MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 Feb 2011 20:39

Wickberg wrote: Yeah, but I´m old and prefer the electric guitar in front of some "euro pop trash". Some good old Black Sabbath, Dio o or what ever will do it for me. And as I said, ignore responding to retards cause....well, they are retards ((B Ambij))

Anything other than music, arrogance, ignorance or abuses on MRCA thread ?
Perhaps some logic !!

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 Feb 2011 20:56

Boreas wrote: Dear Ambuj, My facts are not based on newspaper reports
However if you wait till time comes you can confirm everything i said, from news reports.

I bow down to you, you may be right.

But, my heart broke; I am a Mig – 35 fan.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 02 Feb 2011 21:26

B_Ambuj wrote:
Wickberg wrote: Yeah, but I´m old and prefer the electric guitar in front of some "euro pop trash". Some good old Black Sabbath, Dio o or what ever will do it for me. And as I said, ignore responding to retards cause....well, they are retards ((B Ambij))
Anything other than music, arrogance, ignorance or abuses on MRCA thread ?
Perhaps some logic !!

Dear troll. We all know you are a retard, troll and liar. But please tell me, how many days have you served the Indian military?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Feb 2011 21:47

Wickberg wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tlCx_FTpgI

Specially 1:41 in the video. Shows some of the agility. When will we see the LCA do maneuvers like that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03uOXGny7sI

Just for awesomeness.

Just enjoy the video man, why bring in this stupid comparison in an unrelated thread.

Just another thought, how does your few years in the forces suddenly make you a better judge commentator than somebody else in the field of aeronautics?!! I would be happy any day to pitch in a 4th year undergrad aeronautics student against you when it comes to aeronautics.

P.S. Could you please educate me what you see so special about the maneuvers in the videos that you posted? I didn't see anything that any of the MMRCA candidates can't do. Mig-35 with the 3D-TVC would have gobbled the Gripen in a dog fight anywhere close to the earth. And frankly with the TWR and wingloading the Gripen is not going to do too well with any kind of meaningful load against the EF/Rafale. But then you can be a nationalist and close your eyes to simple physics. Gripen is a good plane for the MMRCA for entirely other reasons than what you have been posting and frankly your name-calling doesn't make your logic any better.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 Feb 2011 22:23

Reasons to reject Grippen as MMRCA :

1.SAAB doesn’t have its own engine or AESA Radar.
2.Grippen IN (NG) which would match IAF’s requirement is still under development.
3.SAAB doesn’t have significant amount of advanced Technology (which we do not have ) to transfer to India as part of the deal.
4.Grippen crashed or slipped away in tarmac around 6 times as of now, so it will bring significant amount of bad which will be difficult for IAF to handle in front of Indian Media.
5.Grippen uses Unkil’s engine which will be prone to sanction from Unkil.
6.Unkil might buy out the Grippen’s vendor someday and if we buy Grippen then will have to go for parts hunting.
7.Cost of Grippen is way too high.
8.Sweden doesn’t have the political clout as the other countries offering their aircrafts, so politically we are not going to gain anything.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 02 Feb 2011 22:50

B_Ambuj wrote:1.SAAB doesn’t have its own engine or AESA Radar.

Same goes for all the others. Dassault for example don't manufacture their radar or engines.
The Raven AESA is a joint venture between SAAB and Selex, that means Selex wants to sell radars and ToT is included in the deal. Also, it's not like Volvo Aero doesn't have engine tech.

2.Grippen IN (NG) which would match IAF’s requirement is still under development.

So is the MIG-35, and the AESA-radars for EFT and Rafale aren't finished either.

3.SAAB doesn’t have significant amount of advanced Technology (which we do not have ) to transfer to India as part of the deal.

How can you possible know what's included it the ToT?

4.Grippen crashed or slipped away in tarmac around 6 times as of now, so it will bring significant amount of bad which will be difficult for IAF to handle in front of Indian Media.

