Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 28 Dec 2016 11:03

Apache logo?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 28 Dec 2016 12:07

We have had logos, slides and patches with all sorts of crafts from stock photos got via google

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Dec 2016 13:01

rohitvats wrote:^^^What is curious about the patch?

The TACDE seems to have gotten itself an Apache patch even before formally testing the type, let alone selecting it.

Does it mean the AH-64's acquisition was a sure thing years ago? Back when we at BRF were still bickering over the merits of the Mi-28 & LCH in addition to the AH-64.

Or is it just a coincidence? They liked the Apache's silhouette, so they put it on their patch even though they knew a different type may be ordered.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Dec 2016 13:21

last hope for the IJT.If this is going to take 6 months,to refine the design in WT tests,then when will flying of the redesigned IJT begin?

http://www.defencenews.in/article/Spin- ... on--239680

Spin trials to revive intermediate jet trainer programme soon
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
By: ET
The indigenously designed ‘Sitara’ Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), which has gone through a troubled developmental phase that includes a crash in 2011, is set to revival with its designers planning to put the aircraft through fresh wind tunnel tests after a design upgrade.

Top officials involved in the project told ET that the plan is to put the trainer aircraft through the crucial Spin Test - in which the plane is deliberately allowed to stall midair and recovered as part of the training process – within the next six months.

The IJT programme, a Rs 2,989-crore project that commenced in 1999, had hit a dead end after the aircraft failed to demonstrate its ability to get out of a stall and spin, a critical feature needed in a trainer aircraft that would be flown by rookie pilots. Its developer HAL had to call in external consultant BAE Systems in 2014 for a redesign of the aircraft tail to meet the stall specifications of the air force.

“We are conducting a few more wind tunnel tests and should be read for a final round of the spin test within the next six months,” a senior official told ET. The IJT has met other specifications of the air force but has not been able to meet this critical safety test, forcing a change in the pilot training programme.

The air force is in dire need of an intermediate trainer jet as the current `Kiran Mk II’ aircraft fleet used for the training is being phased out.

Faced with a paucity of trainer aircraft, the air force has rejigged its pilot training program from a three aircraft plan to a three stage, two aircraft plan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Dec 2016 14:03

Viv S wrote:
rohitvats wrote:^^^What is curious about the patch?
The TACDE seems to have gotten an Apache patch well in advance of even before formally testing the type, let alone selecting it.

Does it mean the AH-64's acquisition was a sure thing years ago? Back when we at BRF were still bickering over the merits of the Mi-28 & LCH in addition to the AH-64.

Or is it just a coincidence? They liked the Apache's silhouette, so they put it on their patch even though they knew a different type may be ordered.

I was under the impression that the RFI, etc were rewritten to fit the Apache.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Dec 2016 14:07

Don't read too much into the patch. Usually when work is given to an artist to draw, they just pick one image of a helicopter from online and make the patch. Most probably That person will only know the difference between a plane and a helicopter. So chillax.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Dec 2016 18:05

TACDE started the Helicopter Combat leader course some time after IAF received the Soviet gunships. That should be sometime in late 80s. The logo designer simply took best available pic and designed the logo. Don't read too much into it.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 28 Dec 2016 18:18

India needs about 200-250 Rafales to maintain edge: IAF Chief Arup Raha

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 220622.cms

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Dec 2016 18:20

Nick_S wrote:India needs about 200-250 Rafales to maintain edge: IAF Chief Arup Raha

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 220622.cms

Well economically unviable

Actual quote from Air Chief Marshall

Raha said a void has been created in the past because of obsolescence and many of the squadrons will be past their use-by date.

"We have already used them for four decades plus. It is time to retire them and get new aircraft," he said adding this void has to be filled up quickly and 36 Rafale aircraft "will not do as we require much more".

" Over the next 10 years, we must have 200-250 aircraft. It has to be balanced out. In the heavy weight spectrum, we have enough. But in the medium weight category, we need to have more. Yes, about 200 will be very good," he said.

