'Make in India' Single engined fighter

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Nov 2017 14:38

Philip wrote:Becos the SEF is also a deadly anti-ship /CBG weapon when used in Kamikaze mode!

I seriously proposed using our few hundreds of legacy MIGs as UAV/UCAVS some time ago.When we're trying to turn legacy Chetaks helps into UHs for the IN why not MIGs for the IAF?

Brar forgot to also mention the rail gun as a defensive/offensive weapon to be aboard USN warships post 2020.They can pour out at enormous speeds solid steel projectiles that due to their sheer kinetic power require no explosives to destroy any type of vessel or missile too if the early targeting and tracking is accurate.
I'm not sure how effective the first gen.lasers to come aboard warshilps are but I would still put my money on a sub attack more likely to cripple a cv.

He did mention EMRG. You are not reading his posts properly Philip saar.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Nov 2017 15:52

Yeah specifically EMRG and hypervelocity projectiles. It is the latter that the the USDODs SCO will first launch (over the next 1-2 years) against an incoming missile target using a conventional gun (M777A2 and MK45). Moreover, the second US rail gun program (being led by General Atomics) plans to use a smaller 10 MJ railgun and a different projectile against a cruise missile surrogate in 2018 as well. The primary railgun program itself (the one that is being led by BAE and caps out at around 32 MJ) is progressing well but it is designed for an offensive and defensive mission. A purely defensive EMRG system won't need to be as big or as capable and can therefore more easily fit on vessels that may not have the space, weight and power to accommodate the larger system. Also, the 150 kW directed energy weapon will be tested on a USN ship in the coming months as well. This will have 5 times the power of the prototype laser weapon currently deployed on the USS Ponce.

So like I said, just as offensive capability projected for the next decade and beyond is looking more and more lethal, the defensive capability is also improving including on the less talked about but critically important Electronic Attack side with arrays, decoys and jammers getting smaller and more lethal. But we have to be a little cautious in attributing mythical status to unproven weapon claims coming from the Chinese. As I had mentioned, the SM3 and SM6 constantly shoot down Ballistic Missiles all the way up to MRBM and IRBM classes. Then there are other improvements that will come in and provide excellent short to medium range capability against ballistic missile and cruise missile targets as well including ESSM Block II which just had its first set of launches and will IOC around 2020-2021. Recently, the USN even used an upgraded RAM (Blk. II) to take out a fast supersonic and sea-skimming GQM-163A. As one of the only known Navy's to have invested in a very fast, sea skimming/top, vertical attack, and terminal maneuver capable target (the first VFDR weapon system to become operational) the USN continues to push the boundaries and is seeking 2 additional targets, one in the supersonic, air launched domain and one in the surface launched hypersonic domain. Now we can put that up against the number of known Chinese tests of various active/semi-active interceptor performance against the DF-21 it would be nice. But to my knowledge, the weapon has yet to sink a single defended vessel on a ship.

How many ballistic missiles does china launch towards its ships? and how many interceptors does DF-21 evade during testing? Has a DF-21 actually sunk a defended at sea target at any range? What about all the other navies that do not have a multi-layered ballistic missile defense capability - are they toast against a Chinese Ballistic and cruise missile barrage? If so, why are they still building ships worth hundreds of millions including destroyers that touch or exceed a billion dollars?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Nov 2017 16:43

Apols for missing it.Tx for the details.I said when the test first were announced that we were at the cusp of a new RMA in maritime warfare. Surface combatants will now have to look back to a Sov. era FAC (M) during the Kruschev years ,which could submerge at will to escape detection and enemy fire and emerge from UW surprising its enemy lunching its missiles before preventive attack. This is why the sub is still the best bet for stealth and shock. Subs with heavy weaponloads of dozens of missiles and long range and endurance torpedoes,will be immune to rail guns and lasers and hope that their salvos of highly manoeuvrable missiles will see some sneak in.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 22 Nov 2017 02:30

The Indian Air Force’s Tyranny Of Arithmetic - Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

There is no way for production of the Tejas – even if it were to reach 16 aircraft per annum – to replace those thirteen squadrons. If the IAF is not desirous of accepting more Tejas Mk.1 squadrons– although a compelling argument could be made for the acceptance of three more to replace the non-upgraded MiG-27s and MiG-21M/bis – it means that it wishes to wait for the Mk.1A. This is yet to have its avionics selected – much less fly. This process must, of course be expedited but experience suggests that no more than 4 Mk.1A sqns are feasible by 2027. The suggestion of establishing production lines in the private sector has much merit but given the strategic partnerships already formed, this option may run into some difficulty.

This leaves a gap of nine squadrons to be filled. These numbers suggest that the SFE – some five squadrons worth – are an important path towards reaching the IAF’s desired strength by the stipulated date. Therefore, as much as the Tejas should be supported, the IAF cannot do without the SFE option to meet its targeted fleet strength. Once again, the practicality of production means that even if SFE production were to start between 2021 and 2022, no more than five squadrons could be produced by 2027.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Nov 2017 04:39

KrishnaK wrote:The Indian Air Force’s Tyranny Of Arithmetic - Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

There is no way for production of the Tejas – even if it were to reach 16 aircraft per annum – to replace those thirteen squadrons. If the IAF is not desirous of accepting more Tejas Mk.1 squadrons– although a compelling argument could be made for the acceptance of three more to replace the non-upgraded MiG-27s and MiG-21M/bis – it means that it wishes to wait for the Mk.1A. This is yet to have its avionics selected – much less fly. This process must, of course be expedited but experience suggests that no more than 4 Mk.1A sqns are feasible by 2027. The suggestion of establishing production lines in the private sector has much merit but given the strategic partnerships already formed, this option may run into some difficulty.

This leaves a gap of nine squadrons to be filled. These numbers suggest that the SFE – some five squadrons worth – are an important path towards reaching the IAF’s desired strength by the stipulated date. Therefore, as much as the Tejas should be supported, the IAF cannot do without the SFE option to meet its targeted fleet strength. Once again, the practicality of production means that even if SFE production were to start between 2021 and 2022, no more than five squadrons could be produced by 2027.

Only problem with his logic is the timeframe of the SFE. Who can predict when the SEF contract will be signed and for the production to begin? If you look at any of the major import arms contract by India over the last two-decades, the processes have been really long. Multiple governments change before a final decision is made.

