MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 20 Jan 2011 19:28

Austin wrote:I still think Gripen-NG is the best bet for MMRCA cost effectiveness , TOT and logistics commonality with Tejas , being a comparatively cheaper fighter we can scale up the numbers to 200-300 if need be and it can gel well with Tejas , MKI and PAK-FA , it would also add value to tejas mk2 in terms of tot , all in all a good deal.

Most of the twin engine heavy fighters in MMRCA barring Mig-35 are quite expensive bird and does not offer the value for money that Gripen-NG brings to the table. Lets see how things go for this bird.

Gripen-NG selected for MMRCA will be the death of Tejas MkII - if IAF selects it then that's a clear sign that they don't care about Tejas MkII.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 20 Jan 2011 21:08

The IAF has a commitment towards the LCA MK2 regardless of the plane selected for the MRCA they will fullfill it. If the LCA MK2 proves itself, like the Arjun and Akash did, It will surely get more orders. That process starts with the MK1 the IAF may love the bird once it enters service.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jan 2011 21:30

Its based on funding. The bean counters won't fund the follow-on if a similar a/c is already chosen. Thats how their mind works despite and forces commitmment.

koti · Post by **koti** » 20 Jan 2011 23:25

merlin wrote:Gripen-NG selected for MMRCA will be the death of Tejas MkII - if IAF selects it then that's a clear sign that they don't care about Tejas MkII.

Incorrect my friend.
MMRCA at max could stretch to 200 Ac. Irrespective of the MMRCA AC, LCA I&II should be adding up another 200 or so planes eventually.
There is no way that the Gripen NG could affect the LCA's prospects in IAF quantitatively.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jan 2011 07:24

^^I tend to agree with Merlin here, at least partly. If the Gripen NG squeaks in, it would certainly mean a cap for the TEjas at around 140 max. There simply is no need for more TEjas with 250 Pakfa + 270 MKI + 200 MRCA + 140 Tejas + 150-200 AMCA.

Perhaps this is not too bad an idea either considering the geostrategic climate in which the Tejas will be born (quite different from the 80s/90s). The smart move here would be to use the GripenNG to capitalize and commonalize in terms of cost/TOT/components (engine/avionics/weapons). At the same time, using Saab's expertise in developing the AMCA might be useful as well.

I cannot see the IAF as a force with over 1000 fighters anytime soon. I think the IAF is increasingly letting go of the point defense type of strategy as its options have increased considerably what with a robust AD network in the works (Spyder + Akash + PAD/AAD). Its tspehere of influence too has seen increase, and that means tiny a/c ala Tejas are going to have little role. Tejas/Gripen in due time will be relegated to shorter range duties (although the Gripen NG promises an astonishing range), the AMCA/PAKFA/MKI will take care of the rest.

CM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2011 09:51

merlin wrote:Gripen-NG selected for MMRCA will be the death of Tejas MkII - if IAF selects it then that's a clear sign that they don't care about Tejas MkII.

For one no matter who wins , it will not be the IAF that will select the plane but more like GOI/MOD .IAF job ends with flight testing these aircraft based on well laid criteria and present those results to MOD. The MOD would then begin its own complex set of negotiations with vendors and probably like with most open tenders the L1 bidder would win.

The IAF can at best "hope" that the GOI would select the bird based on its top 3 preferences and no other extra pulls and pressure influences GOI decision.

Having said that I have a slightly different view on Gripen , I would rather like to think that selection of Gripen would synergise well with Tejas , considering there is a good deal of logistics commonality between the two types and Sweden would be more willing to provide the complete TOT which they said they would.

Single engine fighter like Gripen or Tejas is far economical to operate per sortie considering the selected type would atleast remain in IAF for the next 3 decade , the aviation fuel cost will likely grow and every sortie would just get more expensive , hence the life cycle cost of single engine fighter would be considerably lower and so will be maintenance overhead. One simply never knows what kind of budget cuts or ecomonical challenges the next 3 decades would present and hence it would just be good that a major chunk of IAF fighter are economical to operate in peace time.

The Gripen is an operational fighter and is right mix of technology with payload capability and range , you cant call it a low end fighter nor can you classify as top end dog its just medium tech cost effective fighter.

I would just like to think that Gripen-NG if selected would do a lot good to Tejas program in terms of technology inputs ,experience and logistical commonality the two types can bring into service.

