MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 22 Jan 2011 23:27

Marten wrote:OT: It is, if you write in the manner you did. Look, two way of looking at it. Either you get the fact that it is a personal attack or you face the consequences for your anger. That is not a threat... just friendly advice. Hope you got that part.

So, when you go into a store and look at a clock and a sales-representatives approach you and tell you all the beautiful things that particular clock has to offer you dare not question him cause it´s antagonizing?

I know Thai people are very "calm" and that we Nordic people don´t like to make a fuss and want to keep it cool, but I had no idea the Indian people were the same. Is it the Hindu-heritage/Mahatma Ganhdi?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 02:54

Marten wrote:OT: If I were to walk into a Swedish store, and poke the salesman in the eye, would he be quiet or would my a$$ meet the ground outside in a jiffy? Asking someone if they're man enough or if they're a liar or if they're simply drunk is not done. It is plain rude and crossing the line into trolling. (Unless either one is a PRC drone or is addressing another).

Actually, if you did that in a Swedish store he probably would be quit and call the mall security. They would lead you outside and hand you over to the police. And yes, they would probably have thought that you were drunk at the first glance.

I asked a simple question and still now he has not answered it. I wonder, who is the troll, really?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jan 2011 06:24

what makes many object oriented threads suddenly get plethora of OT attacks?

Vivs · Post by **Vivs** » 23 Jan 2011 06:48

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=TOP

Brazil not only reevaluating the final 3 but also whether it needs to buy a fighter now!

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 23 Jan 2011 07:59

I just loved the article from above, yellow journalism still exists eh.

"With election of his hand-picked successor, Dilma Roussef, Brazil's first female president and a former Marxist guerrilla, many observers expected the $4 billion program for 36 fighter aircraft to be terminated in favor of more pressing domestic spending priorities."

What the he'll does being a former Marxist guerrilla have to do with anything??

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jan 2011 08:46

Wickberg wrote:
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.

W,

The similar is primarily in terms of technology and capability. I have never claimed it (MK2) to be superior to any one other design. I have also claimed that until it comes on line Mk1s ought to be persisted with. IE build a lot more MK 1s then the planned 40.

That is the thrust of my post. IOW, scrap the MMRCA. That was some thing the you have missed completely.

JMT

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jan 2011 08:50

anyone know when is the gripen NG scheduled to enter series production for swedish airforce? how many are ordered?

seems to me its still missing FOC of its main sensor the nora aesa radar at the moment? is the raven es05 fully qualified yet for export market?

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 23 Jan 2011 10:40

I think the order of NG by SwAF is <20. But all of their C/Ds are to upgraded with NG avionics/engine.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Jan 2011 12:07

Vivs wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=TOP

Brazil not only reevaluating the final 3 but also whether it needs to buy a fighter now!

Brazil does not seem to have any immediate threats in its neighborhood that it can not handle otherwise.
Their perception of spending on defence seem to be more oriented towards offsets and tech transfer into their indigenous aircraft industry.
The era of manned aircraft seem to be getting over and stealthy unmanned combat aircraft would be more suitable to its needs a decade later.
Most probably they will team up for a unmanned aircraft project with some nation or consortium and keep their fighter buy to a minimum , if at all.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 23 Jan 2011 12:41

Gurinder P wrote:I just loved the article from above, yellow journalism still exists eh.

"With election of his hand-picked successor, Dilma Roussef, Brazil's first female president and a former Marxist guerrilla, many observers expected the $4 billion program for 36 fighter aircraft to be terminated in favor of more pressing domestic spending priorities."

What the he'll does being a former Marxist guerrilla have to do with anything??

Hail western media. This is there way. Right from day 1 they start building a "specific public image" of a person based on his/her ability to promote/refrain there national interests. And they have expertise in bringing forward selective facts strengthening there viewpoint.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jan 2011 13:57

> But all of their C/Ds are to upgraded with NG avionics/engine.

since the 414 apparently has a higher airflow and different dimension than 404, wont that mean structural modification like bigger engine bay, bigger air intake, shifting of CG and a flight test pgm to qualify that ? and it still will not be == to NG because of lesser internal fuel and lesser/weaker pylons.

