MRCA News and Discussion

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 23 Mar 2010 05:31

the mig-35 was tested already because the Gripen has not yet undergone testing at Leh yet and the article clearly says that 4 out of the 5 already tested had problems. So gripen is the last leg and then testing is over. By the way, the first was the F-18, f-16, Rafale, mig, EF and then finally now Gripen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Mar 2010 07:39

The problem encountered does seem to be a correctable one and a fairly minor one at that. The political and technical capital far out weighs such a correctable issue. IF vendors of planes like the F-16 can go about to modify refueling plumbing, this is a very, very minor issue.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 23 Mar 2010 08:20

NRao wrote:The problem encountered does seem to be a correctable one and a fairly minor one at that. The political and technical capital far out weighs such a correctable issue. IF vendors of planes like the F-16 can go about to modify refueling plumbing, this is a very, very minor issue.

Agreed - as indicated in the article...."and the IAF had to ask the manufacturers to undertake modifications in the aircraft's fuel systems. "

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Mar 2010 09:28

NRao wrote:The problem encountered does seem to be a correctable one and a fairly minor one at that.

Wonder if they would need to be re-tested in Indian conditions after necessary modifications hav been done?
And as a matter of convenience, could the manifactureres be in a position to say that modifications would be done only if aircraft is seleceted?
Obvoiusly 1 craft fits the requirements to the T, without needing any modifications.. shouldn't that one be the natural winner? Or is it just to have more options to select from?? Could that manifacturer cry foul and say its the only one that fits the requirements?
Sorry too many random questions....

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 23 Mar 2010 09:54

Brahmananda wrote:the mig-35 was tested already.......

Hi, i'm not sure if the MiG-35 has tested yet.
I have friends in BLR who are tracking this.
They shot both the Teens, Rafale & EF ariving except Gripen & the MiG.
The Gripens have arrived now but nothing on the 35 yet.

All of the MRCA Contestants first arrival zone in India has been HAL Bangalore & they've gone onwards to do their thing from there (as far as i know).

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 23 Mar 2010 10:06

Philip wrote: The unexplained delay in pushing the LCA MK-2 engine decision indicates that other forces might be at play which want to scupper the project,or limit its relevance. A successful LCA with a more pwoerful MK-2 version,available at lower cost than from western established manufacturers,will pose a serious challenge to some of their export markets.

Possible.
Remember that UK did not give us the Adour engine for the HF 24 Marut.
RESULT : HF 24 remained a highly underpowered a/c and never really went into Mk2 / Mk 3.
RESULT : IAF bought Jaguars ( with Adour engines, of course !! )

A successful Arjun means that the export business of 1000 - 3000 tanks, and associated kickbacks, is lost to the arms merchants

K

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 23 Mar 2010 10:10

Altitude + cold might be what is the problem... difficult for the APU to take in air or something. I don't know.

Gripens operate at F 21 Lulea wing and this is the temp they get over a year. Look at Jan-Feb.. brrrr!

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 23 Mar 2010 13:04

well even the F-16 and f-18s operate in some sub zero temps. like in Eielson and Elmendorf AFBs Alaska where the average winter temp is below 30. I think the problem isn't the tempeture but the high altitude at Leh. How can the mig-35 not finished trails when they clearly say 4 out of the 5 have already faced problems and Gripen hasnt been to Leh yet. The trails are in their last leg and more or less or time. The IAF will send out its evaluation report by mid or end april, just when the current proposals becomes invalid, so i would expect shortlisting and sort of refining of their offers and price bids can begin.

With the SH slated to get a new higher thrust engine, i am sure it will be tested a lot if chosen. EF didnt fly with the AESA and even the Gripen didnt fly with the AESA, wonder if that goes against them. the Rafale and the teens are the only ones with operational AESA and the teens the only one which are fully operational combat proven. I think timing is also crucial will IAF choose to have an aircarft ASAP or can they wait a bit longer?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Mar 2010 13:56

Brahmananda wrote:well even the F-16 and f-18s operate in some sub zero temps. like in Eielson and Elmendorf AFBs Alaska

There are Eagles and Raptors based in Alaska. I haven't seen pictures of F-16s over Alaska or at Eielson and Elmendorf. They could be there though.
But what in God's name would USN F-18s be doing at USAF bases in Alaska?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Mar 2010 14:18

The ‘mother’ of all deals, however, is that for the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, reportedly worth almost $11 billion. Expectedly, therefore, all top six companies — America’s Boeing, France’s Dassault Aviation SA (Rafale), America’s Lockheed Martin Corporation (F-16), Russia’s MiG-35, Sweden’s Saab JAS-39 Gripen and the EADS’s Eurofighter Typhoon — are competing with one another to clinch the deal.