Ofcourse many people would have a counter view point on this but I would bet on Gripen-NG to be the right choice for MMRCA.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 21 Jan 2011 10:21

i dont think selecting gripen is wise choice... because of the following reason

currently we have around 130 MKI , and 60 fulcrums these are our heavy fighters and if we choose gripen over other heavy ones and we should rememebr PAK-FA is still in prototype and for induction defenetly it is going to take 15-20 years.....
and in 2020 our fleet will be with 200 MKI , 130 NG, 100 Tejas... it is gonna be sure we will be lacking in heavy fighters....

Dharma · Post by **Dharma** » 21 Jan 2011 10:38

jimmy_moh wrote:i dont think selecting gripen is wise choice... because of the following reason

currently we have around 130 MKI , and 60 fulcrums these are our heavy fighters and if we choose gripen over other heavy ones and we should rememebr PAK-FA is still in prototype and for induction defenetly it is going to take 15-20 years.....
and in 2020 our fleet will be with 200 MKI , 130 NG, 100 Tejas... it is gonna be sure we will be lacking in heavy fighters....

I think our potential threat from neighbours are also no better..Its not for sure they will be able to develop a reliable 5th gen stealth fighter or worthy 4th gen for that matter by then either..Also, i dont know how these heavy fighters would handle BVR combat compared to optimised light weight aircraft especially with evasion and counterstrike scenarios..The amount of tot is an all important factor so we can incorporate those in indigenous delta wing LCA without supply bottlenecks..The ability to mass produce such a reliable indigenous machine with integrated tot features and upcoming PAKFA and existing fleet would give an economy of scale that will allow our airforce to expand its iron clad security blanket without gaps and that too cost effectively..

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jan 2011 10:43

Cain Marko wrote:^^I tend to agree with Merlin here, at least partly. If the Gripen NG squeaks in, it would certainly mean a cap for the TEjas at around 140 max. There simply is no need for more TEjas with 250 Pakfa + 270 MKI + 200 MRCA + 140 Tejas + 150-200 AMCA.
CM.

The 250 PAKFA is a good 2 decades away from now.
The 200 AMCA is also a good 2 decades away.
Whereas 200 LCA MkII and 200 MMRCA(ref Gripen) are one decade away.

So by the end of the decade(circa 2020), we will be retiring some M2K, Jag, Mig29 and completely retired Mig21 and 27's.
We will be left with 200 Gripen(say), 200 LCA, 270 MKI, and a few M2K/Mig29's, the first of the MKI's will be 2 decades old already.
Now, we have the FGFA and AMCA(possibly ~5 years after FGFA) lined up for production.
That said, by 2020, IAF will be having around 700 Fighter Ac lined up and some 400 more to be rolled out in the decade of 2020-2030.
The numbers barely will suffice the threat perseption from north and west, by which time would have equally upgraded and expanded their aircraft line.

As Austin pointed out, selection of a twin engine Ac will result in IAF maintaining around 500+400(FGFA+AMCA) twin engined AC, which will put a lot of pressure on IAF resources.

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jan 2011 10:49

jimmy_moh wrote:i dont think selecting gripen is wise choice... because of the following reason

currently we have around 130 MKI , and 60 fulcrums these are our heavy fighters and if we choose gripen over other heavy ones and we should rememebr PAK-FA is still in prototype and for induction defenetly it is going to take 15-20 years.....
and in 2020 our fleet will be with 200 MKI , 130 NG, 100 Tejas... it is gonna be sure we will be lacking in heavy fighters....

No my friend, by 2020 we would be having 270MKI already in place. The first of FGFA/AMCA should also be coming in at this time with a future number of around 400+.
If a heavier Ac type is choosen for MMRCA, we will be left with an AF that is very top heavy with around 800 Heavy aircraft.
PS: I considered AMCA to be in medium-Heavy category.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jan 2011 11:24

Lal M,"merde"!

Let's take a look at our western neighbour.250 JF-17s and upto 40 J-19s are on the anvil.Not to mention extra F-16s and upgrades for the existing ones. This is a considerable figure (add to this 4 F-22 frigates,several AEW aircraft,4 Yuan class SSKs and the hint of a N-sub).Pak will have about 450-500 mostly new combat aircraft by the decade's end,and India has to have at least double that number to meet the joint Sino-Pak challenge.

