MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[Christopher Sidor]

How would HAL/DRDO like the Gripen in IAF colours? Wouldn't they like to shoot it down so that the LCA can survive?! I think that this is the Gripen's greatest enemy in Indian territory,not any marauding Paki fighters.

I dont forsee HAL/DRDO/ADA shooting down grippen. LCA and grippen have much in common. Induction of any one of these fighters, into IAF fleet, might lead to lower cost for the other. And grippen is a very capable fighter.

The only downside w.r.t. grippen, is that we are not getting diversity that we need to have. Look at it this way Tejas, SU-30MKI and the future MCA/PAK-FA will be the main stay for IAF, non withstanding the massive and costly up gradation of Mirage and Mig-21 BISONs. Add EFT2000 and we get a potent mix.

Off course like F-16 and Mig-35, EFT-2000 is a dead end. There will not be a 5th generation EFT2000 any time. And there is no clear up gradation path to any fighter from EFT-2000.

But we should not forget the primary reason why we are going for this tender. It is because IAF is not satisfied that Tejas will be ready in the required numbers and with the required engine for service. So we need a fighter that can fill LCA shoes, till LCA is ready. Grippen is one of the closet fit as far as acquisition cost, running cost and in capabilities are concerned. In fact I can forsee Grippen becoming a Indo-Swedish baby, with a 5th generation fighter and a gas/turbine engine which is not dependent on the yanks or the squabbling europeans.

[GeorgeWelch]

few penny cents more and we would have bought eurojet and not GE...as per the final price put to table...and if they are equals, alright

Right, either the EJ or the GE would have met the requirements so might as well go for the cheapest.

But I'm not convinced the MiG-35 or Gripen-NG can meet the requirements because they still have a long road ahead of them.

And if they can't meet the requirements, what does it matter what their price is?

[Christopher Sidor]

It was rumored that one fighter did not make the cut and failed in the high altitude of Himalayas. Wonder it was Mig-35 or F-16 ?

[GeorgeWelch]

In fact I can forsee Grippen becoming a Indo-Swedish baby, with a 5th generation fighter and a gas/turbine engine which is not dependent on the yanks or the squabbling europeans.

The Gripen is probably the most vulnerable of all of them because the Swedes don't actually own that much of it except the airframe itself.

The engine is US, the radar is Italian, the missile is German, etc. It gives you more points of failure.

[Indranil]

^^^ George, this logic beats me! Our LCA is similar, engine - US, Radar - semi-Israel, missiles from multiple countries.

Modern day fighters are like that unless they come from US/Russia and to some extent France.

IMHO, this point of yours doesn't stand much ground.

[GeorgeWelch]

Modern day fighters are like that unless they come from US/Russia and to some extent France.

Who account for 4 of the 6 contenders.

IMHO, this point of yours doesn't stand much ground.

I don't think it's really an argument against the Gripen-NG. It certainly wouldn't bother me. It's just he was trying to use at as an argument FOR the Gripen-NG. And I definitely didn't see that.

[Indranil]

I don't think it's really an argument against the Gripen-NG. It certainly wouldn't bother me. It's just he was trying to use at as an argument FOR the Gripen-NG. And I definitely didn't see that.

Agreed

[Carl_T]

In fact I can forsee Grippen becoming a Indo-Swedish baby, with a 5th generation fighter and a gas/turbine engine which is not dependent on the yanks or the squabbling europeans.

The Gripen is probably the most vulnerable of all of them because the Swedes don't actually own that much of it except the airframe itself.

The engine is US, the radar is Italian, the missile is German, etc. It gives you more points of failure.

May as well not look at the EF then I guess?

[Karan M]

But we should not forget the primary reason why we are going for this tender. It is because IAF is not satisfied that Tejas will be ready in the required numbers and with the required engine for service. So we need a fighter that can fill LCA shoes, till LCA is ready. Grippen is one of the closet fit as far as acquisition cost, running cost and in capabilities are concerned. In fact I can forsee Grippen becoming a Indo-Swedish baby, with a 5th generation fighter and a gas/turbine engine which is not dependent on the yanks or the squabbling europeans.