What is certain at this point from domestic production pov are LCA Mk.1 and Su-30MKI. More firm orders need to be placed for the LCA and for the production to be ramped up beyond 16/year. Continue with the license production of Su-30MKI at 12/year until a suitable replacement can be produced.

Common sense approach in "desperate times" would be to keep acquiring whatever is being produced locally. They may not be "ideal" from planned force-mix but from the so-called "arithmetic" squadron numbers pov you get the planes to make up the quantities. At this juncture if India decides to shut-down Su-30MKI line and/or halt LCA Mk.1 line in the hope of some SEF (or other future acquisition or upgraded version), then we can't fault anyone else other than India herself.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2017 05:48

^^^ In addition, I am still figuring out how the author came to that conclusion. As per the IAF, the squadron strength currently stands at 33 - 34 squadrons and the ideal number is 42 squadrons, as per successive IAF Chiefs. From another article - dated 03 Nov 2017 - the same author lists the current number of squadrons (by aircraft type) and their corresponding squadron numbers. See below.

The Indian Air Force’s Declining Squadron Strength – Options and Challenges
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... hallenges/

MiG-29 - 3 Squadrons - Nos. 28, 47, 223
Mirage 2000 - 3 Squadrons - Nos. 1, 7, 9
MiG-21 Bison - 6 Squadrons - Nos. 3, 4, 21, 23, 32, 51
Su-30MKI - 11 Squadrons - Nos 2, 8, 15, 20, 24, 30, 31, 102, 106, 220, 221 + 3 more units to be formed
MiG-27UPG - 2 Squadrons - Nos 10, 29
MiG-27ML - 1 Squadrons - No 22
MiG-21Bis - 1 Squadron - No 26
MiG-21M/MF - 1 Squadron - No 37
Jaguar IS/IM - 6 Squadrons - Nos 5, 6, 14, 16, 27, 224
HAL Tejas - 1 Squadron - No 45

The author includes the Tejas in the above tally, but removes that squadron...as it not yet fully operational. If you click on the above link, you will see the author stating that. Removing that squadron from the list, makes the above 34 units. Fast forward a couple of years and this is "likely" where the IAF will be. I have removed the Tejas out of the mix (will get to that in a bit) and have dropped the MiG-27ML (one unit) and MiG-21bis (one unit) from the list.

3 MiG-29 Squadrons
3 Mirage 2000 Squadrons
16 Su-30MKI Squadrons*
6 Jaguar Squadrons
2 MiG-27UPG Squadrons
6 MiG-21 Bison Squadrons
2 Rafale Squadrons

*Now as per the author himself, three additional Rambha squadrons are to be formed. So from 11 squadrons NOW, it will rise to 14 squadrons. As announced by ACM Dhanoa on 08 Oct 2017, 40 more Rambhas are on order to bring the total of Su-30MKIs from 272 to 314 aircraft. That will further bring the Rambha squadron strength from 14 to 16 units.

The above comes to 38 squadrons. By mid 2025, the MiG-27UPG and the MiG-21Bison will be retired and that will leave a shortfall of 8 squadrons. However production of 40 Tejas Mk1 and 83 Mk1A will be complete by then. So at that point, the IAF strength will be:

3 MiG-29 Squadrons
3 Mirage 2000 Squadrons
16 Su-30MKI Squadrons
6 Jaguar Squadrons
2 Rafale Squadrons
7 Tejas Squadrons

The above comes to 37 squadrons, so that leaves a shortfall of five squadrons and this is where the SEF margin is. And that margin is the import lobby's main line of defense ---> that you can have Tejas and SEF co-existing together in the IAF. One does not endanger the other. One mitigates the risk for the other.

Now if a production run of 200 Tejas is planned (a number put forth by the import lobby themselves) - 11 squadrons - that actually negates the need for the SEF. You add another four Tejas squadrons - to the seven in the list above - and you are one squadron short of the magic number of 42. How can you fit SEF into the mix and still come to 42 squadrons? If you add another two Rafale squadrons - now 43 squadrons, so one squadron more - and how can you fit SEF into the mix and still come to 42 squadrons?

The only way SEF (minimum 100 air frames) and Tejas (200 air frames) can exist together, is if the IAF goes beyond the 42 squadron number. Exceeding that number is something even the IAF is not planning for in the near future, because as per ACM Dhanoa...the IAF will achieve the magic number of 42 only by 2032. Fifteen years from now. If it is going to take 15 years to achieve 42, how many more years will it take to exceed 42? Will SEF even be valid then?

Also, if these un-named sources who claimed that the Tejas needs escorts, has an endurance of only 59 minutes, worse than the MiG-21, etc, etc, etc..the question that remains is why is the IAF inducting such a platform in the first place? Would it not make better sense to stop Tejas production at 40 aircraft and just switch to the SEF onlee? No risk at all! Let Tejas be tech demonstrator and lets move to AMCA. And then can we can rinse-and-repeat the Tejas model all over again.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2017 07:57

‘Full transfer of tech in defence aviation is non-negotiable’
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 968794.ece

Keith Webster, Senior Vice-President (Defence and Aerospace), US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF), said while the Trump administration is excited about the $10-billion single-engine fighter jet deal, Lockheed Martin will not be going for full transfer of technology. In an interview with BusinessLine, he said if India decides to buy the F-16s, the first few planes will be bought off the shelf. Excerpts:

Q. How concerned is the US with the single-engine fighter jet deal not taking off yet? There are even reports now that India may not place the order at all.
A. The US government has invested an incredible amount of time partnering with Lockheed Martin for F-16 and Boeing for F-18s. If one or both do not happen that will be a very big splash of cold water on our industries because of the amount of seriousness we gave into this matter and because of government time invested across multiple agencies. And this has happened across both the Obama and Trump administrations. There had been no review of decisions, no conflict between ‘Make in India’ and ‘Make in America’. We have reconciled all of that.

