafale in the offers?

and what type of AESA modules for delivery by 2012/15 timeframe - GaAs or GaN?

what about issues about Thales corruption report that was going around in media circles? would that hamper Rafale's MRCA bid by any means?

Here's the official update on LCA engine by AK Anthony

LCA Tejas engines -

The proposal on the Kaveri-Snecma engine joint venture for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas is under consideration of the Government.

Request for Proposal (RFP) for procuring 99 engines have been sent to two short-listed engine manufacturers, namely GE F414 from General Electric Aviation, USA and EJ200 from Eurojet Germany.

The engine houses have responded to the RFP. Both Commercial and technical responses have been received for procurement of 99 engines along with Transfer of Technology.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2009 07:44

Ash_Aussie wrote:
Here's the official update on LCA engine by AK Anthony

......................

On BR it does not count without a URL.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2009 08:11

Aren't we talking about Rafale?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Dec 2009 14:29

NRao wrote:
Ash_Aussie wrote:
Here's the official update on LCA engine by AK Anthony

......................
On BR it does not count without a URL.

Your wish..my command.. Heres the link you requested...
AK Anthony's written reply to the opposition parties regarding defence procurement and progress related issues..

http://defpro.com/news/details/11918/

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Dec 2009 09:16

was reading an article on FlightGlobal about the Indian Finance Ministry's issue with the cost of the MRTT contract, where the IAF favoured the A-330 MRTT over the Il-78. a sentence caught my eye and I'd appreciate it if someone who knows about the topic could answer

link

However, Indian defence minster A K Antony told parliament this week that the finance ministry "has expressed certain reservations relating to the competitiveness of the bids and the reasonableness of the price".

Given that Indian defence procurement procedures require contracts to be signed within two and a half years of the RFP, he adds that "every effort is made to adhere to these time lines".

Antony did not elaborate on the reason for the finance ministry's objections. Industry sources say that the air force favours buying the A330 tankers even though the Il-78 offer was lower. The finance ministry, however, is not convinced that it should choose the A330s and believes that the lower bid should win.

With both sides in a stalemate on the issue, industry sources say that there is little sign that the finance ministry will change its mind about the bids any time soon. With the RFP likely to expire around mid-2010, a fresh competition is likely to be held around the end of 2010.

if this is part of the new Defence Procurement Policy formulated in 2005, then that would mean that unless a winner is selected by mid2010, they will have to send out a new RFP ?that is bcause the RFP was released on 28 August, 2007. something doesn't seem right.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Dec 2009 10:04

Ash_Aussie wrote:.............

username changed to 'shukla'.
Rahul.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 18 Dec 2009 02:25

The RAF is not what it is

The first account reports made this morning by a French Rafale pilot reported a superiority of the French fighter Typhoon RAF during confrontations made in recent weeks, the UAE.

The first confonfration committing four against four Typhoon Rafale ended with a 4-0 in favor of French.

Despite, explains it, the carriage of air-air weapons fictitiously degraded, says one. After a little degraded even arming, the Rafale has yet won, 3-1.

The Rafale has faced several times in F22, but in a limited visual combat air to air.

It would have been in the crosshairs of the American fighter only once, it is said too.

The Rafale, it is understood, has greatly improved its reputation, especially among drivers UAE.

It thus several time repeatedly demonstrated its superiority in all the spectacular missional in detecting sites of ground-air missiles that had not been updated by U.S. F-16CJ.

Furthermore, the front sector optronics (OSF) has also enabled the detection and identification up to 40 kilometers an asset which prevents the aircraft exposed for visual identification at 3-4 km, which is Necessary for most other types of aircraft.

Similarly, within a minute, a Rafale has fired six AASM on as many targets, at ranges of several tens of kilometers, while also firing three missiles air-air Mica. Back up, that day, a UAE driver ...

http://lemamouth.blogspot.com/

More ATLC Rumors…

According to a reliable French blog, RAF typhoons, Dassault Rafales and LMT F-22s did indeed face off on several occasions during last month’s ATLC in the UAE. As we are still awaiting for the sacrament of confirmation about this news, the website has chosen to selectively highlight very positive events for Rafales, as apparently reported by an AdA pilot.