One can well guess what is there in store for the one ‘victor’ and the five ‘vanquished’ once the government of India chooses the type of aircraft for its air force from amongst the six players vying for the deal. There is every possibility of the closure of those plants that fail to get the Indian order, as conventional military hardware markets all over the world have shrunk dramatically. But India being a compulsive big-ticket buyer, all foreign sellers of fighters are camping in New Delhi to woo the potential mega customer.

Perhaps the smartest seller so far has been America’s Boeing Company. Reportedly, the Boeing is to reinvest $640 million in India as part of its offset obligations. But many questions remain unanswered — will the Boeing’s planned investment upgrade indigenous technology? Or will Boeing remain content with asking Indian entrepreneurs to manufacture and copy a few non-technical and non-sensitive inventories such as the fuselage, doors, windows, galleys and tyres? One is not too sure as yet because if Barack Obama’s recent utterances are to be considered, “outsourcing” is anathema to him. And offset programmes of the government of India might be interpreted by American hardliners as outsourcing.

Boeing, however, was reportedly always “confident of securing export orders and the US Navy had sought international partners to share development of P-8A.” American companies (especially Boeing), consider India to be an important market — “We are here for the long haul,” declared an official of the company.

From India’s perspective, however, some puzzles remain. Serious defects had occurred and recurred in the F/A-18 Super Hornet programme. This spells trouble both for India and the USA. If a high-tech aircraft sold to India is found defective, then India — which has till date never produced the likes of F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22 and F-35 — certainly cannot be expected to repair or replace an aircraft that even the Americans today find hard to maintain.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100323/j ... 247309.jsp

Whats he talking about? defects in the SH?? Any idea guys?

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 23 Mar 2010 14:45

nachiket wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:well even the F-16 and f-18s operate in some sub zero temps. like in Eielson and Elmendorf AFBs Alaska
There are Eagles and Raptors based in Alaska. I haven't seen pictures of F-16s over Alaska or at Eielson and Elmendorf. They could be there though.
But what in God's name would USN F-18s be doing at USAF bases in Alaska?

The F-18SH often go to Eielson and Elmendorf for Red flag style excercises, they aren't based there but they go there very frequently for large scale excercises. But dont knowif the Teens are a good choice. My ideal choice is the EF T-3, pay more and go for the best.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Mar 2010 14:46

The defects probably relate to metal fatigue problems rather than avionics /electronics.There was a recent report about some problems with early model F-18s.It is an acknowledged fact that Russian metallurgy is the best available.Western composite tech has seen an astonishing percentage of composites used in airframes,but this and stealth coating maintenance has been a bugbear from the dribble of information that one sees,which saw the early retirement of the first stealth fighter,the NightHawk.It is why Russian aircraft,though outwardly appear to be cruder in construction than their western counterparts are actually far more rugged and can take more abuse and punishment.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Mar 2010 14:48

Philip wrote:It is an acknowledged fact that Russian metallurgy is the best available.It is why Russian aircraft,though outwardly appear to be cruder in construction than their western counterparts are actually far more rugged and can take more abuse and punishment.

So how do you explain the fatigue and corrosion problems faced by RuAF Mig-29s?

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 23 Mar 2010 14:59

That article said Gripens has completed aerial refuling trials... that reminds me, how can the F-16 complete those trials when it's not ready for Probe and drogue refueling ?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Mar 2010 15:26

Philip wrote:The defects probably relate to metal fatigue problems rather than avionics /electronics.There was a recent report about some problems with early model F-18s.

Thanks Phillip!