Q. Do you think the real sticking point is transfer of technology (ToT)? Is it overlapping with the FDI and ‘Strategic Partnership’ policies?
A. Part of FDI is a challenge because OEMs need to protect their names, be it Lockheed Martin or SAAB or Rosoboronexport. You not only want to have an investment decision but more importantly you want to have a commanding say in tactics, techniques and procedures specific to manufacturing, especially aviation. This is a very serious matter to protect the certifications. For the aviation sector, the 51 per cent FDI is more about processes for manufacturing and protecting the OEM brand than it is control over technology. I think those issues are reconcilable. The big issue is resources, the money to do it. L1 is going to get you make in India. You will have to buy it off the assembly line in Texas.

Q. So if India ever decides to buy F-16, the first ones will be bought off-the-shelf?
A. That is the requirement. Under the ‘Strategic Partnership’ model, 10-15 per cent can be procured from the OEM. So my understanding is, the way it will be structured is about 15-20 planes will be bought from the current production line and that will give you time to actually set up production in India and add capability to your forces.

Q. But what about full ToT because under the SP policy OEMs cannot have 51 per cent share even if the FDI policy allows it?
A. It will never be full ToT. It is not in the national interest or industry’s interest. Certain technologies are not transferable to anyone in the world. Billions of dollars are spent over decades to make military-grade engines and what makes military-grade engines unique in the world is hot-sectioned technology and codings and those are crown-jewel technologies. No one is going to hand that over. So anyone who says they will is not being honest. They will not.

Q. So how do you see a meeting ground in this with the Indian government because both Lockheed Martine and SAAB are competing for it?
A. I think there is a very rational understanding on what is reasonable and what is unreasonable and so the government has to decide which deal is the best deal. We are trying to meet the government’s expectation on ToT, not 100 per cent but ToT.

Q. Coming to geopolitics, how do you see the Quadrilateral — India, US, Australia and Japan — shaping up and augmenting ties between New Delhi and Washington D.C.?
A. We have been talking under the radar, quietly about multilateral partnerships. So for this to go public is a very big step to me. To me it symbolises a couple of things. There is now also a real recognition that the China issue is not going to go away. Theoretically speaking, we have a more emboldened China today than it was a month ago. There has not been any demonstrative behaviour. So now we have a more open conversation about the desire to explore a possibility of a quadrilateral. We, in US, are excited about it. From the perspective of democracies, the potential of a quadrilateral is huge. But there is a willingness to have public conversation, which was not there some years ago. I think it is necessary.

Q. But what is it that the Quadrilateral wants to achieve apart from sending signals to China obviously, which I believe the Malabar exercise has already been doing? What is the main objective of the Quadrilateral?
A. Initially it is about the optics, the messaging regardless of details behind it. Over time you could have a desire to see the four nations partnering in a non-operational way that is agreeable to enhance maritime domain awareness, which would be important to India considering the movements in the Indian Ocean.

Q. On the US defence foundational pacts, is America upset that despite granting ‘Major Defence Partner’ status, India has not yet signed the CISMOA and BECA?
A. There is discussion going on now on how to proceed with the remaining enabling agreements, as there are now called, to move forward. This way it works for both governments. Both sides are trying to identify how to creatively approach these agreements, just like what we did in LEMOA and also how proceed in the talks under the ‘Make in India’ programme. So we are kind of bundling it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Nov 2017 08:14

^^^

Q. But what about full ToT because under the SP policy OEMs cannot have 51 per cent share even if the FDI policy allows it?

A. It will never be full ToT. It is not in the national interest or industry’s interest. Certain technologies are not transferable to anyone in the world. Billions of dollars are spent over decades to make military-grade engines and what makes military-grade engines unique in the world is hot-sectioned technology and codings and those are crown-jewel technologies. No one is going to hand that over. So anyone who says they will is not being honest. They will not.

There you have it!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2017 08:30

srai: I am actually glad he said this. He spoke the truth. No one is going to give you engine tech. Or any valuable tech for that matter. It makes perfect business sense to do so.

Another classic example of Tom Foolery. See below...

Russia offers defence technology to India without any strings attached
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... eo/903614/

“When it comes to technology transfer, Russia really offers everything they have from the heart without any strings attached,” Deo said at an event to celebrate 70 years of diplomatic ties between India and Russia.

I am waiting for Philip Saar's analysis on the above.

P.S. Deo is Air Marshal Shirish Baban Deo, the current Vice Chief of Air Staff. I believe the Financial Express misquoted him. There is no way he could have made such a statement, when the facts state otherwise.

srai · Post by **srai** » 22 Nov 2017 09:00

^^^

Admiral Saab, These are no misquotes. There seems to be a genuine belief in the armed services that "full" ToT will be given by foreigners. Recently, there was an article in India Defense Review authored by an ex-IAF Group Captain praising the Gripen because they are offering full ToT

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Nov 2017 09:12

Rakesh wrote:srai: I am actually glad he said this. He spoke the truth. No one is going to give you engine tech. Or any valuable tech for that matter. It makes perfect business sense to do so.

Another classic example of Tom Foolery. See below...

Russia offers defence technology to India without any strings attached
http://www.financialexpress.com/india-n ... eo/903614/

“When it comes to technology transfer, Russia really offers everything they have from the heart without any strings attached,” Deo said at an event to celebrate 70 years of diplomatic ties between India and Russia.
I am waiting for Philip Saar's analysis on the above.

P.S. Deo is Air Marshal Shirish Baban Deo, the current Vice Chief of Air Staff. I believe the Financial Express misquoted him. There is no way he could have made such a statement, when the facts state otherwise.

Just out of curiosity.... What did the Russians do for the arihant? Did they share any enabling technology¿

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Nov 2017 12:00

Not being a recipient of Ru or for that matter ANY firang "aid",I cannot possibly comment,not knowing full facts.I can only say that one must compare what cutting edge tech we've recd. fro the Sovs./Ru and the West.But here there is a misconception,that we can absorb anything that either east or west gives us tech-wise. Our mil-industrial base is still maturing.Pvt. entities are only now getting into the groove as far as def. contracts are concerned.But there have been comments from both east and west OEMs,that HAL,etc.,cannot fully absorb some of the latest tech that we want and thereby cannot guarantee the quality of product.

