MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Mar 2011 23:38

No, it is not just about raising squadron strengths.. if that is the case, we would have purchased lock, stock long time back from france. squadron strengths can be achieved from home grown products as well., which is actually a long term strategy, and nothing to beat it.

Of course, we can buy parts from other mftrs.

manum · Post by **manum** » 22 Mar 2011 23:42

Ya MRCA looks to me a waste now, Those billions now pinch more than when we saw the figure at start, guess we grew in that while...
Ya if we can manage squadron strength...all the way LCA...It'll definitely remove any slack behavior, if there is any in technical community...

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 22 Mar 2011 23:51

Since we have bought engines for LCA , why not ramp it up? We can buy ammunitions and radars from others. Am I missing something? Probably the kickback or the back-kick.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 Mar 2011 00:00

we are already buying engines and radar... which is better then buying even nuts and screw drivers...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2011 00:06

We've come this far, it'll make no sense to scrap the MMRCA now. Heaven knows we need the birds and we needed them yesterday. 40 LCA's are on order and work on MK II is underway, that should be handled seperatly and must not be a factor in MMRCA as they are different birds and IAF needs to maintain a sort of force structure. Light aircrafts cannot substitute heavy aircrafts, interceptor type bidrs cannot replace bomb trucks. In every advanced AF , every type of aircraft has a specific type of role.

LCA is a good plane but it has its role, it's not a strike aircraft although it should not have any problem in providing CAS. It's excellent for protecting VA/VP's, quick interceptions, CAS and limited strike package delivery . It can never do an MKI's job.

PAK-FA and AMCA are still some distance into the future and maybe the IAF reckons that a 270 strong MKI fleet might not be enough to take on 2 heavily armed AF's if push comes to shove. We need a compliment to the MKI's for the strike role and here is where a bird like Rafale with A2G expousure in Afghanistan and Libiya can come in very handy as a plane capable of striking deep and hard into enemy territory. Not to mention this will give us access to a diversified weapons package.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 00:14

Please please do not scrap MRCA at the behest of the armchair generals. There is two fold reasons for it.
1) NFL Theorem (No Free Lunch Theorem). Saving $10.5B is not without cost of delayed building of capability, delay in building capacity, and technology. Consider the gaps, even if arguably short-term. The current levels in IAF are at critical low, how much lower can we afford to go? What about pilot training, capacity, and strategies? How much will we be paying? We are perhaps 10 years too late in inducting these, and people are wanting another 10-15 year delay? Seriously, for those balking at the $10.5B expenditure -- compare the risks. Would you be willing to give up even 5 squadrons of MRCA if it comes to war in 5 years? The whole argument of pie-in-the-sky is nuts! .

Friend of Mine from IAF said this when the first time arguments were made -- scrap MRCA buy JSF: You are asking me to give up a good reality in favor of well argued fantastical Wet-dreams It is not merely a concern about number of squadrons and their attrition any more, it has come to a point where it is going to be critically effecting the organizational capability and capacity attrition (human, operational, strategic, logistic, etc.). We have been there when we started inducting the SU-30MKI, and will lose the steady momentum of capacity and capability building if we do not continue to replace all of the old birds through induction of SU-30MKI, MRCA and LCA MK1 MK2. There needs to be a steady flow for ability to absorb and build. IAF is currently inducting ~18-20/year and with MRCA + LCA + MKI, it will need to be positioned for steady induction and absorption of ~36-40 aircraft/year.

For those arguing scraping MRCA work out the production and absorption numbers for steady replacement and growth. You push MRCA further down the line, the increased rate of LCA production along with FGFA, we will have to peak at ~50 /year suddenly. Do you really expect IAF to be able to magically build the capabilities to integrate that fast?

2) No future contract RFP will ever be taken seriously by any vendor. In this particular case, whether people agree or not -- the size of contract incentivized vendors to undergo trials at their own costs (however small or big). There is a certain expectation that the RFP will be brought to fruitful conclusion. A buyer's reputation is critical in this. Cost of $10 billion is relatively nothing compared to costs that will be incurred because of #1 and accompanying reputation loss (IA already suffers from this significantly, let not IAF join those ranks).