Absolute rubbish to be honest. The IAF has long had a requirement for the MMRCA and it has nothing to do with the LCA, media reports apart. The M in MMRCA stands for medium and it is to replace the MiG-27 and 23 BN aircraft, and the oldest Jaguars. And now with the LCA MK2 in progress, the LCA getting into service, you speak of another foreign fighter being added to "fill the LCA shoes" till "LCA gets ready" and despite having our own plane and technology you now want an "Indo-swedish baby". If such bizarre thought processes were to be followed, so much for Indian aerospace policy. Talk about shooting down India's own interests.

^^^ George, this logic beats me! Our LCA is similar, engine - US, Radar - semi-Israel, missiles from multiple countries.

LCA is anything but similar if you look at the details. The indigenous content in the LCA is around 60-70% and India controls what IP goes into the fighter, and can pursue alternate suppliers, whereas the Gripen has a huge number of core systems from non swedish firms, across the United States and Europe.

And if tomorrow, these countries have political problems with India, the guarantees to India about ensuring supplies are not worth the paper they are written on. India has to run to the integrator who then has to run around trying to find alternatives. Good luck in doing that when so much in the plane bar the aerodynamics and structures is from third party vendors who are again subject to their own national laws.

In the LCA's case, the designers are in India, and they have a track record of overcoming sanctions & pursuing alternatives.

If we are not worried about sanctions anymore, buy American, buy the F/A-18 E/F with far more combat capability. If sanctions worry India so much, then the Rafale & EF are better alternatives, than the dubious Gripen NG.

[Indranil]

^^^ Karan sahab, you didn't get the intent of my post . We are on the same page.

[Philip]

Karan,barring the cost of the two twin-engined Eurocanards vs the Gripen.A former VCoAS told me that in his opinion,it would be prefereable to go in for a twin-engined fighter given the Indian scenario,bird strikes,heavier payload,range,etc. factors.If making up the numbers,acquiring western TOT,at the lowest cost is acceptable,then the Gripen if priced very competitively as against the two ehavier rivals,will stand a good chance.In any case,they are replacing a variety of single-engined fighters.The extra numbers of SU-30MKIs can pefform the heavier duties in a high-low mix just as the Swedes have argued.The LCA wil be in its own class,adding to numbers at lower cost indigenously manufactured.

[AnuragK]

Vishnu,I can't remember whether you flew the LCA as well.It would be most interesting to compare the LCA's flight characteristics with the Gripen,since they are so similar in size and role.The only Q mark about the Gripen is as to its payload/range factor,vis-a-vis the larger heavier twin-engined rivals when it comes to the strike role.What did Saab have to say about that?

The answers to your questions w.r.t. Gripen's payload, range, etc., viz-a-viz others is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition

See the table in the middle of the page.

[Pratyush]

Guys,

I have never understood the logic of MMRCA compitition. If the objective is to replace the Jajuar and the Mig 27. The LCA Mk 1offers a payload of 3.5 tons. This is identical to the Mig 27 and 20% less then the Jaguar. Then why go for a separate design/ Platform to replace the two. Why not use the LCA it self.

Also the LCA MK2 may be re-configured with a higher weapons load. As is being done with the Gripen NG. AFIK, the original Gripen had the same combat load as the LCA.

Similarly, if the objective is to meet the shortfall in numbers. Then please consider this. The first MMRCA will only enter service in 2013/14. Around the time the first of the LCA Mk1 are ending the production run.

Add to this the requirement that the MMRCA is to have full TOT and be made by HAL. If HAL is making the MMRCA then part of it capability is tied up. The same capability if not tied up with the MMRCA can be used to ramp up production of the LCA.

Now the members will jump in and say that we had only ordered 40 404s for the first batch. Ok, granted. How long will it take GE to start delivering engines for the LCA if the orders are signed in the next year or so. GE ought to be able to deliver the engines within the year of signing the contract.

So which ever way I look at the MMRCA I remain convinced that the LCA can do the job. Moreover if the IAF requires a heavier and long legged aircraft, then the Su30 MKI can be acquired in additional batches, for the heavy hitting purposes. As is the same design vintage as all the competitors.