only 20 NG orders if true is a but a thin thread to hang all hopes that its as capable as a/c like EF/Rafale/F-teens built and deployed in 100s so far...esp the F-18 which has a rich sugar daddy USN to fund gold plating for decades...atleast with F-teens it can be said Indian money will not fund the R&D programs needed to bring them to par with the ASR....

the rest are holding the copper katora in various degrees and need the indian/UAE order to continue work on stuff like aesa radar to full production status from 'study prototypes'...not a good sign imo

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 23 Jan 2011 14:03

Who said it would be NG. It will have NG avionics and powerplant and that is all I said. I think it would need modified intakes that's all, engine bay size and everything should be the same. Remember that the Gripen Demo currently flying with F 414 is a modfied Gripen D.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jan 2011 14:07

no I wasnt particularly referring to your post, but the Tejas mk2 and NG cagefight. to me, a 20 plane order does not look sufficient to ensure the NG is the killer app its sold as. perhaps a 150 plane order spread over 10 yrs is more like it (from the home market).

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 15:24

Pratyush wrote: W,

The similar is primarily in terms of technology and capability.

But my question was, what capability will this Mk2 have since you say it is similar to the Gripen NG? Will it have similar payload and range? Will it be as agile? If that is the case then the entire aircraft has to be redesigned I´ll guess. Technology speaking, what radar will it use? How about datalink etc etc.
You seem to know all these answers as you know it will be similar to the Gripen NG. Please inform us.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 15:36

Singha wrote:> But all of their C/Ds are to upgraded with NG avionics/engine.

since the 414 apparently has a higher airflow and different dimension than 404, wont that mean structural modification like bigger engine bay, bigger air intake, shifting of CG and a flight test pgm to qualify that ? and it still will not be == to NG because of lesser internal fuel and lesser/weaker pylons.

No, the engineers of Gripen planned on a early stage for such a scenario. Therefor the intakes are removable and can easily be replaced with a bigger air intake if such a demand was called for. It´s called planning ahead.

Intakes removed

Back on again on the Gripen NG Demo

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 17:48

Marten wrote:^You have the sweetest manner of all the board members around.

You show a picture of an aircraft being assembled and say it was a design feature. How?
Back on? Like they flew a few without those on. C'mon bud. You can do better.

I´m not sure were you going with this.
But yes, it is a design feature. Like the entire Gripen system it is designed from the start to be easy to upgrade/update. People may think there are only two versions (or three with the Gripen NG), namely the Gripen A/B and the C/D. In fact, since it started its service in the SwAF back in 96/97 there have been numerous updates, mainly in the software area. IIRC there have been some +30 updates, but neither SAAB or the SwAF feels the need to change the name of the aircraft with every update. If that would have been the case we would have talking about the Gripen X/Y by now.
As I said, the Gripen was designed from the start as a "plug and play" kind of fighter. Just like the Windows 95 that revolutionized the PC-WYSIWYG. It is very simple to update and upgrade. Remember, back then Sweden relied on a conscript military, just as India does today. Gripen was served with 5 conscripts and one technician and has a turn-around time of 8 minutes. Compared to the US system with 20 technicians and a TAT of 30 minutes.

Was this better?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 18:31

Marten wrote:You still didn't explain how the intakes are configurable across various platforms. Is this done only on the Gripen? How is the design of the intake superior based on an image of the airframe being assembled.

btw, India does not believe in conscription. The Indian Armed Forces are entirely manned by full term volunteers.

Oh, and the Microshaft example? Not a good idea on any serious forum.
PS: Thanks for your patient attempts.

1st of all, I´m gonna be honest with you, as I always am. I am not an engineer, nor am I a pilot or an air force guy. I did my military service in the Swedish marines, the amphibious battalion as a squad commander carrying around a 8 cm mortar for 11 months. And if the Indian armed forces, as you say, is all volunteers I expect everyone that is over 20 years old on this forum have served the military and supported the Indian armed forces and your nation. In which arm did you serve in Marten?

To change the intakes:
Step 1: Take the (in)famous IKEA-tool.