- Rafale vs Typhoon: several engagements took place. Of those reported by the website, it’s 7-1 for Rafale, with degraded AA weaponry.

- Rafale vs F-22: Furballs, and in visual range only. Rafale went reportedly only once on the wrong side of F-22’s gunsight. Again, we do not know how many times, RoEs, etc…

- Rafales also reportedly performed SEAD missions and were able to detect missile sites that had not been detected by F-16CJs.

- The Rafale famed OSF was able to “silently” detect targets from a distance of 23 NM.

- Finally, another Rafale demonstrated its multirole capabilities by firing 6 Sagem AASM on as many targets and simultaneously firing 3 MICA AA missiles. The website also reports that the backseater that day was an Emirati pilot.

So, once we carefully qualify the source, and take into account the selectivity of the information presented in this case, it nevertheless remains a very impressive demonstration of Rafales’ capabilities in a fairly realistic environment. Now let us wait for the other side of the story to get the full picture.

http://g2globalsolutions.com/review/?p=3114

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2009 07:17

does the typhoon have the Pirate IRST today? or it is another of their "to do" brochure list? I guess they dont, else why would OSF overmatch that? both should of equalish caliber.

AASM is not doubt good, but is Typhoon capable of Paveway & JDAM carriage today, I guess AASM is also desired being a pan-eu product?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Dec 2009 07:20

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/gro ... ter_lg.jpg

well well no evidence of pirate in front and left of canopy!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Dec 2009 09:33

Its hard to believe that Rafale did so well against Typhoon in BFM combat which is predominantly Typhoon domain by design and other paramaters that supports it.

This is selective news leak for the promo of Rafale , Rafale is a good multirole fighter but in air superiority role the Typhoon is better off.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Dec 2009 09:37

Austin wrote:Its hard to believe that Rafale did so well against Typhoon in BFM combat which is predominantly Typhoon domain by design and other paramaters that supports it.

This is selective news leak for the promo of Rafale , Rafale is a good multirole fighter but in air superiority role the Typhoon is better off.

the guys whom its aimed at, the Emiratis, would've seen first hand what the Rafale is capable of since they were part of the exercise..there would be no need to leak selective news as a promo for the Rafale. as for the Brazilian program, its too far past being concerned with any such leaks, since they've evaluated it as well as two other fighters already.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Dec 2009 09:45

Singha wrote:http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/gro ... ter_lg.jpg

well well no evidence of pirate in front and left of canopy!!

quoting from Air International

some of the latest RAF Typhoons are being delivered without the forward, port-side fitted PIRATE blister. PIRATE that can reportedly detect and track a target at 30 miles (48 km)- can also support air-to-ground operations in the FLIR mode. The Luftwaffe cannot as yet afford to fit PIRATE to its aircraft(!!), but the RAF plan is to have the system in Tranche 1 and 2 aircraft as part of the weapon system baseline design for full operational capability declaration. PIRATE has yet to be fully assessed as part of the incremental introduction of weapons systems. The RAF Typhoon team is currently working with industry to evaluate programme requirements and to optimise the integration of PIRATE with other sensors.

negi · Post by **negi** » 18 Dec 2009 10:44

I wonder what sort of air to ground capabilities these nose mounted IR sensors like PIRATE and even OSF claim to have , Mig-35's OLS-UEM mounted on nose scans 90deg in azimuth and -15 to +60 deg in elevation given RU's expertise and past experience with IR sensors I wonder what sort of FOV do Euro-canards achieve with their nose mounted IRST sights.

