MRCA News and Discussion

[Rahul M]

^^^ Rahul may be you have blocked the Mig-35 for good on your system , Look No Mig-35,See No Mig-35

no reason to, I like the mid 30's bird, better than the adolescent teens at any rate.

[PratikDas]

@ vishal, OT question, I can't see any airliners.net image from one of the proflies on my FF browser. it always shows up as a black dot. any idea what the problem could be ?

this link http://www.airliners.net/photo/1505295/ for example, shows up as

The URL for the image in the webpage you linked is http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 505295.jpg

Is it possible that you're using the Adblock Plus Firefox add-on and some part of the URL is being flagged as an ad? You'll know for sure by clicking on the red Adblock Plus icon. Blocked items are in red and on the top of the filter list.

[Gaur]

why do you keep comparing the f-16IN to the block 60, the IN is far more advanced than the block60 ever could be and LM does offer future option to us which havent been offered to others and we can choose to have them. A lot of EU weapons have been integrated on them.

Really, F-16IN is "much" more advanced than block60? Could you please give a list of these advancements? AFAIK, the only diff is a retractable refueling probe housed in the starboard conformal tank.
Other additions are infra-red search and track pods and counter-electronic warfare pods but I am not sure about them as I do not remember regarding the source from which I came by this info.

f-16IN will have a lot more tech psrinkles from the f-22 and f-35 so even its rcs will be lower than the Gripen NG.

Really, source?

[Gaur]

Well it all depends on what the IAF/GOI/MOD decide they want -

A) Uber tech, cost and twin engined performance ($ 120 - 150 million)- Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet come out on top imho. Rafale/TIffy come out on top, Rafale being my fave.

b) Mid Level tech, solid performance low price - MiG-35 ($ 50 - 65 million)

C) Mid Level Tech, mid level performance, low to medium price - Gripen NG, Solah ($ 75 - 100+ million)

What is the basis for ranking them as such in terms of "high" performance to "mid" performance? It seems to me you are ranking by size and engines.

I fully agree with CM regarding this classification. Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet have various advantage over others. One being several rcs reduction measures incorporated in their design. Eurofighter is perhaps the most agile a/c of all. So add points for that. Plus add supercruise to its plus points. I am not the biggest fan of F-18 (due to its lower agility), but no one can deny its superiority as an excellent strike platform. Plus give it extra points for APG-79. Rafale on the other hand jack of all trades. It is said to have very good air to air performance and its ground attack capabilities are excellent. Plus it gets extra points for its cockpit and SPECTRA suite.

Mig-35 is truly a bang for buck kind of aircraft. Its maneuverability is second to only eurofighter and that I think is a big plus. Remember, sensors and avionics can always by upgraded but its the airframe design that always remain fixed. And in this regard, Mig-35 is a very good aircraft. Plus some heavy points to Mig-35 because of its OLS.

F-16 on the other hand is also jack of all trades with mediocre in all respects. Till, block 30, its agility was truly amazing but it has now become overweight and has thus lost its advantage. Yet, as compared to Gripen, it still has better payload and radar.
I like gripen a lot. Its bang for buck comes second only to Mig-35. Its wing loading is better than F-16, its turnaround time and ability to take off roads is well known. Plus add to that the very short runway length required for take off and its excellent datalink capability.

[Henrik]

Well it all depends on what the IAF/GOI/MOD decide they want -

A) Uber tech, cost and twin engined performance ($ 120 - 150 million)- Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet come out on top imho. Rafale/TIffy come out on top, Rafale being my fave.

b) Mid Level tech, solid performance low price - MiG-35 ($ 50 - 65 million)

C) Mid Level Tech, mid level performance, low to medium price - Gripen NG, Solah ($ 75 - 100+ million)

The 35 in a way forms its own niche - v.low price; solid performance; no nonsense. Marginally lower perhaps than a tiffy or rafale in certain parameters. Comparable or better than the Shornet/Solah/Gripen A2A; and slightly lower than a solah in A2G, Shornet scoring decent points here.

But if cost is a real factor and the IAF wants twin engine robust performance plus easy induction- the 35 is a v.good a/c. HOwever, under a similar situation but if the IAF really wants to hedge against russian inventory, then the GripenNG is a solid contender.

Of course, politics may have the last laugh and you may find the teens in the IAF.

CM.

Why do you consider Gripen NG "mid tech" when compared to EF and Rafale? On what base do you claim Rafale, to be better at A2A then Gripen NG?

Edit: Also, on what basis would you claim Gripen NG to be "mid-level-performance"? Is it pure engine thrust, sure I agree. But on the basis of T/W ratio, I don't agree. Supercruise?
But T/W -ratios are quite diffuse, it all depends on what you base your calculations on. Here is one calculation:

Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)
Typhoon (9185*2/5000 + 11000 + ~1000): 1.08
Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06

It should be noted that the engine thust on Rafale will increase in 2010, so the final T/W figure is likely to be higher.

[Kersi D]

^^^ CM agree either we opt for a single engine yet capable fighter to reduce the operating cost like Gripen-IN or opt for something which already has logistics advantage in place with twin engine like Mig-35 , the others are really not worth the money considering we have a capable and upgradeable MKI in place.

Austin

Maybe other may give us soem "new technologies" like AESA radrar, different PGMs, BVR systems, data link systems.

But I still say that it may be better to opt for a single engine a/c Gripen, for cost basis only.