JMT

[Austin]

Gripen is really a nice aircraft and the versatility and capability of this aircraft is phenomenal , few people I know who have spoken to top bosses at IAF mentioned that IAF really likes this aircraft and is high praise for it.

If one does look into the future , one can see how Tejas and Gripen can compliment each other on logistics and weapons rationalization front and Gripen TOT could help in aiding Tejas Mk2 capability and vice verse. Considering these are single engine aircraft they will be low on maintenance and life cycle cost , Gripen is very much a modern design compared to say other single engine like F-16IN.

MMRCA is as much about political clout as about aircraft , Gripen might just loose out there.

[Christopher Sidor]

Guys,

I have never understood the logic of MMRCA compitition. If the objective is to replace the Jajuar and the Mig 27. The LCA Mk 1offers a payload of 3.5 tons. This is identical to the Mig 27 and 20% less then the Jaguar. Then why go for a separate design/ Platform to replace the two. Why not use the LCA it self.
....
....

The problem with LCA is its engine. In its class, LCA is one of the best, if not the best. But the continuing problems with Kaveri have put a show stopper to LCA. That is why we partnered with SNECA, the french firm, to achieve the required thrust and other performance parameters. Offcourse this should not be considered as criticism against Kaveri per se. Rather it is criticism against the ambitious targets set for Kaveri. Rather than taking gradual steps to master a turbine engine, we have attempted to take a giant leap. The rewards are great but so are the pitfalls.

Currently the proposed LCA fighters that will enter active service with the GE engine. But GE engines being an American beast have their own pitfalls. Also most of the contenders like the EFT and Rafael have offered to co-develop the turbine engine for LCA. They know that LCA and the MRCA will have to complement each other.

[Christopher Sidor]

Gripen is really a nice aircraft and the versatility and capability of this aircraft is phenomenal , few people I know who have spoken to top bosses at IAF mentioned that IAF really likes this aircraft and is high praise for it.

If one does look into the future , one can see how Tejas and Gripen can compliment each other on logistics and weapons rationalization front and Gripen TOT could help in aiding Tejas Mk2 capability and vice verse. Considering these are single engine aircraft they will be low on maintenance and life cycle cost , Gripen is very much a modern design compared to say other single engine like F-16IN.

MMRCA is as much about political clout as about aircraft , Gripen might just loose out there.

I agree with you. My interactions with the IAF guys have again led me to believe the same.

However like you said that this deal is more about political clout as it is about the fighters performance in real life. That is where it is difficult to make a case for Grippen. Sweden can offer us a lot, in terms of defense S&T. And like I have pointed out previously, Grippen opens up a host of attractive collaborative options.

This tender will not be based solely on the fighters performance. Rather it will also be based on ToT, political calculations, cost, etc.

[Wickberg]

Guys,

I have never understood the logic of MMRCA compitition. If the objective is to replace the Jajuar and the Mig 27. The LCA Mk 1offers a payload of 3.5 tons. This is identical to the Mig 27 and 20% less then the Jaguar. Then why go for a separate design/ Platform to replace the two. Why not use the LCA it self.

Also the LCA MK2 may be re-configured with a higher weapons load. As is being done with the Gripen NG. AFIK, the original Gripen had the same combat load as the LCA.


JMT

IIRC the Gripen A/B had an external payload of over 4 tonnes. That was increased to 5,3 tonnes with the C/D and 7,2 tonnes now with the NG. So if you compare the LCA Mk1 with the C/D (assuming the 3,5 tonnes is correct) there is a bit of difference...

[Nihat]

gripen ng is the most likely contender to be L1 when commercial bids are opened so thats something that is going for it.

Another aspect being that inducting too many heavy fighters will make the IAF very top heavy. Think 270 sukhois, 250 FGFA. Mig 29, AMCA. These birds are not only high maintanence but also have to be based at a significant distance from the frontline of battle.

We need more l.c.a. And gripen type aircraft to keep the balance right and gripen would also help in development of tejas.

As far as politicol decision goes then we have given enough to unkil and russia to keep them happy and eurofighter has some serious issues about A2G mode , AESA and price and rafale may well be underpowdred plane.