I was just reckg.,to answer a Q put by Brar,reg. AESA radars for IAF aircraft,esp. Ru ones.from available info,both upgrades for the MIG-29 and M2K ,going on at the same time,never had an AESA radar request.The Q is why our Jags are to be the first IAF bird to get one.The 29UG comes with improved engines and an improved Zhuk-ME radar and improved cockpit and weaponry.All this at just around $8.5M per bird.In comparison the M2Ks cost $50M,yes,&50M for relatively the same improvements as with the MIG-29! This is around 5 times more,impossible to understand why such a heavy price was agreed upon. IN addition,one must remember that in all prev. exercises between the two,the MIG-20 bested the M2K every time (AM Masand in Vayu).Therefore one can only conclude that the IAF was satisfied with a non-AESA radar for both upgrades,when it would've been an easy job to get a a Thales radar.The Israeli Elta AESA radars too would'v been available but not reqd.One therefore supposes that other than the new aircraft in the pipeline like SU-57s,MIG-35s,etc.,Ru is happy with its exg. upgraded radars on its current fighters.There is also that additional cost factor too.One supposes that when upgrade time arrives,improvements of engines,radars,etc. will take place.

Another thought is that the IAF are happy to have so many types from diff. sources,making it difficult for the enemy to jam/use EW techniques against all of them them.We'll now have Israeli,Russian,French,desi (?) and possibly even Yanqui AESA radars in the future!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Nov 2017 15:49

Philip wrote:when it would've been an easy job to get a a Thales radar.

Could you point me to a Thales AESA radar that is developed, and flight tested on the Mirage 2000?

Philip wrote:.,Ru is happy with its exg. upgraded radars on its current fighters.

Does Russia, or the RuAF now decide on what radars the IAF desires and wants? As I had said, an AESA radar was a pretty important thing for the MMRCA, and even for the LCA given that a second radar is also being looked at (3 if you count the Uttam). On the M2K, no AESA was readily available and the same was also true for the MiG-29 upgrades or new acquisition (Navy). Despite Russian offer in 2007-08, during the MMRCA competition, no mature, operational AESA is yet fielded by any of their fighter to any of their customers.

We will likely have to wait till perhaps 2020 or beyond to see an operational MiG with an AESA radar. An AESA equipped flanker possibly well into the 2020s. It could very well be that the Su-57 becomes the first AESA equipped fighter in the RuAF depending upon when its serial production begins and when the first unit is actually fielded. That may be perfectly fine for the Russian Air Force and Navy but the point is/was that for these specific programs, the IAF demanded an AESA, and mission systems on offer was something it paid a close attention to.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Nov 2017 21:17

So, what is the general opinion on gripen vs solah? A cursory glance shows that solah has some advantages...
More payload, range with cft, hard points?, Thrust.
Gripen will have a better airframe design although it hardly seems to offer more advantages than a typical 4 gen setup, commonality with f414 if shornet if purchased and mk2 goes through, but that is a big if.

In terms of screwdriver giri, both should be on par and LM had more experience setting up faco lines.

In terms of cpfh, and tco gripen should be ahead though

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Nov 2017 21:24

The biggest advantage the F-16 has over the Gripen-E is going to be cost and the weapon types available, their cost, and the fact that a vast majority of them are already integrated with a few remaining being easily done via UAI. The Gripen-E is a more modern and overall a better light-medium fighter, but likely considerably more expensive aircraft once you factor in its long road ahead in its test program on route to full operational baseline capability.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Nov 2017 21:36

Hmm didn't take that into consideration.... But will these costs outweigh costs per flight hour, where the gripen will probly enjoy the advantage?

Another danger of the gripen is it's similarity to the LCA. The solah is a distinctly bigger bird.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Nov 2017 21:40

But will these costs outweigh costs per flight hour, where the gripen will probly enjoy the advantage?

Depends how you look at it. A lot of the advantage the Gripen claims is due to its smaller size, and more modern components that reduce manpower costs. For the western-users where O&S is driven heavily by manpower costs the difference begins to open up if you introduce more modern processes and systems that focus on that. Not sure how the salary differs b/w Indian and western AF personnel but the difference should be highly significant which will offset some of that O&S advantage (since other less variable costs then beginning impacting O&S and LCC much more). There will be fuel-burn advantage but it won't be this significant. A lot of the LCC has to do with mission systems, how they are sustained and modernized as well. But, it is entirely possible that the Gripen-E comes with lower O&S cost..but the difference is unlikely to be as stark as it may be for a western end-user.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Nov 2017 21:51

srai wrote:^^^

Admiral Saab, These are no misquotes. There seems to be a genuine belief in the armed services that "full" ToT will be given by foreigners. Recently, there was an article in India Defense Review authored by an ex-IAF Group Captain praising the Gripen because they are offering full ToT

Add to this the comments by some folks that Tejas or Arjun has imported components so how can it be called indigenous, and I wonder if there is a serious lacunae in terms of having some of our services decision makers understand how technology is developed, how expensive and time consuming it is to set up an entire industrial ecosystem, and how unrealistic their statements or plans are when they expect 100% indigenization, or 100% TOT. Furthermore, when they crib about some 20-30% of a local platform being imported but are ok with a 100% import thinking its systems will be completely TOT'ed to India.

Will · Post by **Will** » 22 Nov 2017 22:25

What one would like to know is what ToT is the SAAB capable of for the Gripen. For starters as it uses and American engine ToT for that is out of the question. Having said that if SAAB puts forward a proposal that would involve building a design team in India to make significant further enhancements as well as tying with academia, private and the govt sector in India for R&D it could be huge boost. Their proposal of building an eco system sounds tempting if they can deliver it. But then where does it leave the LCA. A primary stipulation for choosing the SE winner should be that the choosen party should help out with both the LCA MK 2 as well as the AMCA with concrete proposals on what they can offer and how.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Nov 2017 22:48

^^ The Indian idea that people will give ToT itself is wrong and is asking for others to take us for a ride. There is no such thing as ToT. Will Tweet that now to get it off my chest.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2017 23:11

Classic example of Saab's empty promises. Saab is saying the exact opposite of what Lockheed Martin is proposing. Anything to win a deal. Desperation. The engine is the GE F-414. What planet is Saab on?