[Henrik]

LM claimes 1500kg delivered at 1700km radius on their website wouldnt hurt if you do some reasearch first youself.
f-16IN will have a lot more tech psrinkles from the f-22 and f-35 so even its rcs will be lower than the Gripen NG. even your won figures on gripn's ferry are inaccurate.

We know that the rcs of Gripen in 2002 was 0,1m according the Swedish defence research institute (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/gripenrcsfoilq.jpg/). We also know that the Gripen NG will be lower then that. What is the figures for F-16IN?

[Gaur]

.....
C) Mid Level Tech, mid level performance, low to medium price - Gripen NG, Solah ($ 75 - 100+ million)
.....
CM.

Why do you consider Gripen NG "mid tech" when compared to EF and Rafale? On what base do you claim Rafale, to be better at A2A then Gripen NG?

What is wrong with that? Rafale has better t/w ratio, lower wing loading and higher payload capacity as compared to Gripen NG. The ferry range/combat radius of Gripen NG is not clear, but I do not think that Gripen would have an advantage in that regard either. Plus SPECTRA suit is no small advantage for Rafale.

[Henrik]

What is wrong with that? Rafale has better t/w ratio, lower wing loading and higher payload capacity as compared to Gripen NG. The ferry range/combat radius of Gripen NG is not clear, but I do not think that Gripen would have an advantage in that regard either. Plus SPECTRA suit is no small advantage for Rafale.

First, the SPECTRAs "stealth-jamming" mode has been highly critizised. Against modern AESA-radars it could do more harm then good, because it's impossible to analyse the huge number of different frequencies an AESA uses. Instead you would give away your position.

Second: T/W, this depends on specs for calculation, but.
"Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)
Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06"
However, Rafale engines will in 2010 produce more thrust, so I guess that is a number that will rise. It's a little better than Gripen, but not by much. Certainly not worth twice the price..

Gripen NG AESA radar with it's swashplate tech is better than Rafale's radar, and it can supercruise. Nice to have right?

[Samay]

Yet the idea of MMRCA is of a strike platform, Range and stand off weapons are of paramount importance. It will take precedence over everything else.

1.The idea of MMRCA is same as the IAF doctrine of air dominance, and IAF wont compromise on anything that helps others to gain a slight advantage like T/W ,aesa, range,weapons ,payload ,customization etc,

2.Yet its another objective is to select a platform best suited for Indian scenario which provides full technology in hand , so that we learn and we are free to use such technology in other areas as well,. Also in a war like condition where inventory plays a very important role, we have something that we can make,without any sanctions from dhimmi influenced intellectual countries .

Guess what ,all those lessons learnt from army's experience in Kargil war

[Gaur]

First, the SPECTRAs "stealth-jamming" mode has been highly critizised. Against modern AESA-radars it could do more harm then good, because it's impossible to analyse the huge number of different frequencies an AESA uses. Instead you would give away your position.

SPECTRA suite is not only a stealth jammer. It consists of many other critical components RWRs, LWRs, MAWs and ELINT. Pretty impressive, yes? Also, it will be pretty naive to criticize SPECTRA's "stealth jamming" mode simply because how it works is classified. The criticism you mention is based on the assumption that it uses active cancellation but the fact is that no one knows for sure. So, both praises and criticism of stealth jamming mode at this point do not matter. However, what do matter are the other components of SPECTRA suite which no one can deny to be world class.

Second: T/W, this depends on specs for calculation, but.
"Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)
Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06"
However, Rafale engines will in 2010 produce more thrust, so I guess that is a number that will rise. It's a little better than Gripen, but not by much. Certainly not worth twice the price..

In fact, the twr of Gripen will be even better compared to Rafale. This is because twr is calculated by dividing max thrust by MTOW. And using this, you will find that twr of Rafale decreases even more as compared to Gripen. But this is because Rafale carries much more fuel and has greater payload. So, is this a bad thing? But I would give you this, that M88 is the weakest part of Rafale. It could have used some extra thrust.
You say that M88 will produce more thrust by 2010? I did not know of this. AFAIK, the M88-3 in development only reduce fuel consumption. Can you give a link regarding this increase in thrust?

Gripen NG AESA radar with it's swashplate tech is better than Rafale's radar, and it can supercruise. Nice to have right?

Yes, supercuise is a nice plus (if it Gripen can perform it with useful loads).
Both the AESA radars are in development so we cannot comment on them much now. However, this much we can speculate. As much as the swashplate feature will help Gripen, the RBE2 AESA on Rafale should be more powerful containing more TR modules simply because Rafale has more space to house it than Gripen.

[Cain Marko]

Vishal,

It is just you, lol. The cone size is the same, the cone is only painted half way down, which is why at a glance it looks different!

Actually, even though the cone is the smme size, the antenna is way bigger on the 9.61. The 9.61 has the radar situated a lot further into the nose as was promised by the MiG/ZHuk so as to allow them to stuff the 1064TRM AESA into the bird with a close to 700mm antenna. The earlier 680TRM (575mm) antenna is much further towards the tip of the nose (look at the 9.67 and bort 154). This was mentioned by MiG reps at AI 09 (re. to Igorr and V.Thakur's blog). Also confirmed by Pibu in AFM.

IIRC, this happened (conversion of a production series MiG-29K) around August 09. SO the images should be around that time more or less. As of then the 680mm experimental ZHuk A had achieved a max detection range of about 148km A2A (3msq target). Much better than the 120-130km ranges quoted when the radar was first shown in AI 07.