[Willy]

Guys,

I have never understood the logic of MMRCA compitition. If the objective is to replace the Jajuar and the Mig 27. The LCA Mk 1offers a payload of 3.5 tons. This is identical to the Mig 27 and 20% less then the Jaguar. Then why go for a separate design/ Platform to replace the two. Why not use the LCA it self.

Also the LCA MK2 may be re-configured with a higher weapons load. As is being done with the Gripen NG. AFIK, the original Gripen had the same combat load as the LCA.


JMT

IIRC the Gripen A/B had an external payload of over 4 tonnes. That was increased to 5,3 tonnes with the C/D and 7,2 tonnes now with the NG. So if you compare the LCA Mk1 with the C/D (assuming the 3,5 tonnes is correct) there is a bit of difference...

Wasnt the LCA supposed to have a capacity of 4.8 tons??????????????????

[Pratik_S]

Wasnt the LCA supposed to have a capacity of 4.8 tons??????????????????

No, its 3.5 tonnes only ! 4.8 tonnes would make it a medium category fighter.

gripen ng is the most likely contender to be L1 when commercial bids are opened so thats something that is going for it.

No likely, with many foreign components its likely that the price of Gripen will be above 50 mil $. I expect MiG-35 to be the lowest bidder with price in range of 40 mil $. It will be also interesting to know what LM does with its F-16 considering its going to be its last bid for export. However I will agree that all the three mentioned fighters are likely to be L1 fighters but my bet is on the MiG-35 to be the cheapest.

The Gripen is probably the most vulnerable of all of them because the Swedes don't actually own that much of it except the airframe itself.
The engine is US, the radar is Italian, the missile is German, etc. It gives you more points of failure.

That doesn't mean that it will be a issue of concern if sanctions are placed on India say in next 8-10 years. Cuz by than HAL would have absorbed the ToT of the Italian radar, would be manufacturing the American engines on its own and most of the missiles would have been delivered to India.

[Gaur]

That doesn't mean that it will be a issue of concern if sanctions are placed on India say in next 8-10 years. Cuz by than HAL would have absorbed the ToT of the Italian radar, would be manufacturing the American engines on its own and most of the missiles would have been delivered to India.

That is a bold statement to make. Perhaps the radar and armament could be replaced but to think that India would be making GE-414s? I mean, sure, we will be assembling them under license and the reports suggest that there may be some level of TOT involved. But there is nothing to suggest that the current deal for LCA engine provides us with full TOT and license to make the engines with full indigenous content.

[SaiK]

There was no ToT in history of fighter aircraft especially in precision engineering products where one gives full ToT (non-screwdriver) at any cost. Please stop dreaming on "FULL" ToT.

If you are still obsessed, then think about in the future a list of nations that India would do a FULL ToT to keep you occupied.

[Pratik_S]

That is a bold statement to make. Perhaps the radar and armament could be replaced but to think that India would be making GE-414s? I mean, sure, we will be assembling them under license and the reports suggest that there may be some level of TOT involved. But there is nothing to suggest that the current deal for LCA engine provides us with full TOT and license to make the engines with full indigenous content.

There was no ToT in history of fighter aircraft especially in precision engineering products where one gives full ToT (non-screwdriver) at any cost. Please stop dreaming on "FULL" ToT.
If you are still obsessed, then think about in the future a list of nations that India would do a FULL ToT to keep you occupied.

Ok for clarification I never mentioned "full ToT" ! Wake up ! Now I know we cannot expect to get the entire know how as to how they made the engines and all the tiny details but we are getting the manuals on how to manufacture those engines. I never said that India will be developing the GE-414 engines. Also note that manufacturing and maintaining engines and other stuff is easy and India has done it in the past and I can't think why India can do it with the GE-414.

[Wickberg]

There was no ToT in history of fighter aircraft especially in precision engineering products where one gives full ToT (non-screwdriver) at any cost. Please stop dreaming on "FULL" ToT.

If you are still obsessed, then think about in the future a list of nations that India would do a FULL ToT to keep you occupied.

Just wanted to give one example of ToT. Regarding radartechnology and SAABs sales of Gripen to South Africa;
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/articl ... 2010-09-01

The Gripen is equipped with the Saab EDS (previously Ericsson) PS-05A radar. "We have more information on the PS-05A than on any other foreign radar ever acquired by South Africa," he stated.