Step 2: Remove the old intake by using that tool
Step 3: Take out the new intake from the box. Use a knife or a cutter to remove the plastic wrapped around it.
Step 4: Follow the instructions and assemble the new intake by using the same tool as in Step 2.
Step 5: Voila! There you go. Now you can take her for a test ride and always remember to fasten your seat belt.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 19:24

Marten wrote:OT: Wickberg, you seem to have confused conscription and volunteer armies. Conscription is when service is mandatory, i.e. not optional. Volunteers refers to professionals who do this for a living and have applied to join the armed forces. We can leave that again for the Newbie thread. Raise your questions again there and we'll find better lucid answers as well.
--------------------------------
Let me say this about the intakes. Your pic doesn't explain how airflow has been increased. You should have gone back to the earlier pictures of the Gripen C/D vs. the NG to explain how airflow has been increased. I don't see it happening in this discussion though.

My good sir. I take it that you have never ever served in the military. That you have not done anything to help the defense of your own nation. Or have done anything to help anyone else that are in need of international aid. Is that correct? I think I have done mine share, two tours in Kosovo (but to be honest it was mostly for the money) and I voluntary have been in the Swedish Homeguard for at least 5 years. When you taste the grease from the lubricant you use on your weapon in your mouth for an entire month. Or when you have to slaughter rabbid dogs that threatens Kosovo farmers (also called axes) with your knife cause bullets just shoots right trough them. Or when you do the "ranger-march" that keeps you going for 5 days and you almost have to amputate your feet. Then you have some idea of the things you are talking about. I have the utter most respect for any Indian that have served in the armed forces and contributed to his motherland. You talk alot, but what have you to show for?

The intake thing. Well, the Gripen NG Demo is flying with this engine that requires a higher air flow is´nt it? And the plane it self was an old JAS-39 B IIRC (not a D as many claims). Is that evidence enough for you?

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 19:46

Marten wrote:OT ^ At this point, you're completely rambling. Sober up and come back to edit the post. You have no clue about whether or not I am in the service of my nation. Ergo, your post is pretty much trolling and despite your service, you do your country and countrymen a great disservice with your current boorish behaviour.
-----------------------------------------------
Your post, even now, doesn't SHOW or ILLUSTRATE or EXPLAIN how the Gripen prepared a modular design to account for higher airflow. You, Sir, have still not got the point.

The air intakes are removable. IE, you can remove the air intake and replace it with one that allows higher air flow.
That is why SAAB did not have to build a new air frame to host the new engine. They just had to remove the intakes and replace them. Is that the point you were looking for my dear keyboard-warrior?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jan 2011 20:15

Wickberg wrote: But my question was, what capability will this Mk2 have since you say it is similar to the Gripen NG? Will it have similar payload and range? Will it be as agile? If that is the case then the entire aircraft has to be redesigned I´ll guess. Technology speaking, what radar will it use? How about datalink etc etc.
You seem to know all these answers as you know it will be similar to the Gripen NG. Please inform us.

Interesting, that you think it will not be similar. Why don't you prove just why it will not be similar in capability to the NG. Also, you repeatedly miss the point that I am making. That is to scrap the MRCA.

You keep on persisting and with contempt if I might add on the word similar.

I don't care if it is spitfire compared to the F22. It is an Indian design and I want it to serve in large numbers with the IAF. The MRCA project represents threat to the LCA and as such it deserves to be scrapped.

NG or any other design can go to hell for all I care.

JMT

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jan 2011 21:11

For LCA Mk2, we can do a quick frontal stealth shape as well, and perhaps try out divertless inlets as one of the mk2 prototype spin off, making a strong platform for aMCA tests. Having agreed on the pak-fa design, and pledging $30b for it(near a billion for r&d), with a quick turnaround like we did the Tank-Ex just to satisfy IAF (like we did for IA). Now it is up to the forces to decide. All we can do is impress them, tell them, feed them. They will have to choose, and it is up to babooze to establish regulations such that it is fair and following a democratically set guidelines from the wishes of deshis.

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 23 Jan 2011 21:47

Why GoI isn't calling Indian Private Companies to try for a fighter plane project. Just like LM & Boeing for US, India's Leading industries like TATA, Reliance, M&M, L&T, Infosis, Wipro, HCL & others can jointly float new firm for a Fighter Plane for Defense forces. GoI should offer to bear the cost of R&D in case selected and 75%-50% for those rejected.

We have such a vast knowledge base and still if our Private Companies cannot come out with a project it is still a shameful. GoI should call for indegenisation of products instead of calling for Foreign countries to sell product on ToT basis, we should learn from China. It is correct that copying will not serve the purpose but still we could have achieved lot more than what now have achieved or in other words we might have seeing LCA Mk2s in IAF colors instead of LCA Mk1.