This statement of yours is just plain stupid. Most of the incidents are due to pilot error, clumsy ground-crew and iced-down runways. You do know the Swedish climate don't you? You need to read the crash reports to not make a fool out of yourself. No fatalities.

5.Grippen uses Unkil’s engine which will be prone to sanction from Unkil.

So does Tejas Mk1 and Mk2.

6.Unkil might buy out the Grippen’s vendor someday and if we buy Grippen then will have to go for parts hunting.

What? You imagine much.

7.Cost of Grippen is way too high.

It's way less then it's competitors.

8.Sweden doesn’t have the political clout as the other countries offering their aircrafts, so politically we are not going to gain anything.

No Sweden don't have the political power the US and Russia has. Sweden does however, unlike France and Spain (and to some extent Germany) not support an end to the weapons embargo on China.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Feb 2011 23:28

^^^ +1

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Feb 2011 23:31

If Tejas gets sanctioned then it would not have placed for GE414 order which came along with ToT. Please understand that Unkil likes to directly work with India rather third party. This is the reason that he had stopped the elta to offer AESA to Tejas, whereas he would like to take the big cake and eat it too.

pass the touche.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 02 Feb 2011 23:53

SaiK wrote:This is the reason that he had stopped the elta to offer AESA to Tejas, whereas he would like to take the big cake and eat it too.

pass the touche.

I feel it has more to do with delaying India's indigenous AESA program, lessons Unkil learnt from the sale of green pine and phalcon. Once Israelis sign a deal, a lot of "off deal" "inputs" leak in.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Feb 2011 01:02

well, India would be always willing to pay for the technology transfer as long as it is given without any hidden arrays of code sequences. else, another struggle to do it all by first principles/re invent.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Feb 2011 01:16

Saik sahab ... nobody in the lead would give us the exact source codes. Why would they? The lead pays a lot for current sales and maintaining the edge in the future. No leader in tech would part with it. At most they can give us libraries (with a detailed description of the interface and the broad description of what the library does) instead of complete executables. The lead is the corner-cases-handling and smarter algorithms. Nobody will give us that.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Feb 2011 02:12

Boeing to unveil stealthier F/A-18 aircraft
DNA

Boeing’s vice president and country head for defence, space and security, Vivek Lal, said that one of the two F/A-18s which will be performing at the bi-annual show will be configured with conformal fuel tanks, enhanced performance engines, spherical missile laser warning, enclosed weapons pad, next generation cockpit and internal infrared search and tracking system.

The mocked up aircraft, which will be unveiled at the Aero India will be the first F/A-18 to be developed as part of the ‘International Super Hornet Roadmap’ programme which was announced by the US-based aerospace company at last year’s Farnborough Air Show in the UK.

Labelled as the next evolution of Block II Super Hornet, the aircraft is said to have features “which increase survivability, situational awareness, and performance for customers”.

Lal said that if India inked the 126 MMRCA deal with Boeing, it would also have the option of shaping its technology in future. “We are putting up a platform which will be combat worthy for the next 30 to 40 years,” said Lal.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Feb 2011 04:04

well.. what is the point of bringing in a high NCW and situational aware platform for us when we have not shown any intention of signing the CISMOA?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Feb 2011 04:47

Boeing flying high in India with aggressive plans

The past year has been good to aircraft maker Boeing especially in the Indian market. And that's why it has hiked its India growth projections from USD 100 billion to USD 130 billion dollars over a 20-year timeframe, reports CNBC-TV18 Sunanda Jayaseelan.

As far as Boeing is concerned, growth is definitely taking off. And India is a major growth driver, with orders pouring in from both the civil aviation sector, and the defence sector.

On the defence side, the major talking point has been the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). Boeing, which has offered its f/a-18 for the role, expects the government to decide on the 126 aircraft order soon. But even if the MMRCA order goes elsewhere, Boeing is not worried. It says it has been doing offset work worth nearly USD1.7 billion dollars in India over the past 10 years and India is a land of opportunity.