One very important aspect of the PS-05A radar programme in South Africa is that it has resulted in the development of a team of young radar professionals in this country.

[sankum]

willy wrote:
Wasnt the LCA supposed to have a capacity of 4.8 tons????????????????

LCA was designed as 5.5T empty + 3T + 4T payload=12.5T MTOW

later it was upped to 5.7T empty + 3T + 4.8T payload=13.5T MTOW

where 3T is for internal fuel and other mis. for clean configuration wt.

Present LCA MK1 is 6.5t empty + 3T + 4T payload= 13.5T MTOW

While LCA MK2 likely is 6T empty + 3T + 4.5T Payload=13.5T MTOW

if 500Kg wt. saving is acheived.

[Wickberg]

willy wrote:
Wasnt the LCA supposed to have a capacity of 4.8 tons????????????????

LCA was designed as 5.5T empty + 3T + 4T payload=12.5T MTOW

later it was upped to 5.7T empty + 3T + 4.8T payload=13.5T MTOW

where 3T is for internal fuel and other mis. for clean configuration wt.

Present LCA MK1 is 6.5t empty + 3T + 4T payload= 13.5T MTOW

While LCA MK2 likely is 6T empty + 3T + 4.5T Payload=13.5T MTOW

if 500Kg wt. saving is acheived.

Just one thing. 3000 liters of fuel is not 3 tonnes, it is 2,4 tonnes.

Edit: I thought the Mk2 was going to be redesigned to house more internal fuel? But this is the wrong thread I guess...
Edit 2: Here http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2920 the conclusion (written by Rahul M) that the payload is 3.5 tonnes. So is it 3.5 or 4?

[Gaur]

Ok for clarification I never mentioned "full ToT" ! Wake up ! Now I know we cannot expect to get the entire know how as to how they made the engines and all the tiny details but we are getting the manuals on how to manufacture those engines. I never said that India will be developing the GE-414 engines. Also note that manufacturing and maintaining engines and other stuff is easy and India has done it in the past and I can't think why India can do it with the GE-414.

Well, I must confess that I really have no reply to that statement.

[sankum]

Wildberg wrote:
Just one thing. 3000 liters of fuel is not 3 tonnes, it is 2,4 tonnes.

Edit: I thought the Mk2 was going to be redesigned to house more internal fuel? But this is the wrong thread I guess...
Edit 2: Here http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2920 the conclusion (written by Rahul M) that the payload is 3.5 tonnes. So is it 3.5 or 4?

MTOW of 13500Kg is there on various infoboards at airshows.

Empty weight of 6500Kg is from latest interview of ADA chief to a magazine, so you can safely say payload is 4000 Kg.

3T is 2485kg internal fuel( 3150 litres)+300Kg for pylons+ 100kg pilot + 65Kg cannon ammo.+ 35Kg chaff/flare=3000Kg

Futher discussion please to lca thread.

[manum]

@ Prateek...

That doesn't mean that it will be a issue of concern if sanctions are placed on India say in next 8-10 years. Cuz by than HAL would have absorbed the ToT of the Italian radar, would be manufacturing the American engines on its own and most of the missiles would have been delivered to India.

its been decades we receiving Russian engine Manuals...of various types...

Manufacturing is the use of machines, tools and labor to produce goods for use or sale. The term may refer to a range of human activity, from handicraft to high tech, but is most commonly applied to industrial production, in which raw materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale. Such finished goods may be used for manufacturing other, more complex products, such as aircraft, household appliances or automobiles, or sold to wholesalers, who in turn sell them to retailers, who then sell them to end users – the "consumers".