I think it is clever word play.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 28 Dec 2016 18:22

Aditya_V wrote:
Nick_S wrote:India needs about 200-250 Rafales to maintain edge: IAF Chief Arup Raha

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 220622.cms
Well economically unviable

It's another poorly titled article. He said that we need another 200 fighters; not Rafales in particular.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 00:49

The Chief said the IAF needs a lot more, as 36 Rafales will not be enough. He then goes on to say 200 - 250 more fighters are needed. The author then made up the rest. Just sayin...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 00:57

Spin trials to revive intermediate jet trainer programme soon
http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence ... 209445.cms

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Dec 2016 01:10

Indian Air Force Pushes For 200-250 More Medium Weight Combat Jets
https://goo.gl/mxwpwO

I think this is the exact quote...

“Rafale is tremendously capable in its entire role. It is a multi-role aircraft and can be used very effectively. It can prove its worth in any situation. But we have just ordered 36 aircraft and we require more aircraft in this middle weight category to give the entire spectrum of capability," said the outgoing IAF Chief Arup Raha during a farewell interaction here.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2016 01:11

Rakesh wrote:Spin trials to revive intermediate jet trainer programme soon
http://m.economictimes.com/news/defence ... 209445.cms

Oh! It is still alive. It is good news. I hope they can revive it. It will be important towards developing our AJT (HJT-39) to replace the Hawks in 15-20 years. Especially if such an AJT can be powered by two HTFE-25s, it can be turned into a good mudmover. One which is not underpowered, unlike the combat/dream Hawk.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Jan 2017 21:02

Once Bitten, HAL Pushes Spin Kit On Basic Trainer
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/12/ ... ainer.html

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Jan 2017 06:11

Wind tunnel testing of the HTT-40 at the Onera aerospace laboratory in France is currently underway,

Is this due to lack of such facilities in Desh or because existing facilities are full with other projects?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jan 2017 07:08

^^
Lack

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 02 Jan 2017 18:11

http://www.hal-india.com/Glimpses%20of% ... ath/M__157

I was going through HAL web site for some info.

Got this huuuuuuuuuuge collage of photos...

yours to enjoy and share

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 03 Jan 2017 00:10

HAL Annual report 2015-16 is out.

HAL Annual report 2015-16

The Company produced 60 numbers of new Aircraft.

Peak production of 12 numbers of Su-30MKI aircraft from Raw Material Phase achieving the full installed capacity.

Highest ever production of 17 Hawk aircraft.

Initial Operational Clearance for IAF variant of ALH-WSI was received in December, 2015

HAL handed over the first two Rudra (ALH-WSI) helicopter to IAF on 17th June, 2016

Second production line of ALH at TAD, Kanpur on 28th December, 2015.

LCA Navy Arrestor Hook System (AHS) integration on aircraft was completed including structural and system changes.

INTERMEDIATE JET TRAINER (IJT)
A total of 57 flights was carried out during FY 2015-16. The cumulative number of flights completed so far is 1062. During the year Spin test Phase I Part 1 completed successfully and two Limited Series Production aircraft were produced.

LIGHT COMBAT HELICOPTER (LCH)
A total of 231 flights have been carried out during year 2015-16. The cumulative number of flights completed so far is 715.

ADVANCED LIGHT HELICOPTER (ALH) – WSI
As a part of Helina development and integration on ALH- WSI, three HELINA missiles fitted with IR seeker were successfully red at Chandan ring range in July 2015. Initial operational Clearance (IOC) for ALH Mk-IV IAF variant accorded by Regional Centre For Military Airworthiness (Helicopters) on 2nd December, 2015.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jan 2017 17:48

I have been reading the book Fiza'ya: Psyche of the Pakistan Air Force [Pushpindar Singh, Ravi Rikhye, Peter Steinmann] from the recent set I ordered. Have gone through about 40% of the book.