The most cost-effective manner in which this can be accomplished is for us to buy the cheapest MMRCA contender that meets the min. performance requirements of the IAF.We will by 2020 possess about 270+ SU-30MKIs which should look after the heavweight role.The FGFA will really arrive in strength late in the decade or around 2020.Even if it arrives early,the numbers will be small,about 20-40.LCA production for MK-1 and 2 will not go beyond 120-140 + by 2020 given official production capabilities.Mk-2 has yet to be developed.The assortment of upgraded existing aircraft (Fulcrums,M-2000s,Jags,MIG-27s and Bisons)will account for another 250-300 at the most.This will leave us with a shortfall of around 300 aircraft if our inventory is to touch 1000.The max number of MMRCAs that can be obtained will be not more than 150.This will give us a shortfall of another 150 aircraft.The production and cost factors wil come into play here and we may be forced to buy more of an existing type later on.

Since we will have 270 Flankers and 60+ Fulcrums as twin-engined heavy/med. fighters,with the FGFA deal signed,the Gripen NG is an attractive choice as it will be far cheaper than Rafale,the SH,or Typhoon.Since all our future fighters (FGFA,upgraded Flankers,AMCA)apart from the LCA whose production run will definitely be limited ,are to be twin-engined,which will then comprise of upto 60% of the inventory in the future,the Gripen could very well be the discerning cost-effective choice.It also ensures a cost-effective insurance against the LCA MK-2 running into development/production problems and delaying its arrival in required numbers,by acquiring extra Gripens.

Before the FGFA deal was signed and AMCA details made,the acquisition of a twin-engined fighter would seem to have been the preferred option.However,since the Russians are pushing "pedal to metal" with the PAK-FA,whose arrival in operational service is slated for 2017,the deal also worth $30 billion,more money required for the AMCA too,cost-effectiveness in the MMRCA choice is starting to become an equal priority along performance.

jimmy_moh · Post by **jimmy_moh** » 21 Jan 2011 11:39

koti wrote: No my friend, by 2020 we would be having 270MKI already in place. The first of FGFA/AMCA should also be coming in at this time with a future number of around 400+.
If a heavier Ac type is choosen for MMRCA, we will be left with an AF that is very top heavy with around 800 Heavy aircraft.
PS: I considered AMCA to be in medium-Heavy category.

see thats my point , as per your theory we will be depending on FGFA/AMCA right...?
thats what i mentioned in my post , what if FGFA/AMCA got delayed.....? , this is only my concern regarding Gripen.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Jan 2011 12:11

The Gripen is an operational fighter and is right mix of technology with payload capability and range , you cant call it a low end fighter nor can you classify as top end dog its just medium tech cost effective fighter.

Correction. The Gripen NG is NOT an operational plane, but as of now, a tech demo /step up from paper plane. What IS operational is the Gripen A/B/C &D, which will simply fail to meet the IAF MRCA requirements.

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jan 2011 12:18

@Jimmy- FGFA is slated for roll out by 2017. I included a 3 year delay when I stated 2020 as the year it will be entering IAF. At max another year or two may be added that too in worst case.
Now once inducted, MMRCA is to function for 30years in IAF.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2011 12:20

vina wrote:Correction. The Gripen NG is NOT an operational plane, but as of now, a tech demo /step up from paper plane. What IS operational is the Gripen A/B/C &D, which will simply fail to meet the IAF MRCA requirements.

True by that logic neither F-16IN or Mig-35 is an operational fighter but a TD , but Gripen in its basic version is an operational platform and the fact that all the types are competing for MMRCA and have gone through trials means it meets IAF laid criteria for MRMCA , the only thing to ask is which best meets among the 5 or 6 types that is competing

srai · Post by **srai** » 21 Jan 2011 12:34

Cain Marko wrote:Some rather cool developments on the Stealthy Shornet via AFM (Jo Asakura):
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=4 ... nt&prev=si

...

LOts of customizable options - CFTs ..., and a "stealthy" weapons pod offering a degree of versatility that other 4.5 gen birds simply cannot. The CFTs would certainly be useful - allowing the bird, even fully loaded with 7500kg of fuel, and 6 AAMs externally mounted, to have a TWR of well over 1. More importantly, the article states that Boeing is specifically revamping the bird largely to meet IAF A2A specs.