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 23 Mar 2010 15:57

dorai wrote:That article said Gripens has completed aerial refuling trials... that reminds me, how can the F-16 complete those trials when it's not ready for Probe and drogue refueling ?

Dubai 09: Lockheed adds probe to F-16 to attract India

The new probe-and-drogue refuelling capability was demonstrated to Indian pilots during flight trials performed in September in India, said Rick Groesch, Lockheed's regional vice-president for Middle East international business development.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... india.html

Cheers....

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 23 Mar 2010 21:30

nitinm wrote:I have irrefutably a upper hand on this, being a soon to be PhD from a world leading university in Technology Strategy.

Mods - can I start a new dhaga on greatest, all time classic posts? Defined as anything which leads to a ban, or a new meme (Phoonk Sundari) or a new addition to the glossary (PhD in BS....)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Mar 2010 22:03

Mrinal wrote:L1 is a bane in defence procurement. I hope AC RK Dhir & team select the best of the lot, any one of which can meet all our needs.

Air Cmdr Rakesh Dhir was very intimately associated with the MiG-21UPG (Bison) upgrade program. At that time he was a Wing Cmdr and became the first CO of a Bison squadron, when he commanded No.3 Cobras squadron after returning from Russia on completion of the UPG development program.

Jagan may be able to comment on his interactions with Air Cmdr Rakesh Dhir when he covered them for the Bison article he wrote on BR.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Mar 2010 22:14

Philip wrote:It is why Russian aircraft,though outwardly appear to be cruder in construction than their western counterparts are actually far more rugged and can take more abuse and punishment.

Philip ji,

The "cruder" appearance vastly reduces the cost of jigs, tooling and ultimately leads to faster and more economical production.

The russians are the best in the world at what really matters. Show was never a part of their repertoire.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2010 22:32

The good ol L1 being applied in the MRCA is the most distressing news I have heard regarding the whole compettition. L1 has been the bane of whole of India leave alone the defense forces and not taking that means corruption allegations and petty politics.

Also, it almost certainly implies that Mig-35 wins as it satifies as it satisfies all initial RFP requirements and will most certainly be the cheapest.

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 23 Mar 2010 23:27

well i dont think so, the mig-35 wont be ready for full scale production before 2013 or 2014, so we wont get the first aircraft before 2015, i wonder if IAF can wait so long. Secondly is the AESA on the mig-35 operational? Russians are best in the world at what really matters? Could you please explain what really matters. when there are so many reports of over 1/2 our Russian missiles inventory being substandard and malfunctioning before service life. so far hundreds of migs have crashed in our own inventory, is frequent crashes what really matters? If malfunctioning weapons is really what matters, true Russians are indeed the best at it.

A mig buy is in my opinion the worst, i'd rather we buy the Gripen, it might be a bit more expensive but far better than the mig any given day. The gripen's operational costs are the lowest of the lot. mig also has the highest RCS of the lot. i dont think when they say cheap, they mean cheap at acquitision cost rather lowest life time cost, in that case Gripen Ng, F-16IN, SH are in the top.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Mar 2010 23:33

Philip wrote:The defects probably relate to metal fatigue problems rather than avionics /electronics.There was a recent report about some problems with early model F-18s.It is an acknowledged fact that Russian metallurgy is the best available.Western composite tech has seen an astonishing percentage of composites used in airframes,but this and stealth coating maintenance has been a bugbear from the dribble of information that one sees,which saw the early retirement of the first stealth fighter,the NightHawk.It is why Russian aircraft,though outwardly appear to be cruder in construction than their western counterparts are actually far more rugged and can take more abuse and punishment.

Metal fatigue issues are common to all fighters and even civilian aircraft that are used heavily. The F-15, F-16 and F-18 fleet of the USAF and USN have seen very heavy combat and operational usage, far more so than any Russian fighter in the past 2 decades. And operational use means carrying heavy drop tanks, weapons, bombs, pods, etc. and flying for several hours in a day itself thanks to availability of tankers. Over time, this will cause fatigue issues in any aircraft, be it Western or Russian. No need to claim that Russian metallurgy is miraculously better so it automatically avoids fatigue issues, otherwise I'll ask you to provide proof for such ridiculous claims.
And you first say metal fatigue, then go on to talk about extensive use of composites on Western fighters and how that has caused troubles, although there is very little evidence pointing to them as the sources of airframe fatigue issues. The longeron issue on the F-15 was purely metallic and the wing spar issues on the F-16s of some European air forces were all metallic as well.