Good details and analysis.

But there is something I absolutely did not like - the tone and tenor used to describe and assess IAF and its various aspects. I know Ravi Rikhye can be overtly critical of Indian political set-up and security apparatus when it comes to geo-strategic issues. And it shows in this write-up as well. Pushpinder Singh is also a co-author and since it passed muster with him, he would've been OK with it too.

I welcome critical analysis but the write-up reminds me of what Shiv always says - we're over critical of ourselves while always willing to give benefit of doubt to others. Adjusting even for their follies or absolute blunders with much lesser explanations.

But in our own case, we can never be good enough.

The language is absolute bummer for me in an otherwise good book.

Sample - PAF gets high praise for going after F-16 and only the best version of F-16 and rejecting all other offers; from A-7 Corsair to F-5G/F-20. While IAF purchases are comparatively 'CAVALIER' (actual word) in nature and lacking serious planning. And while PAF always goes for quality, IAF goes for quantity.

I mean, seriously?

The little fact that in Pakistan Services control acquisition is lost on authors. That if IAF had its way, Mirage-2000 would've been manufactured in India. That IAF does not control the decision making.

There are other serious issues I've with the way IAF's war fighting effort in 1965 or 71 is described.

I expect Indian authors to do better.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2017 22:14

rohitvats: i agree with everything you have said, with the exception of the Mirage 2000s. The decision to not pursue any more M2Ks was the decision of the Govt of India and not the IAF. I do believe - unless evidence exists otherwise - that the IAF would have preferred the M2K over the MiG-29. Decision Making - contrary to the services' wishes - happens quite often.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jan 2017 23:06

Rakesh wrote:rohitvats: i agree with everything you have said, with the exception of the Mirage 2000s. The decision to not pursue any more M2Ks was the decision of the Govt of India and not the IAF. I do believe - unless evidence exists otherwise - that the IAF would have preferred the MiG-29 over the M2K. Decision Making - contrary to the services' wishes - happens quite often.

I don't know what conveyed the impression that IAF was behind the decision to not pursue M2K decision. I actually meant the opposite.

Basically, the best of military plans get sacrificed at political decision making, even it these decisions make no sense.

On Mirage, IAF was with GOI all the way. Remember, it was a hot-rod just out of development then and entered service with French AF in 84. Our Mirages followed almost in parallel. It was a pretty bold decision to agree to produce this new fighter. The initial contract was for 40 fighters directly from France and with option for 110 to be built by HAL.

Imagine, IAF equipped with 150+ Mirage-2000 aircraft!

As for Mig-29, there were multiple factors with cost being one. Mig-29 was coming at half of Mirage-2000 cost. Also, IAF did like Mig-29 because it allowed them to take on F-16 in combat. But I'm sure that even with limited Mig-29 trial evaluation sorties, IAF would've known that Mig-29 was no mud-mover. I don't think it was Mig-29 versus Mirage-2000 argument. Except, in terms of cost.

120 Mig-29 for AD role would've covered most of the areas; Between Mirage-2000 and Mig-29, IAF would've retired large part of old Mi-21 fleet, there would've been tech transfer for LCA and we would not be the rut we're today.

But for logical decision making!!!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2017 23:09

150+ Mirage 2000s....I can only imagine. Agree with you 100%

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Jan 2017 01:10

I don't know if we can blame the govt. entirely for the M2k-Mig-29 fiasco. M2k's were expensive and we were in dire economic straits during those days and suddenly here come the Russians offering an equally good fighter at half the price. The eventual problems with maintenance and serviceability weren't known at the time. It was a difficult decision. The govt. has messed up with much easier ones. Even then an assembly line for one of them might have been eventually set up. But the 1991 economic crisis put paid to all that. I also believe that the Su-30 deal may not have happened if we had been manufacturing M2ks or Mig-29s in the 90's.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jan 2017 03:13

Rohit, Admiral,

I have never read of IAF pushing for more Mirages till 2001. Hence I would like to know about the same. Please point me to your sources.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 04:36

Indranil, The original buy of 40 was to be followed by mfg in India. GOI paid for the TOT already*. It got put on shelf after the payment for reasons unknown to date. Some say the MIG-29s were offered but they are different mission than the Mirages.