Eyeing jet deal, Saab offers full tech transfer to India

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 754171.cms

Swedish defence giant Saab Group said today it would ensure "full" technology transfer of its Gripen-E fighter jet to India if the company gets the contract to supply a fleet of the single engine combat aircraft to Indian Air Force. The company also said it will build the world's most modern aerospace facility in India, besides creating a local supplier base of ancillary systems, if it wins the contract for which US defence major Lockheed Martin has emerged as a major contender.

"Saab is committed to full technology transfer to India in connection with Indian procurement of Gripen-E," Saab India Chairman Jan Widerstrom said. Eyeing the multi-billion dollar contract, Lockheed Martin has offered to set up a production line in India for its F-16 Block 70 fighter jets. In September, Saab and the Adani Group had announced a collaboration in defence manufacturing entailing billions of dollars of investment and said the joint venture would produce Gripen military jets in India if it wins the single-engine aircraft deal.

The Gripen-E, an advanced version of the Gripen C/D, is a light single-engine multirole fighter aircraft fitted with advanced avionics. "We will build the world's most modern aerospace facility and ecosystem in India. We will abide by the terms of the Strategic Partnership that would be set by the government for the single engine fighter aircraft programme and will undertake complete transfer of technology to the chosen joint venture partner," Widerstrom said in a statement.

His comments came as government is all set to start the process for procuring the fleet of single-engine fighters. The fighter jets will have to be produced jointly by a foreign aircraft maker along with an Indian company under the recently launched strategic partnership model which seeks to bring in high-end defence technology to India. The Saab said it will work with its Indian joint venture partners to ensure that transfer of technology takes place in a manner that it not only ensures transfer of technology but also complete capability.

It said the company sees a green field operation where it will train people in India and in Sweden to be able to design, develop, manufacture and maintain its operations in India. "There will be a lot of training in Sweden and in India, and industry-academia-government cooperation. In that way we can reach an indigenous capability to maintain, to sustain, to further develop Gripen in India," said the Saab India chief. He said, He said, "We will not simply move an assembly line. We will build development capability. We will design, produce, support, innovate in India."

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Nov 2017 23:26

See the title and read both interviews that NAYANIMA BASU did (this one below and one earlier with Lockheed Martin). If you were the IAF and the MoD, which one would pick? Despite the fact that Saab is providing empty promises.

‘Gripen will give India the freedom and power to safeguard its interests’
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/eco ... 969960.ece

Jan Widerström, Chairman, Saab India, believes that Gripen is the future for the Indian Air Force (IAF). In an exclusive interview with BusinessLine, Widerström said the Swedish defence giant was committed to the government’s ‘Make in India’ plan, including full transfer of technology and transforming their proposed India facility into a regional hub for Gripen warplanes. Excerpts:

Q. How optimistic are you about winning the single-engine fighter jet order for Gripen E?
We are confident that Gripen E meets the current and future needs of IAF with the additional advantage of being an aircraft that is at the start of its operational life. Gripen offers its customers a clear roadmap for future, effective and affordable air power. That is what sets it apart from any competitor. Gripen will give IAF the flexibility to tailor its response to the changing levels of threat, across the full range of defensive and offensive scenarios. Gripen will give India the freedom and power to act as required to safeguard its interests. We believe that India is in need for an aircraft like Gripen.

Q. What is your plan for Gripen E under the ‘Make in India’ programme for defence?
We have a blueprint for a comprehensive ‘Make in India’ programme, which will include the setting up of manufacturing and maintenance facilities; transfer of state-of-the-art technology; setting up of an aerospace ecosystem in India; creation of a local supplier base of ancillary systems; and employment of a well-trained Indian workforce. We will build the world’s most-modern aerospace facility and ecosystem in India.

Q. It seems that the issue of full transfer of technology (ToT) has become a stumbling block for the OEMs under the Strategic Partnership policy of India. What is your stand on this?
There is no issue on transfer of technology, and we will abide completely by the terms of the Strategic Partnership policy of India. We have always consistently communicated to the government that we will abide by the terms of the Strategic Partnership that would be set for the single-engine fighter aircraft programme, and will undertake transfer of technology to the chosen partners.

Q. Are you willing to go for 100 per cent ToT on Gripen E? So basically, NO.

Saab is fully committed to technology transfer to India in connection with the Indian procurement of Gripen E in accordance with the Strategic Partnership model.

Q. With more than 50 per cent of the components in Gripen E having American content, how difficult will it be for you to go for full ToT in terms of approval?
There is no difficulty. When we talk about full ToT, we are talking about enabling transfer through the value chain, including all our suppliers. In fact, recently, we have started the process of enabling Gripen’s major suppliers, including the American firms, to meet with potential Indian partners. We see the transfer of technology as a seamless process between ourselves and our supplier partners.

Q. It seems that the Defence Ministry is having a re-think on the single-engine fighter jet deal …
We are not aware of any such re-think. India has a large requirement of fighter aircraft. There is a significant gap between current numbers of operational aircraft and the objective, plus a large number of fighter aircraft will be retiring from service in the next 10 years. The former defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, had said that India would have 120 operational Tejas aircraft in 2025, but this number alone is not enough to satisfy the shortfall. The only way forward is the acquisition of single engine aircraft after accounting for Tejas, Rafale and other fighters already under contract.

Q. IAF has made it clear that they will need the single-engine fighter jets over and above the Tejas LCA [Light Combat Aircraft]. Does it come as a glimmer of hope to you?
We see Gripen as a complement to LCA. India has a large requirement for fighter aircraft. The Tejas is on its way to induction, and as we understand the Air Force’s fighter requirements, India requires a mix of fighter aircraft to meet requirements and numbers that cannot be met by Tejas alone. It has built the foundation for India’s aerospace industrial development in the last couple of decades. Gripen will not replace LCA – it will built on that foundation – and take it to somewhere new. There will be a wave of future technologies, some of them developed in India, that will be integrated into India’s fighter platforms, led by Made-in-India Gripen aircraft. This will be the next generation of aerospace development in India. There will be shared technologies between Gripen and LCA, with common resources, the same suppliers in many cases. Both LCA and Gripen will gain from this. India has a vision to export LCAs to friendly nations. Our view of India’s aerospace industry development will enable Indian suppliers to scale up to meet this vision. And that is the Swedish view of partnership.