IIRC, the development of this version was complete in every sense. The ongoing work (since Summer/Fall 09) has been on the production 1064TRM version.

CM

[Cain Marko]

Well it all depends on what the IAF/GOI/MOD decide they want -

A) Uber tech, cost and twin engined performance ($ 120 - 150 million)- Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet come out on top imho. Rafale/TIffy come out on top, Rafale being my fave.

b) Mid Level tech, solid performance low price - MiG-35 ($ 50 - 65 million)

C) Mid Level Tech, mid level performance, low to medium price - Gripen NG, Solah ($ 75 - 100+ million)

What is the basis for ranking them as such in terms of "high" performance to "mid" performance? It seems to me you are ranking by size and engines.

Carl, Gaur has provided ample explanation. I'll add more if I can think of anything else.

CM

[Cain Marko]

CM even if Mig-35 does not win the MMRCA race , there are firm orders for 24 Mig-35 for RuAF and they have their own export prospects for countries who need light/medium fighter other than Sukhoi from Russian stable.

The fact that they do not have a real Mig-35 prototype flying is quite disappointing and very unprofessional .

IAF wants to see how the real baby works not some converted patched up natasha.

Austin, blame this on MiG's financial woes - Putin promised to bail them out last Maks and so far has ordered at least 24 pieces for the RuN apart from the IN's extra 30 (are you sure that the VVS order of 24 has already been done?). Still, they are fighting for survival and that must surely hamper their efforts. But the IAF must've noticed how far they have brought this a/c from the MiG-29M since about 2005 - not a small achievement immho..

But you are right, it won't leave the best impression. MiG would've done well to have gotten a definite model out by now. The K version you see (9.61) is 95% there but still, 100% is better. The larger wing and 11 hps for example. But the rest of the other systems the IAF will get to see in all their glory. It has been said that the IAF was eagerly awaiting the Zhuk A in its completion and I believe they have seen it or will see when they go to Russia. Ditto with the engines, OLS and other systems.

At the same time this state of incompletion is not a MiG forte alone; Saab has not yet shown the definite NG for trials, nor has the EF 2000 come with in with an AESA. For that matter, the F-16 that the IAF trialled was a blk 60 not the IN. So all of this has to be factored in.

CM.

[Cain Marko]

why do you keep comparing the f-16IN to the block 60, the IN is far more advanced than the block60 ever could be and LM does offer future option to us which havent been offered to others and we can choose to have them. A lot of EU weapons have been integrated on them.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... eopts.html

Stop the nonsense and show us where LM says the future vaporware is earmarked for the IN.

ha your figures on the ferry ranges are so messed up
SH: 3330km
Rafale:3700km
EF: 3700km
f-16 block 60: 4220km
mig-35: 3100km
Gripen NG: 3200km

LM claimes 1500kg delivered at 1700km radius on their website wouldnt hurt if you do some reasearch first youself.

Unbelievable tripe, like I said does not merit a reply. HInt - you mentioned in your post that this was possible on INTERNAL FUEL! Get it?

CM

[VishalJ]

@ vishal, OT question, I can't see any airliners.net image from one of the proflies on my FF browser. it always shows up as a black dot. any idea what the problem could be ?

this link http://www.airliners.net/photo/1505295/ for example, shows up as

Thats Weird Rahul, i dont know why
I've edited the URL, see if you're able to access it properly.

Vishal,

It is just you, lol. The cone size is the same, the cone is only painted half way down, which is why at a glance it looks different!

Thought so but just wanted to clarify my doubt, thanks !

Btw, going by last line of Max's response, it seems he is indicating that 961 & 967 came to India (apparently for the MRCA Trials)

[Kartik]

Vishal,

It is just you, lol. The cone size is the same, the cone is only painted half way down, which is why at a glance it looks different!

There is a slightly different explanation for that. The nose cone is not "painted half way down". its the radome. And the radome being electromagnetically transparent, the difference in those two radome sizes indicates the size of the antenna. In the earlier one, the radome was smaller because the radar antenna was smaller, accommodating 600 or so T/R modules. The new radome size indicates that either there is a concrete block (ballast) to simulate that radar's weight or else that they've used the full size Zhuk-AE radome (1024 T/R modules) because the antenna (and the corresponding radome) have been pushed further back. or else it simply has a Zhuk-ME. can't say for sure which one it has on-board though (one clue may be that most AESA equipped aircraft have their pitot tubes removed from the radome.

[Brahmananda]

I said LM does have options and we can have them if we choose them that is if the f-16IN wins. MATV was proven on the f-16 in the early ninties. F-16 is very customizable, will probably cost a bit more to have things like MATV. Most of the future options on that list have been proven long time ago already. The only one remaining for full induction is the MATV and we can get it if we choose to pay for it. I dont think when the RFP was written MATV was a must, certain technologies like AESA are but TVC dont think so or only 3 would be participating the mig-35, EF and f-16. The IAF probably has performance paramenters eg. 150 knots @ 30 degrees aoa etc. If the contenders can meet it, all is well. Even weapons cant be earmarked except for standard ones, if we need other weapons we have to ask for them.

http://spsaviation.net/mmrca.asp?id=5

My bad 1500kg with 1700km radius without refueling, not internal fuel but this is pretty awesome considering the f-16IN has the longest ferry range among all the others. Gripen NG cant come with full-tot but the f-16IN can if the US chooses to gives it to us. LM is prepared to give full-tot if the US government approves. May not come with source codes but customization of source codes is possible.