The 90s economic crisis was another reason.

the infamous BCCI was the initial financier for the Mirage buy!!!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 04:37

INTERMEDIATE JET TRAINER (IJT)
A total of 57 flights was carried out during FY 2015-16. The cumulative number of flights completed so far is 1062. During the year Spin test Phase I Part 1 completed successfully and two Limited Series Production aircraft were produced.

Where are these two IJTs?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Jan 2017 04:44

ramana wrote:Indranil, The original buy of 40 was to be followed by mfg in India. GOI paid for the TOT already*. It got put on shelf after the payment for reasons unknown to date. Some say the MIG-29s were offered but they are different mission than the Mirages.

The 90s economic crisis was another reason.

Ramana garu, what mission would that be? The initial M2k buy was a direct reaction to the acquisition of the F-16s by Pak. At least that was my understanding till now. I don't think the M2k was selected because of its multi-role credentials at the time, although the IAF came to appreciate that later. The main reason was as a counter to Pak's F-16s, a role which the Mig-29 could perform equally well at a lower upfront price. The initial buys of both aircraft may also have been due to hedging our bets since these aircraft were very new and their true capabilities vis a vis the F-16 weren't fully known.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 04:53

I guess you are right. I was thinking of the multi-role for Mirage vs fighter plane for MIG-29.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Jan 2017 07:03

Indranil: check this out...

India’s Vajras turns 30 this year
http://idrw.org/indias-vajras-turns-30-this-year/

...and original Mirage 2000 contract with France had factored in the license to build 110 more Mirage-2000s by HAL in India. Gwalior airbase which housed IAF’s Mirage-2000s already had the base capability to handle 80 Mirages, but government and India air force were still in dilemma over purchase of additional Mirage-2000 since it still was an expensive jet to fly and maintain, but there was no doubt on its potential capability to take on F-16s, India almost exercised the option to buy more Mirage-2000s, but then soviets came calling.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Jan 2017 12:51

The outgoing ACM has clearly spelt out the IAF's need."200+ Rafale type med sized aircraft.Then ,as I've just said in the single-engined td.,why are we doing Boeing (as it now looks) a favour" The F-16 was rejected for the MMRCA role.Since the LCA is exceptionally slow (pardon the pun) in delivery,and Chinese stealth birds to be in service come 2020,what justification is there for a "back to the future" policy for the F-16? It is a ludicrous exercise that we're undertaking where after the IAF's needs not a cat or dog in the world will buy an Indian built F-16,having retired all their legacy F-16 birds and moved on to either the JSF or Gripen or to the Eurocanards .Other independent nations are buying Russian SU-30s,35s, and even new upgraded versions of the MIG-28 (Egypt and the RuAF).The Sino-Paki JF-17s are the only other light fighter which has promise of exports.

We seem to be bending over backwards and dropping our pants to get shafted by the US ,selling us a stale aging hag whose sell-by date is fast approaching.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jan 2017 16:06

Philip wrote: Then ,as I've just said in the single-engined td.,why are we doing Boeing (as it now looks) a favour"

Boeing is not being done a favor. If anything, by restricting the competition to a single engine aircraft Boeing is actually being forced out of the current single engined MRCA and will have to wait for yet another twin-engined competition where it will likely have to compete with an established, well liked aircraft in the Rafale which will have quite a few things in its favor given it would most likely be in service by the time that competition is decided upon.