Q. How do you plan to make India into an export hub for Gripen E?
Our India facility will act as a regional hub for Saab, and will produce aircraft for export to the world in the coming decades. Our Indian suppliers will also become an integral part of our global supply chain.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2017 18:52

With the US firmly saying "NO" to full TOT,the Swedes are assuring us of the "Full Morten"! From its track record we know that thye will deliver just as they did with the blueprints for the Bofors gun,which we are now building a more powerful modified version.

However,there is one grave danger to derailing the entire SEF progr. That of the "single vendor" mantra/clause of the MOD.In the past,some OEMs which tendered originally,well-knowing that they would lose,pulled out at the last minute scuttling the rival poised to win! Instead of going ahead and bargaining with the "last man standing",such situs asininely saw the MOD cancel the tender and later on restart the entire process! The GOI should take the viewpoint that once parties have tendered the contest is not a single-vendor situ and even if parties drop out,it won't affect the winner,with whom negotiations/bargaining can take place,similarly with G-to-G orders. This will have a double-barrelled effect; preventing parties from trying to scuttle their rivals chances by trickery,and saving much time and money for the MOD/GOI and services in speeding up acquisitions.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/While ... pen-444674

While US says No, SAAB offers full tech-transfer to India for Gripen
Thursday, November 23, 2017
By: ET
Swedish defence giant Saab Group said today it would ensure "full" technology transfer of its Gripen-E fighter jet to India if the company gets the contract to supply a fleet of the single engine combat aircraft to Indian Air Force.

The company also said it will build the world's most modern aerospace facility in India, besides creating a local supplier base of ancillary systems, if it wins the contract for which US defence major Lockheed Martin has emerged as a major contender.

"Saab is committed to full technology transfer to India in connection with Indian procurement of Gripen-E," Saab India Chairman Jan Widerstrom said.

Eyeing the multi-billion dollar contract, Lockheed Martin has offered to set up a production line in India for its F-16 Block 70 fighter jets.

In September, Saab and the Adani Group had announced a collaboration in defence manufacturing entailing billions of dollars of investment and said the joint venture would produce Gripen military jets in India if it wins the single-engine aircraft deal.

The Gripen-E, an advanced version of the Gripen C/D, is a light single-engine multirole fighter aircraft fitted with advanced avionics.

"We will build the world's most modern aerospace facility and ecosystem in India. We will abide by the terms of the Strategic Partnership that would be set by the government for the single engine fighter aircraft programme and will undertake complete transfer of technology to the chosen joint venture partner," Widerstrom said in a statement.

His comments came as government is all set to start the process for procuring the fleet of single-engine fighters.

The fighter jets will have to be produced jointly by a foreign aircraft maker along with an Indian company under the recently launched strategic partnership model which seeks to bring in high-end defence technology to India.

The Saab said it will work with its Indian joint venture partners to ensure that transfer of technology takes place in a manner that it not only ensures transfer of technology but also complete capability.

It said the company sees a green field operation where it will train people in India and in Sweden to be able to design, develop, manufacture and maintain its operations in India.

"There will be a lot of training in Sweden and in India, and industry-academia-government cooperation. In that way we can reach an indigenous capability to maintain, to sustain, to further develop Gripen in India," said the Saab India chief.

He said, "We will not simply move an assembly line. We will build development capability. We will design, produce, support, innovate in India."

Will · Post by **Will** » 24 Nov 2017 21:59

https://theprint.in/2017/11/24/single-e ... questions/

Defence ministry is concerned about restricted competition, potential single vendor situation that could spark a scandal.

New Delhi: The air force’s single engine fighter procurement has hit an air pocket with the government raising questions on why the selection should be based on the number of engines and not technical capability of contending jets.

The air force has been facing probing questions from the top defence ministry bureaucracy that fears a potential single vendor situation given that the competition will be limited to only two global vendors. Both these vendors were rejected in an earlier round of procurement on grounds that they didn’t meet technical requirements.

The debate took off after the air force officially moved the single engine jet procurement under the new strategic partnerships model that would involve setting up a new fighter production line in India.

Sources have told ThePrint that the defence ministry is not yet convinced with the air force argument for breaking up its requirements into two parts – a new single engine jet line and a different double engine jet programme.

Here we go again. Did mention earlier that I have great faith in our system to derail the SE deal

Are they seriously thinking of starting "MMRCA Saga Mark II"?

Stop this farce. Order more Rafale's , buy a couple of sqns of F-35's off the shelf and just build the damn LCA Mk1a and MII and start full fledged work on the AMCA. For all the hot air about Make in India don't see one single proposal that will bring in the required capability. Only choice is to invest big in R&D and build our own stuff. If private sector wants a share of the pie they need to be willing to put in equal money to what the govt does in a project in return for assured orders. The emphasis should be on make in India. We deride Chinese military products but the amount they are investing in R&D and the way the reputation of their technical institutes is growing in 20 years time they will be just behind the US and what will we be doing? Still discussing which aircraft to buy in MMRCA Saga MKII.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Nov 2017 22:16

let's hope the above is true.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Nov 2017 22:19

Rakesh wrote:Classic example of Saab's empty promises. Saab is saying the exact opposite of what Lockheed Martin is proposing. Anything to win a deal. Desperation. The engine is the GE F-414. What planet is Saab on?

."

The one where they see GOI as total bakras.

Will · Post by **Will** » 24 Nov 2017 22:46

Karan M wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Classic example of Saab's empty promises. Saab is saying the exact opposite of what Lockheed Martin is proposing. Anything to win a deal. Desperation. The engine is the GE F-414. What planet is Saab on?

."
The one where they see GOI as total bakras.

More on that here https://sputniknews.com/military/201711 ... ssed-saab/ . Ofcourse its Sputnik but the article makes valid points.

"Unfortunately, Saab doesn't own much of the critical technology that goes into the Gripen-E. Saab does not even own up to 30 percent of the aircraft's key technologies including the propulsion system and the ASEA radar. It would be a really big deal if Saab conciliates other original technology developers to transfer technology to India; which seems unlikely," Vijainder K Thakur, former squadron leader of Indian Air Force told Sputnik.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Nov 2017 16:02

Karan M wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Classic example of Saab's empty promises. Saab is saying the exact opposite of what Lockheed Martin is proposing. Anything to win a deal. Desperation. The engine is the GE F-414. What planet is Saab on?