Keskar added, “We have done offset work worth nearly USD 630 mn on the P-8I and more on the C-17 will be done this year. There is also offset work we do with HAL and BEL for hardware and engineering services work we do with TCS, Infosys, Wipro.”
Boeing has tied up with air India to set up a maintenance, repair and over-haul (MRO) facility at Nagpur. This is expected to be ready in the next two years. Keskar says that initially, this facility will only service Boeing aircraft sold to Air India, Jet Airways and Spicejet. But it will eventually be expanded to service other aircraft.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 03 Feb 2011 13:40

B_Ambuj wrote:Reasons to reject Grippen as MMRCA :

1.SAAB doesn’t have its own engine or AESA Radar.
2.Grippen IN (NG) which would match IAF’s requirement is still under development.
3.SAAB doesn’t have significant amount of advanced Technology (which we do not have ) to transfer to India as part of the deal.
4.Grippen crashed or slipped away in tarmac around 6 times as of now, so it will bring significant amount of bad which will be difficult for IAF to handle in front of Indian Media.
5.Grippen uses Unkil’s engine which will be prone to sanction from Unkil.
6.Unkil might buy out the Grippen’s vendor someday and if we buy Grippen then will have to go for parts hunting.
7.Cost of Grippen is way too high.
8.Sweden doesn’t have the political clout as the other countries offering their aircrafts, so politically we are not going to gain anything.

Biggest reason would be this

1. Deny IAF any chance to reject Tejas stating we have Gripen, why have another one in the same class?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Feb 2011 13:46

If the BRFites want one vendor that does not supply military weapons to China, then probably there is only one out there.

USA.

The others (Russia, Israel, France, Germany) have all supplied weapons systems, defence tech to the Chinese not too far back.

Of course the US is the main benefactor of the Pakistanis next door.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 03 Feb 2011 13:54

shukla wrote:Boeing to unveil stealthier F/A-18 aircraft
DNA

...conformal fuel tanks, enhanced performance engines, spherical missile laser warning, enclosed weapons pad, next generation cockpit and internal infrared search and tracking system.

Labelled as the next evolution of Block II Super Hornet

Lal said that if India inked the 126 MMRCA deal with Boeing, it would also have the option of shaping its technology in future. “We are putting up a platform which will be combat worthy for the next 30 to 40 years,” said Lal.

Mouth watering indeed.
What do the EF Typhoon and the Rafale have to offer?

The US has been demonstrating just how tenuous SAAB's offering is, how dependent it is on the mercy of the US. It is prone to not just sanctions, but to mischief from the US.

The US is really going in for the kill here, if the so called "Block-II SH" is on offer.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Feb 2011 14:29

IPA4 Eurofighter logs 500 flight hours

Test plans include the in-flight verification of the communication functionalities and the MIDS data link system which exchanges information with other parts of the combat scenario network, as well as integration trials and the launching of air to surface weapons.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 03 Feb 2011 16:03

The US is really going in for the kill here, if the so called "Block-II SH" is on offer.

More like Block II+/Block III SH. It will also be on offer for the SK FX program alongside the Stealthy F-15SE

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 03 Feb 2011 17:37

Worth reading http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Feb 2011 17:38

Look at the way US dumped Mubarak after all the years of support.The US will not support India in a war against China or PK.And believe what the US says at your own risk.They will say and do whatever suits them.So whatever high tech uber toys India is going to buy will be pretty much useless once the going gets tough.Or are they buying them as museum pieces.Oh by the way wasnt it a factor that India did not go to a war at the last pin prick by its northern neighbour because it thought it might not be winnable (Shortage of artillery and fear of nukes in a two front war)

By the way didnt some one say friendship is only among equals and that there is no 'permanent friend or enemy in international politics'.