If I were to guess I'd guess that they actually went into the weeds of the MMRCA analysis and saw the actual LCC of the F-16 and Gripen was quite a bit lower than the much heavier, complex and capable Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale and figured that this would be a good characteristic to have for a 'quantity' purchase of a foreign designed MRCA.

Acquiring the Rafale in high quantity is most likely not economically feasible concurrent to various indegenous projects (AMCA, AURA etc) and other advanced developmental projects (PAKFA/FGFA) which to me suggests that they have taken a practical approach and will field a two-tiered MRCA force comprising of higher end Rafale's and lower end single engined aircraft. Still short-cited given the LCA-MK2 could have filled some of this role but this is the way I read it. I expect this program to eventually field significant amounts of Gripen or Vipers and the IAF then acquiring another few dozen Rafale's to finally complete the MMRCA requirement.

Secondly, Su-30/35 is not medium MRCA's but heavy fighter. The MiG-29 is a medium sized aircraft and it is just as old as the F-16 and it's current version (MiG-35) is just undergoing state trials while comparatively the F-16++ has had multiple versions fielded, up in the air or in testing for quite some time now. F-16 I's, and F-16 Blk. 60's are operational with many advanced systems and sub-systems, and USAF's CAPES requirement mission systems in the new radar, and mission computers are already flying on the F-16V and do not require any customer furnished integration.

You also have Israeli Electronic Warfare / Self-Protection suite solutions already integrated for the F-16 if one wants to go down that path. Israel is on a 5 year upgrade path that ends in 2019/2020 that upgrades the F-16I's Electronic warfare capability so this is something the IAF can really piggy back on. You could literally create an MKI version of the F-16 using US, Israeli and European suppliers without having to spend much (if anything at all) to integrate and test.

Israeli aerospace companies are heavily engaged in advanced fighter aircraft sensor technology. Probably the most integrated architecture currently in development is that for the 102 Lockheed Martin-built F-16I aircraft that the Israel Defence Force/Air Force (IDF/AF) is acquiring under the US$4.5 billion Peace Marble V program.

Key Israeli firms involved in this are Elisra Electronic Systems (prime contractor for the ASPS advanced integrated electronic warfare suite) and Elbit Systems (supplying the central mission computer, advanced display processor, the new-generation DASH IV Display and Sight Helmet system, stores-management systems and other avionics.

Elisra's ASPS suite (picture above) includes Raytheon sub-systems and reportedly is also being considered for retrofit to the rest of Israel's current F-16 force. Another ASPS prospect is the Hellenic Air Force program for 60 F-16C/D Block 52+ fighters.

On board the F-16I, the ASPS will include a passive self-protection and situation awareness system (SPS), an active self-protection jammer (SPJ) and the PAWS 2 infrared staring focal plane array-based missile warning system, all fully integrated into a suite.

Lastly, this may not be what the IAF has in mind but the F-16 is one of the initial UAI platforms something that covers A2G munitions for now, but is expected to cover A2A weapons and even Pods in the coming years and phases.

UAI or Universal Armament Interface is a "USB" like standard for weapons development and integration that makes any UAI compliant weapon plug and play with an aircraft that has been upgraded to support that standard. If you design a UAI weapon all you need to do is test out separation and carriage and this shortens new-weapon integration down to weeks from months to years.

Newer weapons like the SDB I & II, Norwegian JSM, Turkish SOM and even French munitions are being designed around UAI compliance for it offers a low cost approach when it comes to integrating with multiple UAI compliant fighters. The F-16 will have full UAI capability even ahead of the F-35.

As an example, see THIS. The french, using UAI were able to integrate the AASM on the F-16 without waiting for an actual customer to show interest or fund integration. The trick was to design around the Nato UAI standard and reduce overall integration and testing cost. Another example is the USAF B-1B - LRASM integration which they managed to complete even before the development of the weapon was completed thanks to the UAI standard.