On a more personal selfish reason:
I want the MRCA argument on BR to come to an end! I believe it is vested interests of those who have day and night been posting to MRCA thread. They are afraid of empty nest syndrome

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 Mar 2011 00:24

I don't think it is matter of 10.5 B.... it is matter of 25-30 billion and the influence. I do agree it will give a boost to IAF during 2015-2025 and lower the stress on IAF. If tomorrow we have a 2 front war, we will pay through nose 100 or may be more billion for the same package. Decision is what IAF and GoI thinks, do have chance of 2 front war? If yes, they will go for it at whatever cost.

We should not worry about vendors, if I am in market to buy a luxury car ... I would like to have a test drive... taking a test drive does not mean we will buy it. Even if we select some plane, there are many exit points only contract has to be read and signed carefully. Of course there could be credibility dent if sign and don't pay. These companies will earn enough money in one deal or other.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 00:29

Chinmayanand wrote:Since we have bought engines for LCA , why not ramp it up? We can buy ammunitions and radars from others. Am I missing something? Probably the kickback or the back-kick.

Yes, you are missing a lot. LCA is not Rambo that you equip and it is a one-man show. Rule of thumb: for every plane in operation there are 30 other people in different roles who need to know what to do, when to do, how to do, why to do it.

There is no prior experience of operating LCA. It is an excellent product, but will still go through revisions. We know MK2 is coming. From readiness of LCA to integration of LCA is going to be longer than integration of MRCA. For a simple fact, we will learn from current operators and begin integration from there.

LCA's first operator is IAF, and learning about it [ground, tactical, strategic, logistics, etc.] will take time -- nothing that can be hurried up. For simplicity reasons let me point out one basic fact -- There is no one who knows the limits and capabilities of LCA, forget unique quirks and capabilities. For all of the MRCA birds, there is a better estimate that is known by existing operators.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 Mar 2011 00:39

Avid ... welcome post and well point that we dont know limits and capabilities...there I think IAF should have reacted fast and joined the effort earlier. On the other side, I do agree that ADA and HAL worked hard during last two decades without much PR success. They were and are not able to sell their success...

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 00:40

RKumar wrote:I don't think it is matter of 10.5 B.... it is matter of 25-30 billion and the influence. I do agree it will give a boost to IAF during 2015-2025 and lower the stress on IAF. If tomorrow we have a 2 front war, we will pay through nose 100 or may be more billion for the same package. Decision is what IAF and GoI thinks, do have chance of 2 front war? If yes, they will go for it at whatever cost.

We should not worry about vendors, if I am in market to buy a luxury car ... I would like to have a test drive... taking a test drive does not mean we will buy it. Even if we select some plane, there are many exit points only contract has to be read and signed carefully. Of course there could be credibility dent if sign and don't pay. These companies will earn enough money in one deal or other.

a) The $10.5B that you mention is not upfront money. Even if you assume that $25-30B is the complete package for whatever reason (not sure where you came to that number), it will be ~$2.5B/year for 10 years of induction.

b) Chance of 2 front war? Let me break the news to you -- current strength of IAF is insufficient for single front war and defensive posture on 2nd front. Please do the math about how you would deploy the meager 32 squadrons around the country to fight even a single front war on west. It is a downright pathetic situation. Even if you assume defensive posture, you will still be grossly under minimum requirements.

c) Now about the chance of war -- the chance increases if your armed forces strength decreases. Couple that with outstanding disputes without resolution -- the chance of war increases further. Further add a rapidly booming economy, combined with insufficient armed force capability, makes you more prone to being attacked because they know that the window of opportunity where: i) you are not ready for war, ii) not ready to risk a booming economy, and iii) together you have a deadly combination ripe for succumbing to threat.

How big a risk are you willing to take for $3B/year for 10 years?

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 00:44

RKumar wrote:Avid ... welcome post and well point that we dont know limits and capabilities...there I think IAF should have reacted fast and joined the effort earlier. On the other side, I do agree that ADA and HAL worked hard during last two decades without much PR success. They were and are not able to sell their success...

Yes, we all know that. But here we are -- this is the current situation. We can certainly learn for future, but it is not going to change where we are.