...

CM

Customized CFTs and "stealthy" weapons pod can be adapted/available on the other 4.5 gen birds too, such as the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen NG. It's just the matter of who will foot the bill for them

jai · Post by **jai** » 21 Jan 2011 13:32

The biggest IAF challenge seems to be in the next decade (Numbers and Technology available) for which there seem to be little answers/Interest from any quarter - IAF / MOD.

The second challenge would be low orders and slow production of LCA. Here the spoilsport could well be HAL as they could take a huge time getting the domestic production going and in ramping it up.

Therefore as Insurance, MOD should ask for getting the required aircraft fastest (given that all contenders meet the minimum requirements of IAF) - including supplying at least two sqns of operational aircraft on lease for 5 yrs from the home country AF till our new AC are produced.

Gripen NG may well turn out to be the L1 of the shortlisted aircraft and also the one available with the most amount of tech transfer - given the swedes' stance so far in the MMRCA competition.

While I would like to IAF to go for EF or Rafale, I would be equally happy with the Gripen NG if we can get more numbers of it and get it earlier than the other Euro canards.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 21 Jan 2011 14:57

Cain Marko wrote:^^I tend to agree with Merlin here, at least partly. If the Gripen NG squeaks in, it would certainly mean a cap for the TEjas at around 140 max. There simply is no need for more TEjas with 250 Pakfa + 270 MKI + 200 MRCA + 140 Tejas + 150-200 AMCA.

I'm willing to bet that if Gripen NG is chosen, then there will not be an LCA MkII. LCA numbers will be capped at 8 LSP + 20 + 20 and ADA told to stop wasting time on LCA MkII and go for the AMCA instead. Same story with AMCA once you fast forward 10 years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2011 15:11

somehow the gripenNG looks the ugliest of the whole mrca swayamvar suitors. not a comment on its capability, just psyops looks.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2011 17:18

101% agree with Merlin. elements in USA or IAF who have things to gain by killing Tejas Mk2 (for their own separate reasons) will bat strongly for Gripen. USA will bat for teens first and failing that for Gripen both for the lucrative engine deal and to kill the Tejas forever.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Jan 2011 18:01

Guys,

How about the LCA MK 2 for the MRCA. It will have capability similar to the Gripen NG and can be build in large numbers if the industrial capability is not shared with the MRCA.

In the mean time the Mk 1 can be built to keep the numbers up while adding to the combat capability of the IAF. Till the MK 2 comes on line. The MK 2 can be build with the supply chain built up for the MK 1. But that will only happne when the Tejas has been ordered in large numbers.

At approx 30 million a piece 126 Mk 1s can be had for under 4 billion us $

iparvas · Post by **iparvas** » 21 Jan 2011 18:34

LCA Mk- 2 still on the drawing board ... It will take atleast 2 yrs to get the blueprint done and the work to start. After that the technical glitches and the trials which is going to take a another 4 - 5 years atleast .... then depending on the critical tech and engines being imported , hopefully no sanctions .... it might see the light of day ten years from now....
I am not being cynical but just look at theway HAL functions and the MoD functions ... it may take that time ... afterwhich the LCA MK2 should be okayed by the IAF to be inducted ....

Our enemies would already be operating good quality 4+ gen fighters while the IAF loses its edge ... this this a bad thing for the country .....
IAF is priority ... it should get what it needs within a certain time frame..... !!!!

iparvas · Post by **iparvas** » 21 Jan 2011 18:38

HAL should keep developing fighters and keep going ahead with trials of various mainframes like batwing , X wing fighters , or maybe borrow the Lampyrere German stealth designs .... HAL should keep up with experimental aircraft ...if the IAF likes a certain product of HAL then the production line opened to mass produce themm ... that should be the protocol.....

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 21 Jan 2011 18:39

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

How about the LCA MK 2 for the MRCA. It will have capability similar to the Gripen NG and can be build in large numbers if the industrial capability is not shared with the MRCA.

It will? Please inform me about the capabilities (changes from the Mk1) of the Mk2 cause I have yet to seen anything official from HAL...

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jan 2011 18:46

USA will bat for teens first and failing that for Gripen both for the lucrative engine deal and to kill the Tejas forever

That is a new dimension regarding Gripen.