We should let DRDO, NAL, HAL to compete with Private companies instead of considering them as our premier procurement stores.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jan 2011 22:59

one has to be careful in letting private organization supplying to defence, hence all these paranoia since our setup is knee deep in corruption and as it is we can't subscribe to indigenization agenda soul and heart. For eg: ISRO recent failure of an imported component.

private sector is not full fledged enough to support our defence setup. graduation is the only way out. slowly, let all those sub components been manufactured by private industries, getting a technology transfer from DRDO. that is the only way out.

once they mature, private industries can themselves invest in R&D and compete with DRDO setup for business.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 23 Jan 2011 23:12

Pratyush wrote:
Wickberg wrote: But my question was, what capability will this Mk2 have since you say it is similar to the Gripen NG? Will it have similar payload and range? Will it be as agile? If that is the case then the entire aircraft has to be redesigned I´ll guess. Technology speaking, what radar will it use? How about datalink etc etc.
You seem to know all these answers as you know it will be similar to the Gripen NG. Please inform us.
Interesting, that you think it will not be similar. Why don't you prove just why it will not be similar in capability to the NG. Also, you repeatedly miss the point that I am making. That is to scrap the MRCA.

You keep on persisting and with contempt if I might add on the word similar.

I don't care if it is spitfire compared to the F22. It is an Indian design and I want it to serve in large numbers with the IAF. The MRCA project represents threat to the LCA and as such it deserves to be scrapped.

NG or any other design can go to hell for all I care.

JMT

I have never said anything about the capabilities of the Mk2. So when you write I don´t think it will be similar (to the NG) is just a lie. You wrote that the Mk2 will have similar capabilities as the NG. And I asked you to specify those similarities since you obviously know something about the Mk2 that the rest of us does´nt.
If the IAF had all your knowledge don´t you think they would have scrapped the MRCA? Or is there something else to this story we common people are unaware of?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 00:33

Wickberg wrote:
No, the engineers of Gripen planned on a early stage for such a scenario. Therefor the intakes are removable and can easily be replaced with a bigger air intake if such a demand was called for. It´s called planning ahead.

Intakes removed

Back on again on the Gripen NG Demo

do you really think that its such a big deal that the intakes can be removed ? Its the same on EVERY fighter ! The aircraft is built in modules if you didn't know, and the intake is also a module built up of several other parts. On the Tejas too, the intake can be taken off as a module. There is nothing unique about that on the Gripen. I really must say, Gripen fanboys and SAAB as well, love to put a spin on every aspect !

The air-intake channel was enlarged on the Gripen Demo, just as it will be on the Tejas. They will do the same on the Tejas Mk2 and possibly re-design it such that it doesn't require auxiliary intakes as on Mk1.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 00:37

Wickberg wrote: I´m not sure were you going with this.
But yes, it is a design feature. Like the entire Gripen system it is designed from the start to be easy to upgrade/update. People may think there are only two versions (or three with the Gripen NG), namely the Gripen A/B and the C/D. In fact, since it started its service in the SwAF back in 96/97 there have been numerous updates, mainly in the software area. IIRC there have been some +30 updates, but neither SAAB or the SwAF feels the need to change the name of the aircraft with every update. If that would have been the case we would have talking about the Gripen X/Y by now.
As I said, the Gripen was designed from the start as a "plug and play" kind of fighter. Just like the Windows 95 that revolutionized the PC-WYSIWYG. It is very simple to update and upgrade. Remember, back then Sweden relied on a conscript military, just as India does today. Gripen was served with 5 conscripts and one technician and has a turn-around time of 8 minutes. Compared to the US system with 20 technicians and a TAT of 30 minutes.

Was this better?

Designed as a "plug and play" fighter is it ? Maybe that is because so much of the Gripen is actually sourced from so many other vendors ?

And India doesn't rely on a conscript military. India's armed forces are a professional force and there is no conscription in India. At least get your facts right before going on and on with your boasts.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 00:46

Wickberg wrote: 1st of all, I´m gonna be honest with you, as I always am. I am not an engineer, nor am I a pilot or an air force guy. I did my military service in the Swedish marines, the amphibious battalion as a squad commander carrying around a 8 cm mortar for 11 months. And if the Indian armed forces, as you say, is all volunteers I expect everyone that is over 20 years old on this forum have served the military and supported the Indian armed forces and your nation. In which arm did you serve in Marten?