F-35's EOTS is mounted under the nose while Mig-35 has another podded OLS-K under the starboard engine for A2G target search and track.

niran · Post by **niran** » 18 Dec 2009 11:20

In the 1970s, the SAAB 37 Viggen began to go into service with the Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) as the nation's first-line combat aircraft. Swedish military planners then began to look down the road for a next-generation fighter to follow the Viggen. While US-made aircraft such as the F-16 or F/A-18 were considered, the Swedes had proven capable of building their own first-class combat aircraft, tailored precisely to their specifications -- and besides, modifying a foreign aircraft to fit into the tightly-linked Swedish defense network system would have been troublesome.

In 1980, the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV) issued a requirement to Swedish manufacturers for a next-generation combat aircraft, then known as the "JAS (Jakt, Attack, & Spaning / Fighter, Attack, & Reconnaissance)". As the name implied, it was to be a multirole combat aircraft, with excellent performance and high agility to counter new Soviet fighters then going into service. It was to be simpler and cheaper to maintain than the Viggen, and easy to turn around quickly to ensure a high combat sortie rate. Long range was not a requirement, since the Flygvapnet's traditional focus was on the defense of Sweden, not power projection.

A consortium named "IndustriGruppen JAS" was formed between SAAB-Scania, Volvo Flygmotor, Ericsson, and Foerenade Fabriksverken (now FFV Aerotech). The group's proposal, with the company designation "SAAB 2110", was accepted in the spring of 1982, with a contract signed in June for five prototypes featuring some modifications from the original proposal, plus an initial production batch of 30 aircraft and an option for 110 more.

Work on the prototypes began in 1984, with a full-size mockup completed in early 1986. The program ran into technical problems, cost increases, and schedule slips, leading to political pressure for its cancellation and purchase of a foreign aircraft. However, the first single-seat "JAS 39A Gripen (Griffin)" prototype flew on 9 December 1988, with test pilot Stig Holmstroem at the controls, and the controversy faded. Design work on the "JAS 39B" two-seat version for operational conversion training began in 1989.

Unfortunately, the first JAS 39A prototype, the "39-1", was lost on 2 February 1989 due to a software glitch in the flight-control system. The aircraft became unstable on landing and cartwheeled, with the pilot, Lars Raadstroem, suffering a broken arm.(LCA-0 SAAB-1) The whole ugly event was filmed and caused a bit of a public sensation. Work on cleaning up the software and fixing engine problems led to additional schedule slips. The problems were resolved, and the second prototype, "39-2", took to the air on 4 May 1990. The third prototype to fly, which was actually designated "39-4" and featured operational avionics but no radar, performed its initial flight on 20 December 1990. The next prototype, the "39-3", was fitted with radar and flew on 25 March 1991; followed by the last of the five prototypes, "39-5", which was close to production spec, and flew on 23 October 1991.

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

The first production Gripen performed its maiden flight on 4 March 1993, with Raadstroem at the controls. The second production item was the first to be handed over formally to the Flygvapnet, with delivery on 8 June 1993. However, the first production machine crashed during a flight demonstration in Stockholm on 8 August 1993, Raadstroem ejecting without serious injury.(LCA-0 SAAB-2) Once again, the problem turned out to be a glitch in the flight control system software. All the Gripens were grounded until the bug was traced down and fixed.

The first JAS 39B was rolled out on 29 September 1995. It was actually a production-line modification of one of the 30 Batch-1 JAS 39As. The JAS 39A reached initial operational status in 1995 and full operational status in 1997. The first Batch 2 machine was delivered in December 1996, the same month that an order for 64 improved "Batch 3" machines was placed, including 50 single-seat "JAS 39Cs" and 14 two-seat "JAS 39Ds".

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

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Dec 2009 12:11

The perspective of Wickberg is not far from the Chinese who say "show us a fielded LCA before making claims"

. That takes the cake!.

There are hundreds of videos of the LCA flying and doing all sorts of things. Would like to see a genuine video of the J10 flying. Maybe the Chinese fan boys can post some videos of the J10 and more technical details (other than photo shopped rubbish and some pumped up claims by some technically illiterate propaganda boosters).