."
The one where they see GOI as total bakras.

GOI ain't a bakra. Then why this farce of a competition going on.

chola · Post by **chola** » 25 Nov 2017 16:12

Obviously, Saab can’t give “full” ToT when the Gripen flies with an US engine.

But it could be that we will get full use and control of the airframe? With the ability to build as many and in as many variants we like? That is worth considering. Not simple buys with local offsets which had been HAL’s traditional screwdriver giri where numbers and variants are capped barring re-negotiations.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Nov 2017 18:04

chola wrote:Obviously, Saab can’t give “full” ToT when the Gripen flies with an US engine.

But it could be that we will get full use and control of the airframe? With the ability to build as many and in as many variants we like? That is worth considering. Not simple buys with local offsets which had been HAL’s traditional screwdriver giri where numbers and variants are capped barring re-negotiations.

How is it different from what we can do with Tejas??

chola · Post by **chola** » 25 Nov 2017 18:28

Pratyush wrote:
chola wrote:Obviously, Saab can’t give “full” ToT when the Gripen flies with an US engine.

But it could be that we will get full use and control of the airframe? With the ability to build as many and in as many variants we like? That is worth considering. Not simple buys with local offsets which had been HAL’s traditional screwdriver giri where numbers and variants are capped barring re-negotiations.

How is it different from what we can do with Tejas??

The difference is we control more of the Tejas IP than we ever could for Gripen or any phoren fighter for that matter.

But Gripen comes from TFTA goris so much cooler to IAF? And Swedes are the fairest and most blondest of goris?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 25 Nov 2017 18:35

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Nov 2017 18:48

Said the same thing a few days ago,that the SEF deal could be derailed if one fighter pulls out.In such cases,the GOI should then like in any sporting match,declare a "walkover" and award the contest to the last man standing.Price negotiations another matter. This will also prevent some OEMs fielding their "dummy candidates" to derail the chances of an opponent.I mentioned earlier that sev. critically required systems were affected by this tactic.The "single vendor" clause should be rewritten so that one rivals enter the competition and advance to a particular stage,even if they later pull oyt the contest shall be considered as a multi-candidate contest.

Read this piece on the confusion about the SEF .
https://sputniknews.com/military/201711 ... -shortage/

India struggles to solve its fighter jet puzzle.

India, which intends to replace all of its Russian-made MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighter jets by 2024, is stuck in a difficult situation, as Lockheed Martin has denied total transfer of technology, SAAB itself lacks complete technology and local firm HAL is incapable of delivering at the required pace.
New Delhi (Sputnik) — In a rude shock to India, which has been preparing to issue a global tender for single-engine fighter jets, America's Lockheed Martin, considered a front-runner for the deal, has announced that it will not guarantee total transfer of technology if it is awarded the $10 billion contract. This has added to the woes of India's defense ministry that is already in the eye of a storm for failing to convince Dassault Aviation of France to transfer the technology for the multirole Rafale fighter aircraft.

"It will never be full transfer of technology. It is not in the national interest or industry's interest. Certain technologies are not transferable to anyone in the world," Keith Webster, senior vice-president of Defense and Aerospace, a US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF), said in an interview with The Hindu Business Line on Tuesday.

Indian Air Force’s Jaguar Still Performs Poorly After 20 Years, Says Auditor
The American F-16 and Swedish Gripen are the main contenders in the prospective deal of 114 fighter aircrafts, in which India intends to purchase 10 in flyaway condition, and the rest will be manufactured in India at a facility set up by the winning firm.
"Only a handful of aviation players have the main technologies in terms of radar, engines, stealth, EW systems, etc. India is the largest market and it is also an emerging power. No one would want India to become independent on this count," Air Marshal Anil Chopra (retired), a defense analyst told Sputnik.

Swedish SAAB has promised full technology transfer of its Gripen-E fighter. However, Gripen is not India's first choice as SAAB itself imports most of the components from elsewhere.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Nov 2017 19:15

Saab's Offer for Gripen-E With 100% ToT Leaves India UnimpressedCC0
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
17:20 23.11.2017
As India prepares to issue $10 billion global tender for fighter jets, Sweden’s Saab has offered 100% ToT of the Gripen-E. However, experts note that 70% of the technology is borrowed and it is unlikely that the proprietors would allow Sweden to transfer those to India.
New Delhi (Sputnik) — A day after America's Lockheed Martin expressed its unwillingness to share its closely guarded technology for F-16 fighter jets with India, Swedish firm Saab has offered complete technology transfer if India awards it the $10 billion contract for the single-engine fighter aircraft — Gripen-E.

"Saab is committed to full technology transfer to India in connection with Indian procurement of the Gripen-E. We will build the world's most modern aerospace facility and ecosystem in India. We will abide by the terms of the Strategic Partnership that will be set by the government for the single-engine fighter aircraft program and will undertake complete transfer of technology to the chosen joint venture partner," Jan Widerstrom, Chairman, Saab India said in a statement.

However, beyond the rhetoric, there is a catch.

"Unfortunately, Saab doesn't own much of the critical technology that goes into the Gripen-E. Saab does not even own up to 30 percent of the aircraft's key technologies including the propulsion system and the ASEA radar. It would be a really big deal if Saab conciliates other original technology developers to transfer technology to India; which seems unlikely," Vijainder K Thakur, former squadron leader of Indian Air Force told Sputnik.

srai · Post by **srai** » 25 Nov 2017 19:28

^^^

Again $10 billion budget for acquiring 110 foreign fighters inclusive of 100% ToT and everything else

Where is the reality folks?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Nov 2017 19:32

Going ,going ,gone...the SEF (gone for a 'Burton" what? ) and welcome back the ...MMRCA!

This report if true will make a mockery of our entire def. procurement plans and the reputation of the IAF as a clear thinking service will hit the deck.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/Rude- ... ets-454725

Rude Awakening for F-16, Gripen: India May Opt for Twin-Engine Fighter Jets
Saturday, November 25, 2017

The Indian Government wants to widen the scope for competition among global players by removing the “single engine” criteria to avert a controversy as only two manufacturers have so far expressed interest in the tender.