BTW, I'd written an article talking about how poor maintenance and training of conscript airmen led to damage to MiG-29 composite parts as well. So again, PLEASE do not make it into a Western-vs-Russian thing. I know you hate the US, but this proclivity to drag this aspect into every post of yours is frankly getting very tiring.

The F-16s of the EU air forces that needed airframe strengtening during their MLUs were all past the 3000 hour airframe life mark. How many Russian fighters or fighter-bombers even last past that age? The fact is that most Russian aircraft are retired by the time they reach 3000 hours or so of service because they were designed from the start to last about that long as the Soviets would replace them easily after that. You can check the service TTL of the MiG-23s, MiG-27s, MiG-21s and MiG-29s. All are below or around 3000 hours. If you use them beyond that without carrying out adequate Fatigue testing and studies to check which parts fail at that point, you'll see catastrophic failures on them too.

the MiG-21Bis tested at NAL for accelerated fatigue testing, developed first cracks at the wing-body join bolts around the 3000 hour mark. This is the criteria that decided how long the IAF's MiG-21Bison fleet could last before having to be retired. Apparently no miraculous Russian metallurgical skill made it possible for it to last longer without developing cracks.

And if the Russians had the best metallurgical skills then they'd be impervious to corrosion wouldn't they? It is after all a metallurgical problem. But lo and behold, exposed MiG-29s left out and poorly covered ended up losing their fins due to corrosion troubles.

Whereas most Western fighters from the F-4 onwards have had service lives that are twice as long as those of Russian fighters which were cheaper to design, build, and consequently could be replaced faster. In IAF service of course its not true. With our procurement policies, each fighter needs to last 30-40 years before being replaced, otherwise it was replaced due to other issues such as lack of spares, etc.

As for your claim about Russian superiority in metallurgy, the claim rings hollow when you look at the MTBO and MTBF of Western and Russian engines. It was the Creep issue that plagues turbojets and turbofan components, which decided how long the MTBO, MTBF and total life of these hot section components and engine itself were. If the Russians were the best in this field then you wouldn't need to replace components and go for deep overhauls of Russian engines every 500-800 hours. Earlier generation engine times were even lower.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 24 Mar 2010 01:06

Kartik wrote:
As for your claim about Russian superiority in metallurgy, the claim rings hollow when you look at the MTBO and MTBF of Western and Russian engines. It was the Creep issue that plagues turbojets and turbofan components, which decided how long the MTBO, MTBF and total life of these hot section components and engine itself were. If the Russians were the best in this field then you wouldn't need to replace components and go for deep overhauls of Russian engines every 500-800 hours. Earlier generation engine times were even lower.

Kartik ji,

The deep overhaul of ruskie engines every 500-800 hours as you put it has more to to with the ruskie philosophy of engine design rather than superiority of metallurgy or lack of it thereof.

Their engines are purposely derated and perform very reliably with minimal trouble in the field and are maintained by absolutely uneducated conscripts who collectively work under highly vertically specialized supervisors.

Under these circumstances, its just the thel paani that keeps the engines going for almost the full rated life with very little maintenance. Their maintenance philosophy also calls for engine replacement rather than anything resembling even slightly complicated Di / DR.

These comments are applicable to the soviet era stuff but I suspect that things are not that very much different even now.

Western engines with 1200-1500 hours TBO are a real bitch to maintain in the field and really need a lot of TLC if they are to reach anywhere near their rated TBO. It's not often that these engines reach anywhere near the rated TBO. There are fairly frequent premature withdrawals. The maintenance crews have to be very clued up.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 24 Mar 2010 01:12

chetak wrote:
Western engines with 1200-1500 hours TBO are a real bitch to maintain in the field and really need a lot of TLC if they are to reach anywhere near their rated TBO. It's not often that these engines reach anywhere near the rated TBO. There are fairly frequent premature withdrawals. The maintenance crews have to be very clued up.