EUREKA....one wrong word can change the meaning of what you might have meant...can manufacturing be replaced with assembling? and then if assembling is the case, then from where the parts to be assembled come from, if sanctions come in place? did you mean we will be manufacturing parts in 8-10 years? then its a bigger blunder in the statement, as per engine is concerned, isnt it?

do you know to even manufacture truck engine, TATA had to buy bankrupt daewoo, truck division...its been decades TATA making trucks...still i am not sure truck engines are made in India now...truck engines are not F1 technology?
none of Diesel engines in any segment of cars is made in India..Diesel engine in cars is mostly dealt by FIAT engines in India...
its been decades we manufacturing cars...and receiving manuals...what is the big deal?

why we are fighting so much over few league of aircrafts, and just few engines? because of what refinement in designs and understanding we get....
why someone buys Toshiba, Sony or Mac laptop, and not dell, if DELL is offering cheaper and effective variant of the same configuration...and then why someone buys Dell and not HCL or ACER...

its we who will have figure out in the options, what will work for us over the years, we planning to cap...thats all, problem is not the products, and the marketing...we need clear head, what we really want, and what will be just right enough...

TATA indigo decent looking 5 lakh 21km/l sedan or something with revved up engine...

[iparvas]

The cost of flying a combat aircraft can be very expensive ... for example current estimates of the USAF of flying the F16 in Iraq and Afghanistan is around 17000 dollars per hour [ for fuel and maintainence]..... as we all know that F16 is a single engined aircraft and if this fighter runs up an astronomical cost of operating it then imagine the cost of operating twin engined western aircraft during wartime ......

[Gaur]

manum,
You really think that getting into a logical and rational debate is possible with a person who says that manufacturing and maintaining engines and other stuff is easy"?

[manum]

see, issue is not about getting into discussion with him or anyone else...he just gave me food for thought by one word...Manufacturing...a wrong reply to a question...or a wrong question, or a deviated reply to a brief can be a dream come true for a force like us...

I just realized (though been speaking long) Gripen is manufactured and not assembled...though has outside parts, but everything is done with what their brief and experiences and aims dictated...Gripen can be great for us...but then elder baby will detest the new born...we can learn from Gripen, tactically and design wise, if love can be established...

Teens are obviously more than manufactured...what i mean is, they have so much resources that they can take any of aircraft, tweak it as per our requirements, and give it to us....as best deal...so we get something from which there is nothing to learn adopt the less provisions, no deviation from brief , but we get what we asked....i also remember, that these days when i go to get my dads car serviced, they follow a manual, which goes to the detail of of engine oil to be replaced and if topped, service will be void...in cars we have mechanics outside...but in fighters I am not sure ...so there is no field of contraption from customer...though such practice helps to keep the standard of machine...

MIG is manufactured, they know exactly what is our condition, they just fit everything in the competition...because they know us...now we have example of MKI...Sukhoi 27 family made its plane for its own reasons and context...MKI came into existence because we demanded, what would be standard for us...so Sukhoi 30 MKI became something which exceeded everyones anticipation...exciting and workable...But MIG is being an obedient subdued kid...not a natural like MKI....

Rafale is the most mysterious of all, I'll explain it like, lets say, there are many words in French, which English adopted because it never had those expressions...one of it is "Rendez-vous" which doesn't mean more than "meeting or appointment" in french...but in English it means what it sounds like, it means "meet more than a meet"...so Rafale will shift how MRCA ground will shape up...GE must have been tough choice for the babu's...they must have wept in the bathrooms...to keep hope RAFALE and alike alive...i see it as sacrifice...

EF is Manufactured, to the solid core of the engine, and it is contextual to the source nations, it can also become indigenous...so it will add to our knowledge of Understanding of how on what ideology plane is made...and then what we can make use of it....and it'll let us throw our briefs and experiment again...and from here we can grow more...and push our competitive edge to next level by adding more games in our XBOX...

this is why my heart says any three except teens or Migs...if no major flaws found...any three of them would do more than good to our capping of these 10-20 years of our own developments...and help us become better force and better designers...

[Wickberg]

I just realized (though been speaking long) Gripen is manufactured and not assembled...though has outside parts, but everything is done with what their brief and experiences and aims dictated...Gripen can be great for us...but then elder baby will detest the new born...we can learn from Gripen, tactically and design wise, if love can be established...

You just realized that? The fact the indian GE404 is essentially an Volvo Aero RM12? Or that the GE414 is a collaboration between Volvo and GE?
Or the fact that SAAB has designed and produced jet fighers a lot longer time then for example Dassult?
What the f*ck where you thinking?! That the Gripen were assembled?! SAAB is the most experienced and has the most ingenious designs. Where are your history guys???!!!!