New Delhi (Sputnik) — India might do away with the engine criteria for the planned purchase of over a hundred fighter jets for its air force, widening the scope of competition among foreign vendors supplying both single-engine as well as double-engine fighter crafts.

Highly placed sources told Sputnik that India's defense ministry wants an open fighter jet contest like the earlier deal for medium multi-role combat aircraft wherein the main criteria would be the technical capabilities of the jet not the number of engines. The new development has come as a rude awakening to American Lockheed Martin and Swedish Saab who were keenly anticipating a tender specifically for single engine fighter jets making the F-16 and Gripen the front-runners in the $10 billion deal.

Last year in October, the Indian defense ministry had sent letters via Indian embassies to global manufacturers asking them whether they would set up a production line in India for a fleet of single-engine fighter jets in partnership with Indian firms. Responses were received from Lockheed Martin and Saab which offered to set up production lines in India for manufacturing the F-16 and Gripen respectively Now that the scope for twin-engine fighter jets is likely to be accommodated, the contract will witness a larger contest where twin-engine jets like the MiG-35, F-18 and Rafale could also participate.
"The government has not started any formal process for the proposed jet deal…not even finalized the request for information. The Indian Air Force always wanted a more capable fighter jet and if the government does away with the number of engine criteria then definitely twin-engine manufacturers will have the upper hand," Amit Cowshish, former financial advisor to the Indian defense ministry told Sputnik.

The 2007 medium multi-role combat aircraft contest, also based on capability and not the number of engines, had six fighter aircraft: Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, Mikoyan MiG-35, and Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Four years later in 2011, after detailed evaluation, the contest reduced the bidders to two fighters- Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale as others failed to meet the criteria.

"The Gripen and F-16 were not able to pass the technical criteria set out by the Indian Air Force in the 2007 MMRCA contest, this time they have likely to come up with better preparation to beat the technical parameters," Cowshish added.

Nevertheless, these developments have definitely dealt a blow to single-engine jet manufacturers that have already linked up with Indian partners and have even started deliberations with suppliers. Swedish defense and security firm Saab has linked up with India's Adani Group — a new entrant in the field of defense aerospace, while in June of this year, Lockheed Martin from the US had intended to join hands with India's Tata Advanced System to produce the F-16 Block 70 in India.

"The open competition without mentioning the number of engines may be the end of the road for single-engine jet makers as they are unlikely to compete with twin-engine jets," Cowshish said.

Earlier in October, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa had categorically stated that the emphasis on single-engine fighter jets was a cost-cutting attempt whereas the Indian Air Force actually desired twin-engine jets.

"Right now, we are concentrating on the single-engine so as to make up the numbers with lower cost. There is a requirement for twin-engine fighters down the road, but engines are "30% of the cost" of a twin, versus 10% of a single, " Dhanoa had said.

Is this "capability" factor meant to yet again underscore the Raffy as the best of the lot? Great tactic by the "R" co.,to derail much cheaper rivals and cement the deal for more Raffys!

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 25 Nov 2017 21:11

I think NaMo should call the EyeAyEff and EchAyEll and DeeArrDeeOh and AyDeeyah together, and do his usual thing starting with

Ram katha mat lao, get to the point

and ask:

1. Whyphor u r needing SEF other than LCA? Air superiority? Gori blondes? Baksheesh? Shiny phoren computer screen? Leather ejection seat?
2. Whyphor u need dubbal-injin DEF other than Su-30MKI/ successors which are already Made In India? How many saal will it take to get 100 of these deployed, and by then will these imports even be relevant?
3. Who makes engines for Su-30 MKI? (direct import or Made In India?) Corollary is obvious depending on answer.
4. Hu will supply injins for 1 & 2?
5. Hu will supply injins for LCA (hundredS, not 100) ?
6. Why will Make In India work at the required rate of production, for phoren imports but not for EllSeeYay or MCA derived from Su-30MKI / MiG lines?
7. Why can you not test and analyze and refine LCA and Su-30 derivatives like cheen has done to make all-100% India-jeenius MCA and LCA and trippal-injin also?

The Experts here who are impressed by Mach 1.1 SuperCruisers

may know the answers to the above, but to me they make no sense at all. It is

to hear IAF and HAL injuns talk grandiosely about singal-injin and dubbal-injin, when reality of Ijun design-production is shUnya-injin. In 50 years they have not implemented any solution to that basic issue.

The Kaveri Engine Saga thread at BRF is stuck, having finally come around to repeating stuff from 2010 per the Admins. Should say something, hain? Time for India to start listening to new ideas to get the Engine block cleared?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Nov 2017 21:43

Injins for Injuns What?

PS:This explains why Boeing suddenly dropped in with a full-press presentation for the SH.Touted as one bird both for the OAF ...sorry, IAF, and the IN too for the future carrier.Solution given to the small lift problem. on our two exg.CVs.It's called "lift".Lift the SH at an angle then it will fit in! SHs also come in at least $40M less than a Raffy,cements the Indo-US strat. relationship.Great attack from Boeing-Tata! However, the Raffy will argue that is is far superior and operating one type less easier for the IAF.
But watch out for the Bolshie bird who will attack ruthlessly pricewise.The game is now getting really interesting.Any sign of the Eurofarter too, desperate for sales?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Nov 2017 23:48

Philip wrote:Going ,going ,gone...the SEF (gone for a 'Burton" what? ) and welcome back the ...MMRCA!

This report if true will make a mockery of our entire def. procurement plans and the reputation of the IAF as a clear thinking service will hit the deck.

http://www.defencenews.in/article/Rude- ... ets-454725
Rude Awakening for F-16, Gripen: India May Opt for Twin-Engine Fighter Jets
Saturday, November 25, 2017

s!

All in all very good news for Tejas, if true. But frankly I just think it is Russian spin on the situation

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 26 Nov 2017 00:27

Cain Marko wrote:
All in all very good news for Tejas, if true. But frankly I just think it is Russian spin on the situation

I tend to agree with the later part. Russians are trying hard to push MiG35 somehow through the door. And its amply clear that Single Engine requirement was to keep MiG and EF out or it would have been MMRCA all over again. I think even if there is a TEF tender, it wont go to the Ruskies because clearly (IMO) IAF has had enough of Russian stuff.