First the Chinese should actually field the J10 in numbers and fly them out of China to say Farnborough , Paris or even Dubai and Singapore airshows and fly it in front of a global audience.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 18 Dec 2009 12:23

vina wrote:fly them out of China to say Farnborough , Paris or even Dubai and Singapore airshows and fly it in front of a global audience.

since they don't do that Chengdu or whoever that is has a reputation that only TSP can buy

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 18 Dec 2009 12:43

Hi...according to this pic(based on my limited knowledge about national flags) most of the systems of Gripen NG are developed by Sweden in collaboration with other countries like Brazil & South Africa. Infact there are some critical systems like IRST, IFF, Navigation that are completely developed by Brazil. So to say that Gripen NG is only swedish accomplishment is not fair.

By the way can anybody identify the country that blue coloured flag represents or is it not a flag at all ??

Thanks

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Dec 2009 12:46

Only three of them have been developed by them independently. Four has been developed by JV. Who's that blue flag?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 18 Dec 2009 12:48

sunny y wrote:
By the way can anybody identify the country that blue coloured flag represents or is it not a flag at all ??

Thanks

EU flag? The image is not all that clear and I am not able to ascertain if those are stars in the flag.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Dec 2009 19:47

It is no question that the Rafale is a very capable fighter,probably the best of the Europeans.The big Q is what price will it come at? If it is going to sot twice as much as a SU-30MKI,then it will be "goodbye".The French should get their act otgether and offer a replacement package for the M-2000s in IAF service,"new birds for old ones",which will sweeten the deal and reduce the price per unit.To make up numbers,the IAF will then have to either buy more MIG-29/35s too,or simply do a PC Sorcar,wave a magic wand and obtain more LCA MK-2s.That however has a big Q mark regarding perfecting and producing the MK-2 in quantity in a short time.Ultimately,as the haggling and political wars take over form the flight testing regime,we will be older and less wiser and most probably the IAF would've just bopught "more of the same",SU-30MKIs.

There are quite a few MOD procurements that Pranab has questioned,the 12 VVIP helos,101s-similar to what has been cancelled for the US pres,MC-1, costing an astounding 300+ crores each.In fact,the MI-17 is an excellent helo,probably will come in at a quarter oif the price even when equipped with all the special self-defence aids and commns. gizmos and the interrior can very easily be designed for VVIPs,just give either any one of the numerous intl. interior outfitters the bird,or better still,ask Dilip Chabria to do so,after all he built a superb Aston Martin not too long ago!

The tanker deal is very questionable,as we already operate the IL-78s and possess numerous IL-76s,which are to be upgraded too.It is easiest to acquire the same,instead of the French ones.Theer was some peculiar remark made at the time of shoosing the French tanker as it would "also allow transport of troops" or some such asinine statement.The IL-78 can do the same too,being a variant of the transport.If the IAF really want more tankers,then they should buy more of the same,otherwise,with the torturous path of defence acquisitions,they will end up with nothing,while the Chinese and the Pakis keep on with their relentless acquisitions.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Dec 2009 20:06

imho, for MMRCA, the best BVR craft wins! (includes radar tech, range, stealth(rcs), weapons package).

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Dec 2009 20:54

SaiK wrote:imho, for MMRCA, the best BVR craft wins! (includes radar tech, range, stealth(rcs), weapons package).

that'll put the Super hornet in a very favourble position

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 18 Dec 2009 21:05

Nihat wrote:
SaiK wrote:imho, for MMRCA, the best BVR craft wins! (includes radar tech, range, stealth(rcs), weapons package).
that'll put the Super hornet in a very favourble position

True!

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 18 Dec 2009 21:23

Just a reply from the one who started the LCA vs Gripen crap.

Dang it, my late night tipsy reply sure did stir up this place. I can admit my post was a bit rude and for that I apologize. But I still stand firm behind the original thought I had in my (somewhat) drunken head.
Please don´t compare LCA to the Gripen. Gripen have been in service for over 10 years and have
been exported to four countries. It has exceeded all it´s sets of goal from the start in every area.
The Gripen C/D was born for one reason, one reason alone. To make a export version of the Gripen, by making it NATO-compatible, it was not because the A/B version were worse, in fact many systems in the C/D had to
be downgraded to make them compatible with NATO, like the datalink. And they even cost less then expected, under 30 mil.$
When the Gripen NG was announced it took a year for roll out and two months for the first flight. It has now been flying for almost two years and are now being fitted with the most modern AESA in the world, almost all of the systems are in place.