IIRC the IAF was in love with the Mirage-2000s ever since they were inducted. And that had as much to do with its ease of maintenance and availability of the aircraft (in contrast with the Mig-29s) as it had to do with its flying characteristics. If what you say was true, that wouldn't have been the case would it?

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 24 Mar 2010 03:19

neerajb wrote:
dorai wrote:That article said Gripens has completed aerial refuling trials... that reminds me, how can the F-16 complete those trials when it's not ready for Probe and drogue refueling ?

Dubai 09: Lockheed adds probe to F-16 to attract India

The new probe-and-drogue refuelling capability was demonstrated to Indian pilots during flight trials performed in September in India, said Rick Groesch, Lockheed's regional vice-president for Middle East international business development.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... india.html

Cheers....

Thanks!

So the F-16 must have CFTs to refuel...... forget about performance.

dorai · Post by **dorai** » 24 Mar 2010 04:54

Some of the signature reduction features on Gripen. Sorry if it is a repost.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Mar 2010 05:17

chetak wrote: Kartik ji,

The deep overhaul of ruskie engines every 500-800 hours as you put it has more to to with the ruskie philosophy of engine design rather than superiority of metallurgy or lack of it thereof.

Their engines are purposely derated and perform very reliably with minimal trouble in the field and are maintained by absolutely uneducated conscripts who collectively work under highly vertically specialized supervisors.

Under these circumstances, its just the thel paani that keeps the engines going for almost the full rated life with very little maintenance. Their maintenance philosophy also calls for engine replacement rather than anything resembling even slightly complicated Di / DR.

These comments are applicable to the soviet era stuff but I suspect that things are not that very much different even now.

Western engines with 1200-1500 hours TBO are a real bitch to maintain in the field and really need a lot of TLC if they are to reach anywhere near their rated TBO. It's not often that these engines reach anywhere near the rated TBO. There are fairly frequent premature withdrawals. The maintenance crews have to be very clued up.

agreed that it was a difference in philosophy. The Soviet/Russian mantra was always to keep it simple and keep costs lower. The Western mantra was always to silver-plate their equipment and let costs be a secondary criteria compared to percieved performance benefits. But my point was that there was no exceptional Soviet/Russian metallurgical technology that meant that they were not prone to the same issues that plague Western fighters. I took exception to Philip making it look like fatigue issues relating to hinges on the F-18, and other issues on the F-15 or F-16 point to some backwardness in metallurgy. There are other factors at play here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Mar 2010 10:57

Only as a FYI for those that consider the cost of MRCA to be expensive:

Economy to touch $2.5 tn in next 5 years: Sharma

Today the Indian GDP is about $1.2 trillion. So, he expects it to double in 5 years.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 24 Mar 2010 11:41

^^^Its mean our growth forecast is 14.4% for next five years.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Mar 2010 12:12

^^^ Even if we manage to double our GDP in the next 5 years or so , it is far more important to put the money where mouth is and spend it on people and infrastructure , rather then spending it on some shiny phoren toy.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 24 Mar 2010 12:58

That GDP growth rate INCLUDES inflation.

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Mar 2010 14:23

The deep overhaul of ruskie engines every 500-800 hours as you put it has more to to with the ruskie philosophy of engine design rather than superiority of metallurgy or lack of it ther

Russians were good with Titanium (they basically invested a lot in it). But generally with high temp materials, their material science /metallurgy was crap, despite all the adulation to The Rodina by Philip. That is part of the reason why Russian Gas Turbine engine tech was around 20 years behind the west as of 2000 or so.

Just check which one of the engines (home grown, without any western parts ) are ETOPS 120 capable, not to mention mention ETOPS 180 .

Also just check the T:W ratios and SFC for comparable engines, Western and Russian. Not for a reason, dont you find Russian planes in commercial services outside the Former SU or Turd World places like Cuba, No Korea and Iran.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 24 Mar 2010 16:03

regarding ETOPS, the russian TU-204 is approved.
if you check the wiki entry for ETOPS it is stated clearly that the TU-204 is certified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

However, the 204 is offered with both russian and RR engines and I could not find any information clearly stating which version is ETOPS certified so Vina may still be right

Brahmananda · Post by **Brahmananda** » 24 Mar 2010 16:13

I wont go into which side has better metallurgy and other stuff. But, isnt it true that Russian stuff is more expensive to operate over their life time? I also think per flight hour maintainance is also higher for our Russki beauties like mig-29, MKI, mig-27 and Bison. But its true that maintenance on western birds might be a bit cheaper and requires really well trained crews for optimal and effective maintenance.