To change the intakes:
Step 1: Take the (in)famous IKEA-tool.

Step 2: Remove the old intake by using that tool
Step 3: Take out the new intake from the box. Use a knife or a cutter to remove the plastic wrapped around it.
Step 4: Follow the instructions and assemble the new intake by using the same tool as in Step 2.
Step 5: Voila! There you go. Now you can take her for a test ride and always remember to fasten your seat belt.

So the Gripen is an IKEA-esque fighter is it ? talk about ignorance combined with spin !

And since India doesn't have a conscript army or air force, most people on this board, including me, have no armed forces experience. India can and does manage fine with an all-volunteer force and considering India's population, if everyone served in the armed forces at some time or the other, India would more people in the armed forces than it could ever use.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 00:57

Marten wrote:How about inlet size? So they made modular inlets as well, is it?

PS: Cut out the condescension. You're walking on thin ice with your behaviour, as it is.

Marten, you're talking to the wrong person. Perhaps someone with engineering experience on a Swedish fighter would be a better person to ask that question to.

The F414G allows the Gripen Demo to easily supercruise in an air defense configuration. Increased mass-flow requirements have dictated an increase in intake size of about 10 percent.

link

So as you can see, the Gripen Demo actually had a 10% increase in air intake size and the air channel would've seen a similar increase in size.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 24 Jan 2011 01:24

Kartik, dear Sir. Where should I begin to answer your rampage?

First of all. Yes, it was that easy for SAAB to incorporate the new engine into the Gripen Demo. If HAL has the same smooth way then all kudos to them. But I have read (on this forum) that it will take some major redesign of the aircraft, something SAAB did´nt have to resort to.

The fact that Sweden (for the 1st time regarding fighter jet production) outsourced much of the Gripen and bought COTS has nothing to do with the capabilities of SAAB. Both you and I know this, for an example, SAAB produced the first serial manufactured ejection seat in the world and SAAB ejection seats has always been in SAAB fighters ever since. Except now, now Martin Baker had the best offer in terms of costs and availability. Unpatriotic? Hell, yes. Economical? Even more yes. And that is just one example of how the Gripen came to be. Cooperation to cut costs but still producing a top notch fighter. A fighter that does not sacrifice anything in terms of capability and its primary role, as a defender of Swedish air space. The "sourced from so many other vendors" as you claim and make it sound like a negative thing is actually a blessing and a sign of the Gripen success. Many South African, Czech and even Norwegian/Danish and Brazilian companies have blossomed thanks to the cooperation with SAAB. Even if some of those countries did not order the fighter SAAB still stands behind its words.

And yes, I know India does not have a conscript military. You are a bit to late to inform me. Neither does Sweden now a days. And that fact saddens me. Cause IMHO the conscript system is by far the best system to build an army. Just for your info. a conscript system does not mean that EVERY qualified 19 year old has to go trough his military training. It merely means that EVERY adult is obliged to serve their country (men and female) but in practice the most willing and fit are chosen for this honor. The conscript-system makes your armed forces to be a normal thing, like the hospital or the local grocery. It makes the army a "very common man institution", something everybody can relate to. And look up to.

I know now that very few of you have done your military service. And I don´t think any less of some one because of that. Just find it kind of strange that so many hang around a military forum and know so much despite having never wore the uniform for even a single day.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 03:03

Wickberg wrote: I know now that very few of you have done your military service. And I don´t think any less of some one because of that. Just find it kind of strange that so many hang around a military forum and know so much despite having never wore the uniform for even a single day.

that wasn't quite what you were saying a few posts earlier-

In the same way that you find it strange that people who've not served in the military also love their military and want to discuss it, I find it strange that people like you who've never worked on an aircraft can actually comment on it, since they know so little about what goes on behind the scenes, and how much of what actually comes out as info from a private company like Saab is basically PR. highly managed, highly regulated information. I know that since I see a lot of info about the aircraft I've worked on and much of it is basically PR, marketing driven. The real engineering issues are very very rarely brought out in the public domain. I know for a fact that an investigation was launched in my company relating to Aviation Week's ARES blog getting some inside info on engineering issues. For a while our internet traffic was actually being watched to find who was leaking out these engineering issues that were considered to be bad for PR.