But I do not think US will be so tempted to settle down for the Engine commission. It is the strategic leverage they are after in their game against China and the likes.
And I dont see a reason why they need to kill Tejas. AMCA will be a more plausable threat to their industrial complex.

And yes, the engines are a good enough turn off if we want to steer clear of the US pressure, but alas! LCA has them too.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 01:59

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

How about the LCA MK 2 for the MRCA. It will have capability similar to the Gripen NG and can be build in large numbers if the industrial capability is not shared with the MRCA.

It will? Please inform me about the capabilities (changes from the Mk1) of the Mk2 cause I have yet to seen anything official from HAL...

You still have not answered this, and no one else have. So I´ll guess you will have to inform all of us.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jan 2011 04:14

It would not be revealed to anyone henceforth.

. That was a projection imho.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 05:33

SaiK wrote:It would not be revealed to anyone henceforth. . That was a projection imho.

No, you´re wrong! Pratyush and many other have written that the Mk2 will be similar or superior to the Gripen NG. And I would LOVE to see how they came to that conclusion.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 22 Jan 2011 07:16

“India will soon announce the winners of a tender worth up to $12 billion to supply 126 medium multi-range combat aircraft - a competition in which both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have entered their jets,” Blake said amid much Washington’s "heightened expectation that the US aviation majors will swing the deal" that will generate thousands of jobs for Americans.

http://expressbuzz.com/nation/hillary-t ... 41153.html

Hillary Clinton will be visiting this spring for the next round of US-India Strategic Dialogue that oversees the entire spectrum of bilateral co-operation including defense and push for jet deal.. I guess the SH won't ever be out of contention until the very last minute the deal is announced.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 22 Jan 2011 07:19

It seems that Indian industrial complex is sold to the views of foreign media sponsored articles. india seems to be the only nation where non-indian views matter most. India must take the best decision based on recommendation of the end - users i.e IAF. Let these paid media reporters need not be given any importance.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 22 Jan 2011 07:25

shukla wrote:
“India will soon announce the winners of a tender worth up to $12 billion to supply 126 medium multi-range combat aircraft - a competition in which both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have entered their jets,” Blake said amid much Washington’s "heightened expectation that the US aviation majors will swing the deal" that will generate thousands of jobs for Americans.
http://expressbuzz.com/nation/hillary-t ... 41153.html

Hillary Clinton will be visiting this spring for the next round of US-India Strategic Dialogue that oversees the entire spectrum of bilateral co-operation including defense and push for jet deal.. I guess the SH won't ever be out of contention until the very last minute the deal is announced.

why we should give business just so that it increases jobs for that country. Our criteria for giving this order is our defence preparedness. Our defence doesn't improve with American weapons. American weapons may compromise our security because of the arm-twisting and end-user monitoring agreements. It's better to buy russian weapons than to depend upon American technology.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jan 2011 08:01

imho its always best to develop and buy indian designed and controlled weapons - albeit with some imported building blocks with sufficient reserve buffers.

the utility of a Tejas to fly purposefully west of our border vs F18s is far more. the F18 may be twice the payload and gadgets but may ne sanctioned if we ever decided to really 'go' after the pakis.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jan 2011 08:03

I don't think our strategy is a country specific one. India has never openly aligned with any country be it Russia or USA. The current defence cooperation with Russia is based on friendship. If the Khans are open to similar friendship, we are willing on our terms [legal]. But when it comes to self reliance, we have to support our local industries and jobs. This is one of the main reasons in ToT and offset aspect. Now, that khan report is a political one by obama admin for gathering momentum after a big loss in the last elections.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Jan 2011 15:33

koti wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^^I tend to agree with Merlin here, at least partly. If the Gripen NG squeaks in, it would certainly mean a cap for the TEjas at around 140 max. There simply is no need for more TEjas with 250 Pakfa + 270 MKI + 200 MRCA + 140 Tejas + 150-200 AMCA.
CM.
The 250 PAKFA is a good 2 decades away from now.
The 200 AMCA is also a good 2 decades away.
Whereas 200 LCA MkII and 200 MMRCA(ref Gripen) are one decade away.

So by the end of the decade(circa 2020), we will be retiring some M2K, Jag, Mig29 and completely retired Mig21 and 27's.