It is like telling the batsmen that he should have been more involved in design of the ball guard if he does not like how the one he is wearing fits him. Do you still want him to bat for you, or are you interested in continuing to lecture him to death while he agonizes but continues to play for you, or are you willing to solve the problem with some additional cost and involving him for the awesome indestructible ball guard which will not be ready for this season?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 Mar 2011 00:52

Avid regarding your point A) These 10,5 b will be gone for having 126 planes... I really doubt that any infrastructure, training, spare parts or armament will be part of it. If you say it is included, I will say, buy without second thought. I don't think it will be flat 2.5 or 3 billion per year but depend upon the contract.

b) Please check this post of mine http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1052106 or let me copy the interest part

470 PAF - Mostly old, only decent are

42 F-16,
currently under induction 100-150 JF-17/FC-1 (will take more then 5 years and replace older ones)
later 36 J-10B (2015-2020)

Compare it to the strength of IAF... I doubt that IAF will have any problem countering PAF alone. If IAF can't then that is surely news to me.

c) GoI knows as they have all the data and I trust them. I have already said this deal depends upon threat perception. No amount is more to protect national interests.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 23 Mar 2011 01:01

Avid wrote:It is like telling the batsmen that he should have been more involved in design of the ball guard if he does not like how the one he is wearing fits him. Do you still want him to bat for you, or are you interested in continuing to lecture him to death while he agonizes but continues to play for you, or are you willing to solve the problem with some additional cost and involving him for the awesome indestructible ball guard which will not be ready for this season?

You are touching sensitive parts

It depends... if guard is good enough for this season and it protects him from ball. And you also needs a new bat, which might give him some additional protection beside ball guard. In next season, he can get a silky ball guard

We dont want to lecture, it is good enough if IAF accepts that it has made a mistake. Everyone makes a mistake but acceptance of it make a origination better then others.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 23 Mar 2011 01:24

Avid:

I agree that if the IAF needs the birds NOW, then they should get it.

If the order had been placed five years ago, then perhaps this discussion would not be happening. However there have been significant developments during the past few years, to merit a re-evaluation of the plan. Would it be worth it to go all-in, so late in the current generation of planes, especially with a brand new platform? Also keep in mind in the increase in size of the MKI fleet.

One question is the numbers. There were talks that the MRCA contract size will actually be increased from the original 126. That would have put the domestic industry back significantly.

Another question of course is that whether the IAF needs to get a totally new bird or something which is an evolution of the current fleet. Would it be better to buy between 50-80 (3-5 squadrons) birds which can be inducted and absorbed quickly? Or should the IAF go for the full package of 126 brand new birds with all the associated caveats.

Even if the MRCA order gets placed by the end of the year it will take some time for the birds to start rolling in and some more time for the IAF to become comfortable with the bird. Further at least for some of the contenders, the configurations being promised only exist on paper and there is an element of uncertainty both in terms of the time-line and the quality of the final product.

I personally am biased towards the French since apart from the US and Russia, they are the only first quality maal supplier. They are at a critical point where they need external partners to preserve their defense industry. The Rafale is a reasonably mature platform and has an established production line which can help fulfill Indian orders quickly. It will help plug the inventory and quality gap for the short term.

If India can tie up with the French on becoming technology/developmental partners for the next gen platforms, it will serve the domestic industry well. India is already collaborating with the French on various engine projects (Shakti, Kaveri) so a bigger partnership would be a natural extension to other critical technologies where India needs assistance. Of course this requires the French to play ball. The good thing is that they are more likely to play ball, now than they have ever been before.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 23 Mar 2011 01:45

Drishyaman wrote:Not a bad idea to scrap MMRCA. Why spend $10.5 on anything like Gripen, which fears toenter battle field and comes up with innovative excuses to avoid battle fields.

Like what "excuses"? please examplify!

Instead spend that half that money in fast tracking Tejas MK-II and half of that in fast tracking AMCA. $5 on Tejas MK-II will probably fast track it to 2015. And if Gripen misses the deal we might have an indegenious fighter better than what the Swedes would have in 2015. That money can also be used to increase the production line for Tejas MK-II.