Even EF can't come with full-tot unless US approves. The only ones who can offer full-tot are mig-35, Rafale , f-18IN and f-16IN. So useless talking about the Gripen NG and EF, no matter how good they are. Rafale with its current weapons isnt good enough and way too expensive over its life time to operate.

So the deals goes either to one of the teens or the mig, either way we can live with it.

[nachiket]

I said LM does have options and we can have them if we choose them that is if the f-16IN wins. MATV was proven on the f-16 in the early ninties. F-16 is very customizable, will probably cost a bit more to have things like MATV.

Ok you have been going on about this "customizable" crap for too long. Every aircraft in the world is customizable if you take only technical considerations into account. What matters is how much "customization" the OEM allows you to do. And with the EUMA and what not the Khanate companies get very little points for their (lack of) flexibility. Another major issue is that the IAF does not have time for a long customization process before it finally gets to use these aircraft. They needed these planes yesterday. This is not another Su-30 MKI deal. The IAF will evaluate the aircraft for what they offer right now not what they might be able to offer if we add Radar A and engine B.

[Henrik]

IMy bad 1500kg with 1700km radius without refueling, not internal fuel but this is pretty awesome considering the f-16IN has the longest ferry range among all the others. Gripen NG cant come with full-tot but the f-16IN can if the US chooses to gives it to us. LM is prepared to give full-tot if the US government approves. May not come with source codes but customization of source codes is possible.

Even EF can't come with full-tot unless US approves. The only ones who can offer full-tot are mig-35, Rafale , f-18IN and f-16IN. So useless talking about the Gripen NG and EF, no matter how good they are. Rafale with its current weapons isnt good enough and way too expensive over its life time to operate.

So the deals goes either to one of the teens or the mig, either way we can live with it.

This is from the FX-2 in Brazil, but I'm sure there would be a similar arrangement for India.
Forgive me for the Google translation..

It is with great respect to the authorities involved in the selection of the F-X2 to our industrial partners and technology in Brazil and the Brazilian people, the Saab Gripen has publicly clarify some misinformation that has recently gained prominence in the media.

On the topic of Technology Transfer, Saab has offered Gripen and assured the Brazilian government, in its proposal to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB), the total and unrestricted transfer of technology of the Gripen NG.

In its proposal, the Saab Gripen delivered to FAB all permits and licenses required clearances from all partners and suppliers of Saab, regardless of country of origin, for the full technology transfer to Brazil.

Saab has offered Gripen as requested, guaranteed prices for the Gripen NG, including all technology transfer, without any form of adjustment or economic risk for the Brazilian government.

Saab Gripen is committed to involving the Brazilian aerospace industry at all levels of development of the Gripen NG as well as in its production and maintenance.

Regarding the development of the Gripen NG, teams of Brazilian engineers are already working actively in the project, both in Swedish and Brazilian plants, concentrated in São José dos Campos (SP).

The intellectual property right of such developments will be shared between Brazil and Sweden

With regard to production, all 36 Brazilian aircraft will be produced in Brazil. The main segments of the structure of the Gripen NG will be made in future aviation hub of Sao Bernardo do Campo (SP), exclusively, and will be supplied to production lines in Brazil, Sweden and all the Gripen NG to be marketed in worldwide.

All aircraft will be assembled at Gaviao Peixoto (SP). Thus, Brazil will be the first country in the Southern Hemisphere to produce and export supersonic fighters.

It is estimated that with the design of the Gripen NG will be developed in Brazil about 6 thousand jobs in the production chain and 22 thousand in the area of technology.

The software, source codes and weapons systems of the Brazilian version of the Gripen NG will also be fully developed and tested in Brazil. This will provide the FAB and the total capacity of Brazilian companies operate, maintain and integrate systems, armaments and sensors independently and autonomously.

Saab Gripen understands and supports the National Defense Strategy, and agrees to provide Brazil with the necessary knowledge to give rise to future generations of fighter aircraft.

Saab Gripen

http://www.aereo.jor.br/
http://www.abcdmaior.com.br/noticia_exi ... icia=19953

[Brahmananda]

I didnt say anything about time, besides if time comes into consideration even the mig-35 wont begin production till 2013/2014, the EF tranche 3 with tvc, AESA wont be ready on time. speaking of just radar and engine the only contender that can meet the end 2012/2013 deadline for the first aircraft to be delivered is Boeing and the super hornet, thats if the order is placed by the end of this year or begining next year.

The US 'inflexibility' you speak of is due to the US govt. I am sure SH and f-16IN will come with full-tot if US Govt. clears it. I dont see inflexibilty from the vendors themselves considering during early stages of the deal, LM considered offering a variant of the Israeli soufa and Boeing changed its ante by offering the new upgraded higher thrust engines. Boeing was also the first to offer AESA and thus sent everyone else scrambling to offer it too. If IAF sticks to the RFP deadline of 2012/2013 we already have two possible winners the super hornet and the f-16.

moreover considering some other aspects like full-tot EF cant guarantee it due to critical US parts on board, Gripen NG too cant. Rafale can but will we buy it considering its more expensive to operate than the SH, f-16, gripen NG and even the mig-35. will we wait till 2015 to recieve the mig-35 because even if production begins in 2013, the first wont be ready till 2015 and land in India.