[manum]

please read the whole thing to understand...cutting it short wont help to establish your F euphoria...

I never thought otherwise, i did put it in a perspective as a whole...all you did, cut it short to the context of Gripen and started validating your point...I never said Gripen is assembled, did you read in my text saying it anywhere...what I said was in continuation of what is said in above posts too...

why are you so touchy about Gripen? each time even if you hear G word...you just blast off...even if I say gripen is good, you'll say, what, did you just realized it, shame on you...is your upper lid missing due to excessive pressure in your hollow cooker...

[Gaur]

^^
My suggestion would be to leave it. Wickberg is a particularly bad mannered Swede who graces us from time to time in order to flame bait.
Shame really. He only succeeds in giving a bad name to an otherwise excellent people.

PS: You do seem to be getting into discussion with all sort of characters today.

[Luxtor]

since the US would be happy to fight china using indian money and manpower - would the chances of sanctions during or after a indo-china border war be minimal?

against Pak though once can safely assume some sort of repercussions - but chances of india going after pak are quite negligible imo - unless they come after us like kargil.

I think that another skirmish or war with Pak is a strong possibility; same with China. The question is: will a war with both of these troublemakers happen at the same time in a calculated manner by those two countries. I think the US will lay off of India if there is another war with Pak especially if the Afghanistan campaign is over or stabilizes where they wouldn't need Pak's "help". With China, the US would actively help India I think. But as more time goes by even the ordinary Americans are realizing the shell game that he Paks have been playing with them in their "fight on terror". This fact has become so obvious that even their media is making reference openly to this fact. Recently both David Letterman and Jay Leno late night talk shows referred in their comedy skits on the same night to Pak's links with Osama Bin Laden. Leno said "....the Pakistanis are the one's who have been hiding OBL for the past 9 years". Letterman in his comedy skit showed a mock news conference by OBL and Ayman al-Zawahiri and guess which country's flag was on the table in front of OBL?

[Wickberg]

^^
My suggestion would be to leave it. Wickberg is a particularly bad mannered Swede who graces us from time to time in order to flame bait.
Shame really. He only succeeds in giving a bad name to an otherwise excellent people.

PS: You do seem to be getting into discussion with all sort of characters today.

I´m not bad mannered at all. I would love to have you over for a cop of coffe and a cinnamon.
I only "flame bait" you when insist to compare the LCA to the Gripen. I think it is very funny! And when someone compare the LCA to that Pakistan/China JF-17 you all go mad!!!!

For all us non"either of you and pakistian" it´s just like that picture of that retarded kid finish first.

The LCA MK1 has a max. speed of mach 1.6. max payload of 3.5. max G of 6, and will replace the MiG 21 if it ever comes in service
The OLD Gripen have been in service since -97, max payload of 5.3 and max G of 9. And is now beeing replaced by the NG

[Indranil]

^^^ I see nationalist egos at play. Why are we fighting over whose plane is biggest

LCA and Grippen are similar ... nobody in the know can deny it ... I mean look at it guys, almost the same plan form, almost the same engine, similar radar capability, countermeasures, missiles

Gripen is obviously ahead of LCA. It is an operational plane ... LCA is not! ... Gripen NG is flight testing, Tejas MarkII is still on the drawing board.

What are we fighting about. Both sides are shouting aloud ... and know what both are right!

[merlin]

The LCA MK1 has a max. speed of mach 1.6. max payload of 3.5. max G of 6, and will replace the MiG 21 if it ever comes in service
The OLD Gripen have been in service since -97, max payload of 5.3 and max G of 9. And is now beeing replaced by the NG

Err, please to show evidence that old Gripen max payload if 5.3 tons *with* full fuel capacity.

[sankum]

http://idrw.org/?p=882

Tejas Mk-2 will also see structural changes in the aircraft which will be noticeable in wider wing span to carry extra weapons load along with extra fuel, aircraft will also have large air intakes to let the high thrust engine generate additional power for the aircraft, engine change for Tejas Mk-2 will result in the rear fuselage being changed too