For what, three years?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2011 02:29

We don't have a choice...the numbers are depleting faster than we can develop Tejas Mk II and AMCA/FGFA. This MMRCA purchase is a sign of bad planning by the IAF/GOI/MoD...but no use complaining about that now. We had ample opportunity in the 80s and 90s, but we let time slip by and we have been caught with our pants (and underwears!) down and we are exposed. A two-front war is more likely than ever before.

Right now we need to stop the bleeding and the MMRCA is the only tourniquet that can stop that bleeding. The Air Force has to do their best to plug the gap and let us hope the GOI actually buys what the IAF wants, even if it is the F/A-18 Super Hornet. But I have to echo VikramS' comments....we must partner with the French. This is the best hedge against the enormous amounts of cash we are going to spend on this.

Vayu Sena Badnaam Hui, Darling (Rafale) Tere Liye

But if we do buy the Rafale, I have to give her the name Katrina. She is a firecracker, much like Katrina herself.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 23 Mar 2011 02:42

It is good that we are not going to mcra.
LCA is doing well,Lca mk2 and mk3 on the way.
$10B/- will be good for mk2 and mk3.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 03:12

Instead spend that half that money in fast tracking Tejas MK-II and half of that in fast tracking AMCA.

If two women share pregnancy, the kid is not born in 4.5 months. It is going to take 9 months - no matter what. Class 6 algebraic math without constraints does not work in product design, development. Twice the people, twice the money does not equate half the time for completion.

$5 on Tejas MK-II will probably fast track it to 2015.

Keyword: Probably. This is your speculation. If you produce a quote from ADA where they claim that more money or resources would shorten the time -- then I will convert it from speculation to an educated estimate. However, it would still be "probable". Probable entails risk, and with product development, a far greater risk in terms of time and function than with induction of existing platform today. My question to you -- why not pursue AMCA and MK2 as planned and minimize the bottom side risk by inducting MRCA as current planning suggests?

And if Gripen misses the deal we might have an indegenious fighter better than what the Swedes would have in 2015. That money can also be used to increase the production line for Tejas MK-II.

You are working with assumptions that are "probable" and IMHO speculative, but presenting them as certain alternative outcomes.

This is like telling a starving man, do not buy the meal with the money you have -- put it in the stock market. Likely you will get 15% interest rate, and then in 5 years you will have enough interest coming from the balance to feed you for life. It is probable you will still be alive in 5 years, it is also probable the stock market could go higher than 20% return (without mentioning to him it could also crash). Amongst all the probabilities -- it is greater than 50-50 the end outcome will be in your favor.

Risk management is not based on better than 50-50 outcomes, but instead on margin outcomes -- i.e. less than 5-10% chance of negative type outcomes.

When you generate probable course of action with those kind of outcomes then you can make the argument for scrapping MRCA tender.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 03:33

RKumar wrote: b) Please check this post of mine http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1052106 or let me copy the interest part

470 PAF - Mostly old, only decent are

42 F-16,
currently under induction 100-150 JF-17/FC-1 (will take more then 5 years and replace older ones)
later 36 J-10B (2015-2020)

Compare it to the strength of IAF... I doubt that IAF will have any problem countering PAF alone. If IAF can't then that is surely news to me.

c) GoI knows as they have all the data and I trust them. I have already said this deal depends upon threat perception. No amount is more to protect national interests.

Air warfare is not a fixed size cricket playground. Closest analogy I can give you is this:
They hit a six on a standard sized field, and we need need to hit a six over 3-4 times that sized field. The warfare is not over just the boundary area as in case of ground warfare -- you are protecting differential sized areas.

Now from IAF perspective they need deep fielders to prevent any sneak attack. If you deploy everything near the border, it is like batting powerplay. A significant amount of IAF will need to be maintained near critical assets deeper in the country which are still within their strike range. These assets cannot be used for strike role. The assets they deploy can double-up because of the geography. Not to mention, they do not have another border where their force would be sitting to prevent misadventure -- we will most definitely have to.

Now, let's redo the math that you refer to

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 23 Mar 2011 03:38

Folks who keep talking about $10.5B being a lot of money -- it is relative. What is the payroll expenditure of the IAF? Would you rather utilize your good pilots on Mig-21s? or equip them better so they can do their job better? The argument about $$$ -- what do you think the Mirage 2K cost us in today's dollar equivalent? Also, be mindful of also expressing the $$$ with respect to size of economy.