The time on wing for Western engines is also higher and MTBF for things like radars and other avoinics is also higher. Whats the standard amount of usage for western bords like f-18SH, F-16s,
EFs, Rafale and gripen, how many hours do they fly per month? And how many hours do the russian fly per month? the amount of usage might give a better idea. The EF, rafale, SH and F-16 are said to have around 7 to 8 hours of maintainance per super sonic flight hour. No idea about the per super sonic hour of maintance time for russki bird, Wonder how much time does the Mki need?

Also what are the service lives of the weapons and the effect of flight carriage on them?

How come the Russian and even other weapons like Sea Eagles, etc started malfunctioning early in their service life? nothing against any of the sources just never understood the reasons for malfunctioning missiles. Is it excessive manuevering during flight, Yet the problems seems to be with missiles and not bombs, how come air launched bombs dont have such problems?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2010 16:25

Mirage 2000s needed air conditioned hangars and gold-plated maintenance procedure. Yes after all the infra was bought it was slightly cheaper than Mig 29s.

The Mig 29s were on the other hand, merrily parked in Lohegaon in the open even often enough.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Mar 2010 16:27

On ETOPS and Russian Engine

PS-90A2

The PS-90A2 is an advanced derivative of the PS-90A. It has a fair proportion of western components from France, Germany, Sweden and the USA. It is also lighter than PS-90A and features improved FADEC. All these improves the performance and reduce maintenance costs by 40%. Fuel consumption is on par with current western engines. Its noise levels are below the current regulatory requirements, making it the first Russian engine to be ETOPS-180 min rated. It is offered in newly built aircraft and is completely interchangeable with the PS-90A, allowing simple upgrades on present airliners.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 24 Mar 2010 17:40

Ok austin understood. The engine that powers the 204 is not full russian and it has a lot of western components. Thanks for finding that info so quickly.

Austin wrote:On ETOPS and Russian Engine

PS-90A2

The PS-90A2 is an advanced derivative of the PS-90A. It has a fair proportion of western components from France, Germany, Sweden and the USA. It is also lighter than PS-90A and features improved FADEC. All these improves the performance and reduce maintenance costs by 40%. Fuel consumption is on par with current western engines. Its noise levels are below the current regulatory requirements, making it the first Russian engine to be ETOPS-180 min rated. It is offered in newly built aircraft and is completely interchangeable with the PS-90A, allowing simple upgrades on present airliners.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 24 Mar 2010 18:16

I just have a bad sinking feeling.. if we dont go for the Gripen... the Pukis will at some point... considering its relatively cheaper and easier to use... all this tamasha gives them too a nice view at capabilities of these aircrafts, the mods the companies want to offer and the pricing strategies... I dont have a favorite yet... but Gripen is no. 2 for meh

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Mar 2010 18:29

Good point Savant .. Gripen can effectively neutralise any other contender in the MRCA trial.The main feature is of course it is much cheaper than others.Say against Indias 200 odd MRCAS, PAKIS with some big brothers help can throw in an equivalent number of Gripens hypothetically speaking of course and neutralize the ultra billions of Indian money for less than half the amount of American/Chinese "help".Point to remember that they already have swedish AEW&C.

vcsekhar · Post by **vcsekhar** » 24 Mar 2010 18:31

sawant wrote:I just have a bad sinking feeling.. if we dont go for the Gripen... the Pukis will at some point... considering its relatively cheaper and easier to use... all this tamasha gives them too a nice view at capabilities of these aircrafts, the mods the companies want to offer and the pricing strategies... I dont have a favorite yet... but Gripen is no. 2 for meh

Why will the pukis go for the gripen, they have the latest and greatest JF17 thunder!!!!

In any case, will they not have the whole LCA Vs Gripen debate that we had over here ? and why would the amerikhans help Pukistan spend american $$$ on swedish birds??