If you believed everything they stated as being the absolute truth (which is what you present it as) then my dear Swedish pal, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 24 Jan 2011 03:32

Kartik wrote:
Wickberg wrote: I know now that very few of you have done your military service. And I don´t think any less of some one because of that. Just find it kind of strange that so many hang around a military forum and know so much despite having never wore the uniform for even a single day.
that wasn't quite what you were saying a few posts earlier-

In the same way that you find it strange that people who've not served in the military also love their military and want to discuss it, I find it strange that people like you who've never worked on an aircraft can actually comment on it, since they know so little about what goes on behind the scenes, and how much of what actually comes out as info from a private company like Saab is basically PR. highly managed, highly regulated information. I know that since I see a lot of info about the aircraft I've worked on and much of it is basically PR, marketing driven. The real engineering issues are very very rarely brought out in the public domain. I know for a fact that an investigation was launched in my company relating to Aviation Week's ARES blog getting some inside info on engineering issues. For a while our internet traffic was actually being watched to find who was leaking out these engineering issues that were considered to be bad for PR.

If you believed everything they stated as being the absolute truth (which is what you present it as) then my dear Swedish pal, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

Well my dear friend. I can actually show my utter respect to anyone who have served in the military and still don´t think any less of those who have´nt. I can combine those two. If I could´nt I would be in an awkward place considering most people have´nt done their turn. And I have met some jack-asses from UK and USA in uniform who were bloody idiots, and I would be ashamed to be mentioned along those guys. So it´s not all black and white.

When it comes to work. The company I work for actually produce some things for the SAAB Gripen. But thing I know (apart from Internet) comes from friends who are involved with the Gripen project and off course much of that is OPSEC. All I can really say is "True", "Untrue", or "I have no knowledge of that". Unless it is open source info. I may be crazy, but I am not risking my job.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 07:35

Illuminating stuff, really.

Strained ties delayed delivery of plane accessories

As the agreement between the US and Turkey expired in 2000, Turkey has continued to work with Israel in modernizing the F-16s. Turkey has attempted to compensate for several mistakes that occurred while working with the US through several deals with Israel. The fundamental problem was that the US did not hand the F-16s directly to the Turkish Air Forces and it required TAİ-made planes be tested in the US before the eventual delivery to the Turkish Air Forces.

The US had also refused to provide source codes for the software of F-16s to Turkey since the inception of the joint production. Tensions in the relations between the US and Turkey have recently spawned a series of crises in this particular sphere, a possibility which Turkey has overlooked for years.

A senior official at the Turkish Undersecretariat for the Defense Industry (SSM) confided in Today’s Zaman that the US is not willing to provide vital parts of the F-16 planes to Turkey in contrast to agreements the two countries have signed in the past few years.

The same senior official said the US delayed the fulfillment its duties specified in the agreements it signed with Turkey between 1987 and 1995 and that this has caused serious problems in modernization of F-16s.

The official lamented that Turkey is experiencing very serious problems in obtaining parts and accessories for the planes as ties with Israel collapsed, and that he finds it noteworthy to stress that the US administration has made congressional approval a precondition of selling any sort of weaponry and military equipment.

All this despite Turkey having the 3rd largest F-16 fleet in the world. Food for thought on the F-16 Block 60 and F/A-18 E/F?

link

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jan 2011 07:51

Wickberg,

I volunteered to be in NCC for three years. So as much as I understand what you are speaking of, I am not in agreement with you for a lot of causes.

1. There are enough volunteers in India for army. We don't need a mandatory rule. I used to march with 300 other guys and girls (all volunteers) and that is from a moderately big city. These were just engineering undergraduates. There are others from schools/colleges etc. Do the math.

2. I have met a lot of people where people have been mandated to join the service. I am yet to meet a guy/girl (my misfortune) who could describe what they did and enjoyed in those 2-3 years. I wanted to exchange experiences, but alas! They either have stories of how they evaded it (believe it or not PhD students proved that they were demented

) or how they found the loopholes to get through the two years with as little ado as possible.

So in my personal experience those two years for most people were in the least bit "in the service" of their motherland. On the contrary I remember each thing of those 3 years down to each training. Whenever I meet people from NCC training we have loads of experiences of camps and trainings to share. We did it because we wanted to not because we HAD to.