Not exactly. The Mirages will get 15 years after upg (2015-2030). The 29s should hang around till 2025, and some Jags around the same time. YOu can expect a fleet of ~ 150-200 a/c between these 3 types at the end of the decade. Also, the Pakfa is scheduled to come in at around the same time as the NLCA and even the MRCA (2017-18)

We will be left with 200 Gripen(say), 200 LCA, 270 MKI, and a few M2K/Mig29's, the first of the MKI's will be 2 decades old already.Now, we have the FGFA and AMCA(possibly ~5 years after FGFA) lined up for production.

I assume the timeframe you are looking at is 2020, while your numbers are correct, the types seem to be off. At that time, IAF should have 100 Jags (DIII), 120 (fulrum+M2k), 126 MRCA, 75 LCA, 20 Pakfa, 270 MKI ~ 700. In the decade to come, 200 (Jags/M2k/29s) will retire but there is room for 400 more if they want a 1000 a/c force (which is doubtful). 220 of these are slotted to be Pakfa, and the remaining will be replaced by 70 LCA and + 60 additional MRCA, and possibly a sqd or so of the AMCA. Circa 2030, the inventory would be 270 MKI + 200 MRCA + 140 LCA + 200 Pakfa + token AMCA = ~ 850 fighters.

IOWs, there is simply no more room for more LCA.

CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Jan 2011 15:37

merlin wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^^I tend to agree with Merlin here, at least partly. If the Gripen NG squeaks in, it would certainly mean a cap for the TEjas at around 140 max. There simply is no need for more TEjas with 250 Pakfa + 270 MKI + 200 MRCA + 140 Tejas + 150-200 AMCA.
I'm willing to bet that if Gripen NG is chosen, then there will not be an LCA MkII. LCA numbers will be capped at 8 LSP + 20 + 20 and ADA told to stop wasting time on LCA MkII and go for the AMCA instead. Same story with AMCA once you fast forward 10 years.

Well, they have already signed up with GE for 100 odd F414s, haven't they? Or do you mean to say that they will just use those engines for the Gripen NG

? Not a good thought. No, I don't think it is so bleak because the GOI will to some extent at least support its R&D orgnzns.

CM.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 20:01

Pratyush wrote: How about the LCA MK 2 for the MRCA. It will have capability similar to the Gripen NG and can be build in large numbers if the industrial capability is not shared with the MRCA.

Pratyush. You made this statement and I have asked you to support it with some credible sources. You have not. Are you not man enough to stand behind the things you write or are you just a liar? Or a dreamer? Maybe drunk?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 21:32

Ajatshatru wrote:Wickberg wrote:

Are you not man enough to stand behind the things you write or are you just a liar? Or a dreamer? Maybe drunk?
If I may....you can still effectively prove your point without, perhaps, resorting to such 'over-the-top' personal attack against a fellow member of BRF. Bottom line, such outburst of petulance is best avoidable my friend....

My fellow BRF brother, and Pratyush, from the bottom of my heart I apologize if my response was hurtful. I still would like Pratyush to prove his claim tough...

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 22 Jan 2011 21:46

Me thinks that the IAF is very impressed with the Gripen. No wonder there is talk of ADA tying up with the Swede's for the AMCA. But that also probably means that the Gripen is no more in the running. Talk of the radar not being up to the mark wasnt there? Also engine being King Khan's dosent help its cause either.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 22:32

Willy wrote:Me thinks that the IAF is very impressed with the Gripen. No wonder there is talk of ADA tying up with the Swede's for the AMCA. But that also probably means that the Gripen is no more in the running. Talk of the radar not being up to the mark wasnt there? Also engine being King Khan's dosent help its cause either.

Please tell us more about the radar not being to mark. We would love to know.

Engine is an american origin, over 50% of it is designed and produced by Volvo Aero. Volvo Areo has experience of over 50 years in jet engine production. They produce parts (or whole engines) in over 90% of the commercial jets that are sold all over the world. You don´t think they can be an assistance to the Kaveri?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 22:37

Marten wrote:Wickberg, please stop antagonizing folks who're generally very polite to you. Ask the same question in a more mutually respectful manner and you will receive better responses. Personal attacks do not endear you to anyone.

Please tell me, when have I been antagonizing or lashed out in personal attacks without being banned or have apologized.

Is it "antagonizing" or a "personal attack" when I demand a person who writes something to back it up and take responsibility for what he wrote?!