I know the f-16IN is hardly a favorite to win this deal but, f-16 has been tested with a host load of Israeli weapons like Delilah, popeye-2, Spice pgm, Griffin pgm, Derby, Python-5, MSOV. The f-16 can also fire weapons like AS-30l, Skyflash, Iris-T, Magic, Apache missile, ALARM, Mica etc latest litening g-4 pods can also be carried. Many weapons listed here are already in our inventory, which means no wastage of time for weapons integration like on EF, Rafale or Gripen NG. offcourse the F-16 can already deploy US weapons like AAGRM, CBU-105sfw WCMD, SDB, JDAM/LJDAM, SLAM/ER, JSOW, Aim-9x block 2, Harpoon Block 2, All types of Paveways, the list goes on.

If we choose to have Meteor and asraam i dont see any reason why it cant be used from the f-16 as well and will be one of the few weapons that need f-16 integration.

Its not like India isnt aware of the US behavior yet we invited them to particpate, offcourse there are host loads of concerns but these can be resolved. The threat of sanctions imo are 0 and sanctions will only hurt US economic oppourtunities in India and these on the long run are worth hundreds of billions. sanctions go against their own economic interests.

Brazilians are being duped by SAAB who will need US permission for full-tot regarding the gripen NG, SAAB can offer it but after the deal is signed the US too will have to clear the engines, Just like after the Saudis signed up for the Typhoon and the US cleared tot after the deal was signed. And if US can allow full-tot for Gripen NG why wouldnt they allow for their own products?

[Philip]

"Single or twin engines?".This is a major point in the Indian scenario, that could decide the contest.

[Viv S]

Okay lets see if I've got this right.

1. The Gripen NG and MiG-35 now have operational ranges that put it in the same bracket as the rest.

2. Both now have AESAs which would be somewhat comparable to the others.

3. They now have increased payload again comparable to the others.

4. They both now have an increased t/w ratio and everything that goes with it.

5. Misc. avionics have also now been updated/upgraded to put them in the same league as the others.


For now ignoring the fact that they are BOTH in the prototype stage, can someone please tell what they're going to cost?? I find it hard to believe that they've received a thorough upgrade that makes them comparable to the rest, but have somehow retained the cost-effectiveness that was their strength in the first place.

My estimate of production numbers

F-16E/F - 80 (in addition 2000+ F-16C/Ds)
F-18E/F - 400+
Eurofighter T. - 225+(475 ordered)
Rafale - 85+ (180 ordered)
MiG-35 - 3+ prototypes (30+ MiG-29SMTs produced)
Gripen NG - 1 prototype (100 JAS 39C/Ds)


I don't think the usual refrain 3 MiG-35s and 2 Gripens for the price of one EF/SH/Rafale applies.

[Henrik]

If we choose to have Meteor and asraam i dont see any reason why it cant be used from the f-16 as well and will be one of the few weapons that need f-16 integration.

Brazilians are being duped by SAAB who will need US permission for full-tot regarding the gripen NG, SAAB can offer it but after the deal is signed the US too will have to clear the engines, Just like after the Saudis signed up for the Typhoon and the US cleared tot after the deal was signed. And if US can allow full-tot for Gripen NG why wouldnt they allow for their own products?

If an american plane wins the MMRCA i seriously doubt the Meteor will be integrated. They will push for their own weapons..

Maybe because the engine is half Swedish?

You could flip it around, if the US would grant full ToT for their own planes for India, why wouldn't they clear it for Gripen?

I'm sure SAAB has ToT issues covered, why wouldn't they if they make such bold statements? "Duped"? Are you serious? Well if that's your conspiracy theory...

[Henrik]

I don't think the usual refrain 3 MiG-35s and 2 Gripens for the price of one EF/SH/Rafale applies.

Because?

Edit: Of course Gripen NG won't be as cheap as Gripen C, but remember that EF and Rafale are getting heavy upgrades too. So in comparison, it will even out and one Gripen will still cost a third to operate when compared to Rafale.

[nrshah]

The US 'inflexibility' you speak of is due to the US govt. I am sure SH and f-16IN will come with full-tot if US Govt. clears it.

Can you simplify further as to what this IF will look at the end? A lot of thing can be supported by if or but. However, strategic decisions cannot be supported by IF.
Ok give us your confidence level of this IF turning out positive (US allows full TOT)

Its not like India isnt aware of the US behavior yet we invited them to particpate, offcourse there are host loads of concerns but these can be resolved. .

have you heard of anything called diplomacy? Diplomacy is not the privilege of unkil only...

The threat of sanctions imo are 0

How sure you are and what is the basis of the same? History does not support your assertion, neither does current events like sweetening PRC, Billions of aid to TSP.... All those goodie goodie statements need to be matched with deeds which apparently is not happening

and sanctions will only hurt US economic oppourtunities in India and these on the long run are worth hundreds of billions. sanctions go against their own economic interests

Ok so you want to risk the outcome of our next war to the loss taking capacity of Unkil??

[Brahmananda]

Sure strategic decisions cant be supported by IFs, who said anything about buying the SH or f-16IN if they didnt come with full-tot, i am just saying US too can offer full-tot if it chooses to do so. price bidding and everything else hasnt begun yet. so far they have undergone trials and if they perform well they will get an equal chance of being looked upon. when it comes to things like full-tot i am an optimist and think who ever is shortlisted will have to offer it to have a chance of winning. I am for the IAF going for their first preferance whatever it is. whether that is the Sv, SH, mig-35, EF, rafale or gripen we wont know as of now. we dont even know if IAF wants a single or twin engine aircraft, lets wait for the short list.