The only other 4th generation + option remains the Gripen-E, which while technologically advanced does not really include any significant technology that one cannot pipe into the F-16 off the shelf (R&D paid for by OEM or another operator) if one wants to kit out the MRCA's to be the most expensive of their type. The Gripen-E is also likely to be more expensive given its "three continent" production strategy and given the relatively small order size. It is also not as mature with the first aircraft not even having flown yet. Do not expect the first Brazilian squadron to IOC with the Gripen-E till at least the 2023-2025 time-frame.

The only other 'western' option is the F-35A, but that is unlikely to include TOT, licensed production, and provide rapid 'numbers' at a similar price point to the F-16 since both the US and LMA are likely to demand a premium for parting with the industrial work and technology on their latest aircraft just as the Russians are most likely doing with the FGFA delay.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Jan 2017 16:11

the deal to buy the qatari m2k's also fell through for non-specific reasons, but mostly i suspect to do with financing
that would have been an useful purchase

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 04 Jan 2017 16:54

Lalmohan wrote:the deal to buy the qatari m2k's also fell through for non-specific reasons, but mostly i suspect to do with financing
that would have been an useful purchase

Again, BCCI!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Jan 2017 20:04

Marten: What did BCCI do to scuttle the Qatari deal?

brar_w: thank you for the informative post. Just one question. What is your opinion if it comes down to an engine choice? The Gripen E flies a derivative of the F414 turbofan.

Seeing how derivatives of the F-404 is used on the Tejas and Gripen C/D, the F414-GE-INS6 planned to be used on the Tejas Mk 2, the F414G used on the prototype of the Gripen E and the F414 envisioned to be used on the AMCA...what chances does Gripen really have?

Does General Electric have any greater stake in who wins - Lockheed Martin or Saab? GE engines are used on both aircraft.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jan 2017 20:15

Rakesh wrote:Marten: What did BCCI do to scuttle the Qatari deal?

brar_w: thank you for the informative post. Just one question. What is your opinion if it comes down to an engine choice? The Gripen E flies a derivative of the F414 turbofan.

Seeing how derivatives of the F-404 is used on the Tejas and Gripen C/D, the F414-GE-INS6 planned to be used on the Tejas Mk 2, the F414G used on the prototype of the Gripen E and the F414 envisioned to be used on the AMCA...what chances does Gripen really have?

Does General Electric have any greater stake in who wins - Lockheed Martin or Saab? GE engines are used on both aircraft.

Honestly, I cannot really say. Both these aircraft are going to come with US technology so no aircraft offers a complete *non-US* solution. As NRao points out in his analysis, the engine technology agreements are likely to be strategic in nature and although connected to the aircraft deal are most likely going to be separate from the aircraft being acquired in terms of what technology is provided.

Think of this as the US allowing GE to offer technology for critical components of the F414 for a JV or domestic production of its enhanced variants for the AMCA. India gets TOT assurances and production for an advanced GE-F414 tailored to its requirements that it can then use on the AMCA or even deeper partnership under DTTI to develop something even more indigenous. I really can't comment on how this will go down but I certainly see this as one path this can take, since "Strategic Partnership" is being thrown around.

Of course none of this is even possible with the Gripen since SAAB relies on GE for its engine.

As to who GE prefers? They offer propulsion for both the F-16 and the SAAB Gripen. A large portion of the USAF F-16C fleet is powered by GE, and the latest variant exported to the UAE Desert Falcons is the highest power engine yet put on an F-16.

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... GE-132.pdf

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Jan 2017 20:20

Thanks again brar_w.

If the engine technology agreements are likely to be strategic in nature and although connected to the aircraft deal are most likely going to be separate from the aircraft being acquired in terms of what technology is provided, then my next question is can Lockheed Martin prove that the F-16 has viable upgradability (electronics, weapons, etc) which exceeds future Gripen tranches?