People are getting into the Analysis-Paralysis stage. "OMG! too many factors, too much money, too complex, let's just forget about it and kick the problem down the road and hope everything will work out"

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Mar 2011 04:48

Doomsday for the Rafale..

Arms dealer for French firm barred
Times of India

NEW DELHI: In a new twist to the ongoing competition for the country's biggest defence contract worth over Rs 45,000 crore, the Indian Air Force has blacklisted the country manager of one of the contenders for the contract.

Officials in the Air Force and the Ministry of Defence have both claimed that the move would not scuttle the $10 billion contract for the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft).

The move to blacklist P V Rao, country manager of Dassault Aviation, is being linked to a bribery scandal in Bangalore during the recently concluded Aero India exhibition. Interestingly, it was Rao who blew the whistle on Wing Commander A K Thakur demanding Rs 20,000 from Rao for giving Rafale, his company's fighter jet that's competing in the MMRCA contract, a vantage parking slot at the Yelahanka airbase during the exhibition. Thakur was caught by a senior MoD official while accepting bribe.

The IAF last week notified both the MoD and the French embassy about its decision to declare Rao persona non grata. The decision would mean that Rao would not be able to participate in any further meetings. Rao also won't be able to enter the air headquarters in New Delhi.

The air force is irked by the fact that Rao kept it in the dark about its officer asking for bribe and instead got a senior IAS officer to expose the corruption. A senior officer claimed Rao deliberately didn't follow known procedures, which was to inform IAF senior officers. It's also possible that IAF establishment didn't inspire Rao's confidence.

When contacted, a Dassault representative refused to discuss the matter. This is the third instance where wrongdoings have been detected in the MMRCA contract process.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 23 Mar 2011 05:19

Why doomsday for rafale? Won't do much to hurt their chances in my opinion...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Mar 2011 05:20

all sudh juice .. and all corruptions are home grown onlee.

it is an individual not rafale firm.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Mar 2011 05:22

RoyG wrote:Why doomsday for rafale? Won't do much to hurt their chances in my opinion...

Will make it easier for the others in the competition to accuse them of foul play if they end up winning and I don't think the MOD would be brave enough to go down that path..

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 23 Mar 2011 06:03

shukla wrote:
RoyG wrote:Why doomsday for rafale? Won't do much to hurt their chances in my opinion...
Will make it easier for the others in the competition to accuse them of foul play if they end up winning and I don't think the MOD would be brave enough to go down that path..

If there is a reason to disqualify anybody, it should strictly either due to non-adherence to RFI terms or due to the bid being non-competitive. Why would something like this affect the chances - simply illogical IMHO.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 23 Mar 2011 06:55

I am a firm believer that India is better off with Boeing but if the IAF really wanted/needed the Rafale, it would be a crying shame if something like this torpedoes its chances or delays the MRCA. We may never know what really happened because a country head for a major defense firm does not p!ss off the end user by breaking protocol just like that. Worse, a scumbag DDM pencil pusher managed to insinuate that the entire IAF establishment is corrupt.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 09:33

The incident only shows that in the market to export western arms system if anyone is available to take a bribe, the bribe is always there on offer.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2011 10:33

^^^^

The air force is irked by the fact that Rao kept it in the dark about its officer asking for bribe and instead got a senior IAS officer to expose the corruption. A senior officer claimed Rao deliberately didn't follow known procedures, which was to inform IAF senior officers. It's also possible that IAF establishment didn't inspire Rao's confidence.

I wish the IAF did the same to TOIlet for this above remark!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Mar 2011 14:27

ramana wrote:^^^^

The air force is irked by the fact that Rao kept it in the dark about its officer asking for bribe and instead got a senior IAS officer to expose the corruption. A senior officer claimed Rao deliberately didn't follow known procedures, which was to inform IAF senior officers. It's also possible that IAF establishment didn't inspire Rao's confidence.

I wish the IAF did the same to TOIlet for this above remark!

Actually the story could be like this because in India this is a common story.