I am just saying that disregarding the unkil birds because they are unkil birds is wrong attitude. Yes diplomacy, unkil is being diplomatic with us, our relations are gradually increasing and no one is rushing to have an affair with unkil but slow and steady should ensure a long term healthy relationship, mrca is crunch time if they give full-tot and allow for customization of source codes and i know its a BIG IF, they will have chance of winning, matter of fact if they do give full-tot, i am sure they'll win this deal. I am not dwelling on the US winning, i am just saying their aircraft aren't bad compared to others and will make deadly additions to our arsenal of platforms.

If your so fond of history why dont you go live in it. As far as i am concerned we live in the 21st century, its upto the IAF and the govt. to decide whether we want a long term cozy relation with Unkil and i'll let them be a better judge of that. Nothing will ever change if you keep sticking to history.

The outcome of the next war will be decided by the fighting spirit of our forces and certainly not you. Atleast i am in the army's reserve, if needed i can go fight the enemy whether with a reliable AK or a good old lee enfield .303 and kill or be killed.

[Viv S]

How sure you are and what is the basis of the same? History does not support your assertion, neither does current events like sweetening PRC, Billions of aid to TSP.... All those goodie goodie statements need to be matched with deeds which apparently is not happening

I'm very certain sanctions aren't going to happen even in the case of a nuclear test(which isn't going to happen either). The US may suspend civil nuclear cooperation, but that's about it. We've come a long way since 1999 and global power equations are different today.

With regard to Pakistan, the US doesn't have much of an option being reliant on Pakistan to sustain operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan's economic growth has come to a shuddering halt, its territories are bombed(usually legitimately) by drones, the Taliban is a constant worry, its forex reserves are being depleted everyday etc etc. They blame the US campaign in Afghanistan for most of that, and the US needs to dole out cash to pacify them. And while officially India needs to oppose that aid, privately I'm sure the mandarins formulating foreign policy realize that the time for zero sum games is past.

Also, seeing as we've already ordered over $5 billion worth of equipment from the US, I'm pretty sure the govt. and the forces have the same idea.

[Viv S]

I don't think the usual refrain 3 MiG-35s and 2 Gripens for the price of one EF/SH/Rafale applies.

Because?

A more potent configuration as well as substantially lower build numbers will be reflected in a higher unit price.

Edit: Of course Gripen NG won't be as cheap as Gripen C, but remember that EF and Rafale are getting heavy upgrades too. So in comparison, it will even out and one Gripen will still cost a third to operate when compared to Rafale.

I don't know of any major upgrades they're going through except for the AESAs and a new engine in the Rafale's case.

[shukla]

F/A-18 gets Cockpit Pressure Warning System Upgrade.

The contract is for the retrofit of the Caution Light Panels (CLPs) on the F/A-18 fighter aircraft, as part of the U.S. Navy Caution Panel Warning System (CPWS) Upgrade Initiative.

The goal of the fleet upgrade is to enhance ambient pressure early warning systems affecting the safety of F/A-18 crew. Deliveries on the initial order supporting current F/A-18 production as well as the upgrade of more than 300 aircraft were completed in July 2009. The new follow-on order supports upgrades for additional F/A-18 aircraft with deliveries scheduled through December 2010.

Anthony J. Reardon, president and chief executive officer of Ducommun, stated, "Ducommun is a significant supplier to the F/A-18 program from cockpit displays to the APG-79 radar rack. We continue to seek opportunities to broaden our scope of work, particularly with design engineered products such as the Caution Light Panels. In this way, we intend to grow our statement of work on important programs and become more valuable to our key customers."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ducomm ... _news_stmp

[johnny_m]

Are they talking about the Legacy Hornet or the Super ?

[nrshah]

i am just saying their aircraft aren't bad compared to others and will make deadly additions to our arsenal of platforms.

No body is saying that. Perhaps they are the best provided the user is free to use at its will

If your so fond of history why dont you go live in it. As far as i am concerned we live in the 21st century, its upto the IAF and the govt. to decide whether we want a long term cozy relation with Unkil and i'll let them be a better judge of that. Nothing will ever change if you keep sticking to history.

Ya tell this to all Army commanders, Indian millitary academy to stop teaching history for we live in 21st century... Even world war 2 lessons are being taught now even when tech have changed to a magnitude that numbers cannot represent.

Of course, nothing will change if we stick to history. And i am not against it. But you need to be cautious when you depart from critical learning of past especially when it is strategic. There is nothing concrete that make us feel comfortable ignoring the history. Remember US attempts to stop enrichment and reprocessing rights in the g8 forum, Hillary's statement in pak...

The outcome of the next war will be decided by the fighting spirit of our forces and certainly not you. Atleast i am in the army's reserve, if needed i can go fight the enemy whether with a reliable AK or a good old lee enfield .303 and kill or be killed.

True, i will not decide the outcome of war. But as a tax payer i would certainly like that all the expensive stuff bought for the war can be used by our armed forces in the manner they will right rather than some guy sitting in white house directing the use.

I have highest respect for you knowing you being part of armed forces protecting my, no our nation. May we never have a war, but what will you prefer in case - superior Ak with no bullets or .303...

[Rupesh]

I have highest respect for you knowing you being part of armed forces protecting my, no our nation. May we never have a war, but what will you prefer in case - superior Ak with no bullets or .303...

IIRC he was part of NCC and not Army.