So please don´t compare LCA, which is NOT in service and are still flying prototypes, still does´nt have a radar installed and many other crucial systems with the Gripen. An aircraft that have been in service for more then ten years and are operational under five different airforces.

And please don´t compare "LCA Mk.2" with the Gripen NG. The former has not even been presented by its maker. There are no pictures, no fact sheets no nothing. Except peoples wishes and dreams on this forum. The latter on the other hand has been flying for two years and are a contender in the Indian MRCA tender.

(PS. For those who are complaining over the facts that Gripen contains so many foreign parts; that was a result over a goal the Swedish government decided in the 1980´s to make the aircraft as cheap as possible. It was not because the country did´nt had the knowledge. A couple of examples, the ejectionseat was bought from Martin-Baker in UK in spite the fact that all previous Swedish fighters have had Swedish made ejectionseats and the SAAB J-21 was the first
mass produced fighter to have an ejection seat. The composite parts in wings came from an american company despite the fact that Sweden was (and still is) one of the worlds first countries when it comes to those kind of that kind of materials. Heck, the worlds first navy boat built in composite came from Sweden (that was in the 1960´s) and the worlds largest navy ship built in composites are from Sweden (the Visby corvettes). So off course SAAB could have gone all Swedish, but it was cheaper to buy it abroad- that's why... DS.)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Dec 2009 22:15

otay.. but why bring LCA to MRCA thread when its not part of the 6 contending air-crafts?

on comparing Gripen against F16s, sure F16 has the edge in terms AESA technology and weapons package. The blocks offered to India might include an advanced radar better than Gripen, and its weapons package may be superior to Gripen.

The only issue with the teens from Amrika is the politics, sanctions and technology transfer agreements, plus other C4SIR aspects.

given the teens, the more matured 18 may be chosen especially for deadly enemies from the north-eastern country specific, where BVR engagement is the key.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 18 Dec 2009 23:03

Gripen uses lots of american tech and is also prone to sanctions from various quarters. Its a dead loss as far as IAF is concerned.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Dec 2009 23:25

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

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

The first production Gripen performed its maiden flight on 4 March 1993, with Raadstroem at the controls. The second production item was the first to be handed over formally to the Flygvapnet, with delivery on 8 June 1993. However, the first production machine crashed during a flight demonstration in Stockholm on 8 August 1993, Raadstroem ejecting without serious injury.(LCA-0 SAAB-2) Once again, the problem turned out to be a glitch in the flight control system software. All the Gripens were grounded until the bug was traced down and fixed.

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

The first JAS 39B was rolled out on 29 September 1995. It was actually a production-line modification of one of the 30 Batch-1 JAS 39As. The JAS 39A reached initial operational status in 1995 and full operational status in 1997. The first Batch 2 machine was delivered in December 1996, the same month that an order for 64 improved "Batch 3" machines was placed, including 50 single-seat "JAS 39Cs" and 14 two-seat "JAS 39Ds".

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

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

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

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

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Dec 2009 23:53

sunny y wrote:Hi...according to this pic(based on my limited knowledge about national flags) most of the systems of Gripen NG are developed by Sweden in collaboration with other countries like Brazil & South Africa. Infact there are some critical systems like IRST, IFF, Navigation that are completely developed by Brazil. So to say that Gripen NG is only swedish accomplishment is not fair.

By the way can anybody identify the country that blue coloured flag represents or is it not a flag at all ??

Thanks

THAT seems to be the Grip NG OFFER to the Brazialian air force!!!!!!

The offer to India would have a bunch of Indian flags all over the place.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Dec 2009 23:56

Kartik,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRao wrote:Kartik,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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