For example here is something that happened to a friend of mine - a senior cardiologist. A tout stands outside a busy government hospital waiting room and tells people that if they want to see the doctor soon they need to pay him 200 bucks because he represents the doctor and the latter is not supposed to charge money. So the person pays up and the tout merely fiddles with the receptionists list, paying her off. The doctor does not even know that this is happening and the patient is too scared to tell the doc about it lest the doctor gets angry.

So Rao would have been told by the corrupt IAF man that all senior Air Marshals are are involved, all have to be paid off and that all will be lost if they mention it to them, effectively barring the "proper channel". The Seniors may not even know what is going on like the doctor example. What bugs me is that the man was so cheap. Only 20,000? Rao wanted to be cheap and may not have had the guts to ask the Air Marshals in charge and got his musharraf singed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Mar 2011 15:12

Surya wrote:the man has been bought lock , stock and barrel

Surya Sir, I have been saying this for about 3 years now. Unfortunately folks accused me of (non-existent) bias.

On the +ve side, it means that the teens have hoofed it for sure. At least 18 has.

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 23 Mar 2011 15:28

...The man is bought does not necessarily lead to the fact that the teens are out...
Lets not give the clown such credibility as of knowing the happenings in the defence ministry..
... have been in and out so many tmes that we are nearing boregasm...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Mar 2011 16:04

RSoami wrote:Lets not give the clown such credibility as of knowing the happenings in the defence ministry..

No he does not know, neither does he need to. But he can be persuaded to write against all MRCAs by those who do.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Mar 2011 16:39

The single bad musharaf has been slashed.. now this should no way make all good musharafs feel guilty now (I am talking about pure musharafs onlee).

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2011 20:01

shukla wrote:Doomsday for the Rafale..

Arms dealer for French firm barred

There goes Katrina!

Bye Bye Dassault...

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Mar 2011 20:15

My money has always been on Rakhi Sawant aka F/A-18SH; a nice massage on netas lap and a raunchy item number must have done the trick.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 23 Mar 2011 20:52

Rakshaks,

You will recall that MMRCA bidders were told flatly that participation in Aero India 2011 would have absolutely no bearing on the MMRCA contest. In fact, for this reason, Mig-35 didn't even show up.

Why then, should this Aero India 2011 parking space baksheesh sully Dassault's bid?

Rao may have been declared persona non grata, but I don't think that transfers to the Rafale. It would surprise me if it did.

JMT

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Mar 2011 21:10

negi, most of our netas are 70+ in dilapidated state. Have heart man! but $$$$ can open their heart valves.

/OT

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Mar 2011 21:16

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 23 Mar 2011 21:26

Henrik wrote:
Drishyaman wrote:Not a bad idea to scrap MMRCA. Why spend $10.5 on anything like Gripen, which fears toenter battle field and comes up with innovative excuses to avoid battle fields.
Like what "excuses"? please examplify!

Excuses as mentioned below and many more floating in Swedish media

Henrik wrote:No it haven't, not yet. But that's purely out of political reasons.

Henrik wrote:There's a possibility that we might see Gripens over Libya soon, but not yet.

Henrik wrote:
Drishyaman wrote:Instead spend that half that money in fast tracking Tejas MK-II and half of that in fast tracking AMCA. $5B on Tejas MK-II will probably fast track it to 2015. And if Gripen misses the deal we might have an indegenious fighter better than what the Swedes would have in 2015. That money can also be used to increase the production line for Tejas MK-II.
For what, three years?

Where did I mention 3 yrs ?
News is Tejas MK - II will be flying by 2016-17 which will be better than Gripen C/D. And I was suggesting fast tracking Tejas MK-II to 2015 using $5 B of the $10.5 B which might be saved by scrapping MMRCA. And Swedish defense minister says they won't go in for next gen Gripen until 2018. Please, refer to the quote below

Sweden’s defence minister announced that, without an Indian or Brazilian order, his air force would not develop the new Gripen fighter till at least 2018.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14544

manum · Post by **manum** » 23 Mar 2011 21:36

Rakesh wrote:

wtf...Its laughable to see, the most synonymous symbol of India for world...in all the brochures, We never made anything magnificent since then...