[Brahmananda]

I was in NCC and since 2 years part of the Territorial army.

[johnny_m]

Brahmananda I want to ask you a question. What makes you think that the Typhoon has critical U.S components ? IIRC the most critical components were the weapons. It was once intensively debated at Keypubs till a chap called Scorpion got a written response from EADS PR that there are no critical American components in the EF and that the non-critical components can easily be replaced with alternatives.

Now for the AMRAAM if we stockpile it well that can get us over any potential sanctions.

[Kartik]

It is with great respect to the authorities involved in the selection of the F-X2 to our industrial partners and technology in Brazil and the Brazilian people, the Saab Gripen has publicly clarify some misinformation that has recently gained prominence in the media.

On the topic of Technology Transfer, Saab has offered Gripen and assured the Brazilian government, in its proposal to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB), the total and unrestricted transfer of technology of the Gripen NG.

In its proposal, the Saab Gripen delivered to FAB all permits and licenses required clearances from all partners and suppliers of Saab, regardless of country of origin, for the full technology transfer to Brazil.

Saab has offered Gripen as requested, guaranteed prices for the Gripen NG, including all technology transfer, without any form of adjustment or economic risk for the Brazilian government.

Saab Gripen is committed to involving the Brazilian aerospace industry at all levels of development of the Gripen NG as well as in its production and maintenance.

Regarding the development of the Gripen NG, teams of Brazilian engineers are already working actively in the project, both in Swedish and Brazilian plants, concentrated in São José dos Campos (SP).

The intellectual property right of such developments will be shared between Brazil and Sweden

With regard to production, all 36 Brazilian aircraft will be produced in Brazil. The main segments of the structure of the Gripen NG will be made in future aviation hub of Sao Bernardo do Campo (SP), exclusively, and will be supplied to production lines in Brazil, Sweden and all the Gripen NG to be marketed in worldwide.

All aircraft will be assembled at Gaviao Peixoto (SP). Thus, Brazil will be the first country in the Southern Hemisphere to produce and export supersonic fighters.

It is estimated that with the design of the Gripen NG will be developed in Brazil about 6 thousand jobs in the production chain and 22 thousand in the area of technology.

The software, source codes and weapons systems of the Brazilian version of the Gripen NG will also be fully developed and tested in Brazil. This will provide the FAB and the total capacity of Brazilian companies operate, maintain and integrate systems, armaments and sensors independently and autonomously.

Saab Gripen understands and supports the National Defense Strategy, and agrees to provide Brazil with the necessary knowledge to give rise to future generations of fighter aircraft.

Saab Gripen

reading this makes it look like the Gripen NG is really not even close to being ready if so much can still be done by Brazil..And if it does win in Brazil (unlikely) and India, I doubt that India will be interested in having any part of the Gripen IN made in Brazil.

[Brahmananda]

Johnny-m bhai since the US had cleared the sale of EF to saudis, they will have a say on tot for India as well. Amraam isnt the only thing US on the EF to say the least. From the link from airframer, there is a very good list of all the suppliers and US companies are key part of EF supply chain. From carefully looking at all origins of the companies involved i have listed all the critical and non critical parts coming from US on the EF.

EF has a lot of critical US parts including nav and attack computers, Command, Control & Intelligence Systems: Armament control system; Weapons Countermeasures: Decoy dispenser I/F unit, Microwave Components: Integrated microwave assembly for CAPTOR radar, Radio Communications Equipment: Communication audio management unit, Acoustic Horns: Warning horn, Airborne Electrical Power Supplies: Power management & distribution systems and auto-transformer rectifier units, Engine Controls: Engine control system, Air Start Systems: Starting systems for EJ200 engine and microturbo designs, Fuel Tanks & Systems: Supersonic fuel tank, Fuel Nozzles, Shafts & Shaft Assemblies: Power take off shaft, Gears & Assemblies: Gearbox assemblies & gears, Sensors/Transducers: Pitot probe; ice detectors; air data total air temperature sensors etc.
The Saudi deal required US permission for tot in order for domestic assembly of the aircraft.

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detai ... er_Typhoon

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/23 ... hter_sale/

Moreover i dont see how things like nav and attack computers, command, control and intelligence systems, integrated microwave systems for the radar etc can be easily sourced from non US suppliers because they are key and are part of what makes the EF so cutting edge.

[Brahmananda]

part of why the Brazilians are so interested in the Gripen NG is that they get a chance to co-develope it. They didnt want rafale and the president is trying to shove it down the Af's throat.

EF requires US permission and i am sure they will offer full-tot too, because even if the EF wins, it will end up having a lots of business for US companies for both all kinds of parts and weapons. same goes for Gripen too but i would rather we go for a twin engined aircraft, its a safer option.

[Carl_T]

I fully agree with CM regarding this classification. Rafale, Tiffy and Shornet have various advantage over others. One being several rcs reduction measures incorporated in their design. Eurofighter is perhaps the most agile a/c of all. So add points for that. Plus add supercruise to its plus points. I am not the biggest fan of F-18 (due to its lower agility), but no one can deny its superiority as an excellent strike platform. Plus give it extra points for APG-79. Rafale on the other hand jack of all trades. It is said to have very good air to air performance and its ground attack capabilities are excellent. Plus it gets extra points for its cockpit and SPECTRA suite.

Is supercruise really that important for the MMRCA? I would see it as being important for an air superiority platform, or for utilizing in deep strikes, but we have the MKI for that.