How valuable, viable or potent will be the F-16 be (let say in 2040) vis-a-vis the Gripen, seeing the former was designed in the 70s while the latter came much later.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Jan 2017 20:26

then my next question is can Lockheed Martin prove that the F-16 has viable upgradability (electronics, weapons, etc) which exceeds future Gripen tranches?

Upgradability for both is tied to the physical limits of the design. Can the F-16 have its mission systems swapped out and replaced by newer ones or have existing ones upgraded? Sure. The IDF is doing that with the SUFA's as we speak, particularly in the Electronic Warfare and self protection side. Same with the radar - Lockheed just put a second AESA radar on the aircraft in the AN/APG-83, and there is a Raytheon and Elta option available as well.

Same with IRST where you could go with a small aperture navigation setup in the nose or a medium or large aperture full fledged IRST as a permanent pod mounted setup on the fuselage. Here too you have a European or US option to choose from which ironically is the same as that on the Gripen-E. The IR-MAWS on the F-16I can be the exact same one that is on the Gripen-E.

Can it grow to add even more capability that the current version cannot support? That is going to be tough since there is a path to get there but that involves either the F-16U or F-16 XL design configuration that adds space, weight and size to accommodate further growth, however the Gripen-E will be limited by same Size_Weight_and_Power constraints (SWaP) as well given that it is even smaller.

On the weapons side the F-16 already offers much greater diversity. AMRAAM, Aim-9X, Python, and Derby (I think IRIS-T and ASRAAM should be easy as well) plus whatever replaces the AMRAAM and if the Meteor consortium decides to wake up and push through integration faster on its existing platforms (Full intergation on Gripen plus Rafale and Typhoon) then maybe they would want to compete in the market as well. On the A2G munutions side there is really no comparison..The F-16 is cleared for each and every future US and NATO weapon designed with UAI..Gripen so far has not adopted the interface. In addition to that, Most of Israeli PGM's are covered. The F-16 will have long range cruise missile capability in the JASSM, JASSM-ER, and JSM all three of which are not possible on the Gripen-E.

How valuable, viable or potent will be the F-16 be (let say in 2040) vis-a-vis the Gripen, seeing the former was designed in the 70s while the latter came much later

They'll both be tier-2 weapon haulers at that point. Let me put it this way, there isn't a mission system onboard the Gripen-E that can't get into the F-16. Upgradability depends upon how many customers exist and how many OEM's develop products so that you do not have to pay someone to design and integrate. I'm hoping that the IAF/MOD will by 2040 have full control over either of the aircraft much the way Israel has with most critical sub-systems on their SUFAs.

Using a lot of Israeli sub-systems on a potential IN F-16 makes a lot of sense since Israel has much greater need to constantly upgrade its F-16 I's than the USAF or European customers. They developed a highly capable F-16 variant in the 2000s and are upgrading it this decade. I expect another major upgrade in the late 2020's on their SUFA's. Another advantage of the Israeili sub-systems which themselves use israeili and US components is that they are fully integrated and the new mission computer (Raytheon) offers full back compatibility with systems already integrated on the program. Yet another oneis that these systems have high commonality with the EW system on board the F-15SG and even Israeli Eagles so it's just not the F-16Is that need these to be upgraded periodically.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2017 23:25

Rakesh, I would kill off Saab by not buying Grippen. Enough small high priced Euro imports that India keeps sustaining since the 1950s.

I think RM wants to setup alternate a/c mfg lines to HAL.
HAL will still be DPSU but need to introduce private players.
So single engine and twin engine lines will be encouraged.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Jan 2017 00:01

IMHO to add to what brar is saying, the gripen...relatively newer design though it is, is rather under powered with empty weight hovering around 8t. That gives it a twr that is worse than the mirage 2000, which may put operational constraints. Otoh, the solah continues to maintain a twr that is competitive with even twin engined fighters despite all the added weight thanks to the newer engines.

It might not be able to win against twin engined heavies in terms of many criteria, but to my mind, it is remarkable that it is so competitive to begin with. The gripen doesn't come close.