Armies in European countries with scanty population HAVE to get those two years out of as many youths as possible. We don't need it.

HAving gone through the training, I would say it would be great if every youth in our country went through it. But making it mandatory is the last way that you could evoke patriotism and service to one's country.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jan 2011 08:41

Wickberg,

I have been speaking out the most in favour of Gripen for MMRCA. But I can't make head or tail out of your mix and match thing.

You say the air intakes are modular, allow me to ask a few questions:
1. So you mean there is an universal join from where you could join forward intake part of different size without any modifications at this join and behind it to the engines? (if not, then there is no difference between Gripen and others in respect to this)
2. So you say Gripen will get the G414 without any changes? mounts, Cg balancing et al out of the window? (if not then it will be the same as Tejas Mk II). Tejas Mk II would have more refined airframe which need to be validated for other reasons. You can easily google it or read thread.
3. Tejas MkII won't be a Gripen. Gripen seems to be sleeker through the air. That's a given with it's huge canards and long slender body. Also it is definitely ahead of the Tejas by 10 years in terms of operational deployment. But them touting around MTOW and more hard points is clearly not the smartest arguments. Clearly having more hardpoints gives more flexibility. But loading the Gripen NG to MTOW with just 100 KN of thrust can/will only be done in strike roles. In A2A it will be a sitting duck with that TWR.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Jan 2011 09:16

indranilroy wrote:Wickberg,

I have been speaking out the most in favour of Gripen for MMRCA. But I can't make head or tail out of your mix and match thing.

You say the air intakes are modular, allow me to ask a few questions:
1. So you mean there is an universal join from where you could join forward intake part of different size without any modifications at this join and behind it to the engines? (if not, then there is no difference between Gripen and others in respect to this)

that is what he implied, and then clarified with his IKEA example.

that too without an enlarging of the air channel after the intake channel itself. And that too for an engine with a 10% higher airflow requirement. How does that sound ?

Either the Gripen C/D's RM12 was being fed too much air or changes were made to the intake and the air channel on the Gripen Demo.

2. So you say Gripen will get the G414 without any changes? mounts, Cg balancing et al out of the window? (if not then it will be the same as Tejas Mk II). Tejas Mk II would have more refined airframe which need to be validated for other reasons. You can easily google it or read thread.

Indranil, Saab itself said that "minor" changes were required to fit the GE F-414. So as much as some person might like to spin the news into appearing that no changes were required, it is IMO, nonsense.

3. Tejas MkII won't be a Gripen. Gripen seems to be sleeker through the air. That's a given with it's huge canards and long slender body. Also it is definitely ahead of the Tejas by 10 years in terms of operational deployment. But them touting around MTOW and more hard points is clearly not the smartest arguments. Clearly having more hardpoints gives more flexibility. But loading the Gripen NG to MTOW with just 100 KN of thrust can/will only be done in strike roles. In A2A it will be a sitting duck with that TWR.

join the keypubs forum- there is a Gripen thread, where you'll see this Saab document- and some poster basically exposes the spin that Saab puts on figures to make the Gripen NG look better than it is against Rafale/Typhoon types.

I'm not suggesting that the NG is a bad fighter, quite the opposite and I personally really like it, but Saab's PR is really something to be envious of. We Indians really need to learn a thing or two from Saab in that PR aspect as well, along with Program Management, Risk Management and who knows, maybe engineering and aerodynamics too.

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 Jan 2011 10:42

Kartik wrote:Illuminating stuff, really.

Strained ties delayed delivery of plane accessories

As the agreement between the US and Turkey expired in 2000, Turkey has continued to work with Israel in modernizing the F-16s. Turkey has attempted to compensate for several mistakes that occurred while working with the US through several deals with Israel. The fundamental problem was that the US did not hand the F-16s directly to the Turkish Air Forces and it required TAİ-made planes be tested in the US before the eventual delivery to the Turkish Air Forces.

The US had also refused to provide source codes for the software of F-16s to Turkey since the inception of the joint production. Tensions in the relations between the US and Turkey have recently spawned a series of crises in this particular sphere, a possibility which Turkey has overlooked for years.

A senior official at the Turkish Undersecretariat for the Defense Industry (SSM) confided in Today’s Zaman that the US is not willing to provide vital parts of the F-16 planes to Turkey in contrast to agreements the two countries have signed in the past few years.