Is the datalink capability unique to the Gripen out of the MMRCA planes? Is that similar to what the F-35 has, so it can fuse information from different planes together?

The Rafale seems like a great plane, but their cost seems to be prohibitive.

While we know the cost for the planes roughly, but I think we also have to factor in the cost for the ToT, and I'm assuming if we pick a mature platform, that cost will be a lot lesser, I don't think Dassault will sell us rights to their hard-earned tech without a really substantial price.

[Henrik]

Is the datalink capability unique to the Gripen out of the MMRCA planes? Is that similar to what the F-35 has, so it can fuse information from different planes together?

Guess where the guys behind the F-35 got the idea?

I'm no expert on the datalink for the F-35, but the swedes have been doing this since the 1980s.

This post sums it up quite well
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ost4028185

By Rob Hewson

Though the concepts of ‘information warfare’, ‘data superiority’ and 'battlespace awareness’ have become clearly defined in recent years, they are not new ideas for the Gripen team.

Saab’s combat aircraft have been fighting the information war for nearly 40 years, since the first operational datalink systems were fielded in the Swedish air force’s Saab J 35 Drakens. Since then the sophistication and capability of the datalink technology now embodied in the Gripen has increased one hundred-fold.

It cannot be over-emphasised that the Gripen datalink system is neither a laboratory toy nor a ‘capability demonstration’. It is not part of a ‘wish list’ for future product improvement – it is a real-world, fully-implemented and 100 per cent proven system that is an integral part of every Gripen built, and every Gripen mission flown.

The Tactical Information Data Link System (TIDLS) is central to Gripen’s warfighting capability. TIDLS is an extension of the proven ‘fighter link’ system deployed with the JA 37 Viggen in the 1980s. The system is in-service in Swedish Gripens and fully available for export through the Saab-Gripen partnership. Though its very existence was once a national military secret, Swedish pilots think of, and use ‘the link’ (as it is universally known), as a fundamental piece of mission equipment. When discussing fighter operations it is difficult for them to speak of the link as a stand-alone item. It is so thoroughly integrated into their way of flying and fighting that they express genuine mystification at how anyone can survive without it.

In BVR (beyond visual range) combat, where information and situational awareness are the keys to success, a datalink system gives the aircraft using it unrivalled battlespace awareness. In a Gripen formation each aircraft instantly knows what the others are seeing, what the others are doing – and what they are going to do next. Each aircraft has access to the radar and sensor data of the others, allowing a small number of aircraft to defend a wide area. The system is immune from disruption and jamming and allows pilot’s not only to stay ahead in the information war, but to win it.

Gripen’s datalink has two elements – an air-to-ground connection and an air-to air link with other aircraft. Up to four aircraft can be active (transmitting) on the datalink at any one time and an unlimited number can be passive, receiving data from other sources. The datalink net is effective over many hundreds of miles and extensive testing has shown the system to be unjammable. After his first encounter with Gripen and its datalink, one 25-year Saab Viggen veteran remarked, “I have been blind for 25 years.”

The uses of the datalink are limited only by one’s imagination. As its most basic function the link can transmit radar, sensor and aircraft status data to anywhere on the current command and control chain, or to any other Gripen.

Data can be exchanged with an AWACS aircraft, and by using an AWACS radar a much large air picture can be datalinked to a Gripen or a formation of Gripens, greatly increasing their combat reach. An airborne Gripen can datalink real-time combat information straight into the cockpit of another aircraft being re-armed and refuelled on the ground. The pilot of that aircraft will thus be fully-briefed on the current tactical situation, and the status of the rest of his squadron, before he ever leaves the ground to re-join the fight.

In air-to-air combat, the datalink allows aircraft to take advantage of Gripen’s excellent radar and its inherent stealthiness. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the BVR arena. With air battles being fought at longer and longer ranges, the concept of ‘first look, first shot, first kill’ applies to everyone. Gripen’s datalink allows teams of defending aircraft to categorise, prioritise and allocate their targets with speed and efficiency – but beyond this essential capability, the datalink allows Gripen to do much more. For example, by using the link, teams of aircraft can conduct stealthy long-range engagements, killing targets without ever betraying their own presence. Using target data from its own radar, or another source such as an AWACS, one Gripen can datalink that information to a second aircraft with its own radar and active sensors shut down. With no emitting radar the second Gripen is less likely to be detected by an enemy aircraft, giving it an overwhelming surprise advantage.

Even more elaborate tactics call for one Gripen to provide mid-course guidance for another aircraft’s missiles, using the datalink to set up the shot. This allows a ‘stealthy’ shooter to engage targets far beyond its own radar range, and keeps the defenders out of range of a return shot.

The swing-role Gripen’s datalink functions are also fully applicable to attack missions. As in the air-to-air role, target data can be uplinked to aircraft from the ground and attack profiles can be set up and then linked to all aircraft at the flick of a switch. Reconnaissance aircraft returning from a target, or other aircraft which spot a target of opportunity while on another mission, can relay precise targeting information directly to Gripens
in the air or on ground. In this way quick, accurate strikes can be launched before the target ‘spotters’ are ever back at base. The real-time targeting and reconnaissance capability of the link, using just Gripen’s own radar and no other specialist equipment should not be underestimated.

Above all the Gripen’s datalink provides total situational awareness. With the system in place, every Gripen pilot can be confident that they know where their friends and enemies are, and what they are doing, at all times –this lone makes the datalink invaluable.
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE46 ... 001_01.pdf