The same senior official said the US delayed the fulfillment its duties specified in the agreements it signed with Turkey between 1987 and 1995 and that this has caused serious problems in modernization of F-16s.

The official lamented that Turkey is experiencing very serious problems in obtaining parts and accessories for the planes as ties with Israel collapsed, and that he finds it noteworthy to stress that the US administration has made congressional approval a precondition of selling any sort of weaponry and military equipment.
All this despite Turkey having the 3rd largest F-16 fleet in the world. Food for thought on the F-16 Block 60 and F/A-18 E/F?

link

Oralce's scry.

Apart from the teens, Gripen can also be subjected to similar paralysis.
Is it possible for Saab or Sweden to act as a buffer and provide us the required parts from its inventory?

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 24 Jan 2011 16:17

I have just finished reading a book, "Absolute War". It goes into significant details the German-Russia theater of operations in WWII. There was one significant point in the book which is worth mentioning.

"While Russia had standardized most of its weapons and these were made from interchangeable parts, the Germans were insisting on specialized production."

This is also borne out by Albert Speers memories. Albert Speer was the Minister of Armaments and War Production in nazi germany.

The point I bring out this point is that Grippen and LCA can have such a commonality. They are ideally suited to have interchangeable parts. They allow us to lower the cost of maintenance of both the aircraft. All the other fighters, baring the Mig-35, don't have this advantage.
With respect to EFT the entire support structure would have to be built from scratch.
We should keep in mind that IAF operates one of the most diverse fighter fleets of this planet, MIGs/Jaguars/Mirages/Sukhio and the newly inducted LCA and the MMRCA Winner. It makes no sense for cluttering up the IAF even more.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jan 2011 17:47

Some depressing news in the latest AWST....about the LCA's woes,Kaveri's woes and that even a naval MK-2 with a 414 might not be able to "deliver the whole goods",worrying that service,with a final figure of about 100+ only to be made,gives the Gripen a growing stature in the MMRCA stakes.As I mentioned earlier,there are enough twin-engined variants Flankers and Fulcrums in service and FGFA's and later on AMCAs to arrive.Therefore,after the arrival/unveiling of the Chinese 5h-gen stealth fighter,it is clear that the thrust for the future cutting edge type of the IAF will be the Indo-Russian FGFA.Numbers need to be made up and the Gripen gives outstanding value for money.With in-flight refuelling-more tankers are in the wishlist,the affordability and capability of the Gripen goes up several notches.If a naval variant is also proposed/offered to the IN,we might see the IN also getting into the act from the sidelines.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Jan 2011 19:16

Wickberg wrote:
I have never said anything about the capabilities of the Mk2. So when you write I don´t think it will be similar (to the NG) is just a lie. You wrote that the Mk2 will have similar capabilities as the NG. And I asked you to specify those similarities since you obviously know something about the Mk2 that the rest of us does´nt.
If the IAF had all your knowledge don´t you think they would have scrapped the MRCA? Or is there something else to this story we common people are unaware of?

What I know is simple common sense and it seems that you are incapable of understanding what is being said by the poster. That is to scrap the MMRCA.

Now, hear is what we (Collectively on the BRF) know. The IAF has evaluated in detail 6 modern fighters. It knows what they are capable of and what they arn't. We also know that the IAF wants a MK2 for the Tejas. What we don't know ATM is what the specs will be for it. Having said so, who can say with absolute confidence that the IAF will not ask for MK 2 to be similar to the MMRCA contenders tech wise.

Or am I talking absolute thrash. In which case please educate me with the real facts WRT the MK 2. Comparing it with the capabilities of the MMRCA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Jan 2011 19:37

Pratyushji,

MkII and MMRCA are in different leagues. Gripen barely makes it into the MMRCA category in terms of the "medium" category. Medium in terms of payload, variety of payload, range etc.

Tejas MKII has quite a lot of work left. It is still on paper. It takes around roughly a decade after the plane is ope rationalized to get wrinkle ironed off. That time is roughly now (or well past) for all the MMRCA contenders. And that time will be 2025 for Tejas MkII. So we shouldn't suddenly start equating the MKII to the MMRCA. We can't keep the nation's security hostage to our jingoistic demands.

So "scrap MMRCA" is just an insensible nationalistic cry IMHO.