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Feb 2011 17:47

merlin wrote:
B_Ambuj wrote:Reasons to reject Grippen as MMRCA :

1.SAAB doesn’t have its own engine or AESA Radar.
2.Grippen IN (NG) which would match IAF’s requirement is still under development.
3.SAAB doesn’t have significant amount of advanced Technology (which we do not have ) to transfer to India as part of the deal.
4.Grippen crashed or slipped away in tarmac around 6 times as of now, so it will bring significant amount of bad which will be difficult for IAF to handle in front of Indian Media.
5.Grippen uses Unkil’s engine which will be prone to sanction from Unkil.
6.Unkil might buy out the Grippen’s vendor someday and if we buy Grippen then will have to go for parts hunting.
7.Cost of Grippen is way too high.
8.Sweden doesn’t have the political clout as the other countries offering their aircrafts, so politically we are not going to gain anything.
Biggest reason would be this

1. Deny IAF any chance to reject Tejas stating we have Gripen, why have another one in the same class?

In the same vein wont the evolved F18 be in the same class as an Su 30 MKI .. with an AESA coming up in a year or so ?

kit · Post by **kit** » 03 Feb 2011 17:51

Any way this thread is going round and round .,always the same arguments rehashed in different ways.The big thing is of course 'geopolitical' not capability.Result of this competition will give a good 'dekko' as to how the congress govt functions and what it has been upto all these years.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 03 Feb 2011 18:13

guess it will continue going round and round but hopefully this will be the last year for those circular arguments. Each of the birds have their own merits and demerits and which one will be chosen primarily depends on which factor the IAF and GoI emphasize on the most.

For L1 winner - SAAB Gripen NG.

For reliability and Independence - Dassault Rafale

For most up to date platform and Tech. - Eurofighter Typhoon

For battle proven fighter and enhancing strategic partnership - Boeing F/a - 18 Super Hornet

I don't think Mig - 35 and F-16 have even a chance, primarily because Mig-35 brings nothing new to the table and F-16 IN is possibly the last of a highly evolved platform.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Feb 2011 18:24

kit wrote:The US will not support India in a war against China or PK.And believe what the US says at your own risk.'.

You have gone "too far" on this...

They just did it to us on the CJ130, where they stripped off all essentials against CISMOA. Now, some may argue this is not important, we can slam in our own or an israeli one yadi... b@lls.. high hopes there, unkil onlee delivers with middle ungli on these aspects.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Feb 2011 18:40

kit wrote:Look at the way US dumped Mubarak after all the years of support.The US will not support India in a war against China or PK.

It is ridiculous to expect them to support us.

They will say and do whatever suits them.

That is how all countries operate.

What we need to be worried about is the US actually causing more problems for us by stopping the supply of spares during a war with Pakistan or China or both (in the interests of "peace" of course).
I am sure the IAF is cognizant of this situation and hence will not be enthusiastic about the SH or Viper as they are about the C-130 or C-17. Stoppage of the supply of spares to what will be the most potent fighter jet in the IAF is a lot more serious than the same happening to the C-130 or C-17. IMVHO the IAF will try to pre-empt GOI interference by leaving out the SH and F-16 from the shortlist.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 03 Feb 2011 19:03

Henrik,

Do you mind referring to the link below :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen

Of the Multiple number of incidents involving Grippen, the below mentioned ones do not seem to be pilot induced. Most of them depicts the inherent inability of Grippen. Most of the incidents are quite recent.

January 2011
On 12 January 2011, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge slid off the hard surface when taxiing after landing.
May 2010
On 31 May 2010, a Gripen from F 21 Luleå came loose and sped away during an engine test.
August 2009
On 6 August 2009, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge belly-landed after a routine mission and skidded off the runway.
November 2008
On 17 November 2008, the landing gear of a Swedish Air Force Gripen collapsed after landing at F 17 Kallinge. The pilot was on a routine mission.
April 2007
On 19 April 2007, a JAS 39C Gripen (serial no 39-259) from Airwing F 21 Luleå crashed at the Vidsel airfield in northern Sweden. The pilot, Stefan Kaarle, was involuntarily ejected out of the aircraft in mid-air while approaching the airstrip in order to land.
June 2005
On 1 June 2005, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-184) from Airwing F 17 Kallinge, when acting as a target in a dogfight exercise, apparently ceased to obey commands from the pilot
September 1999
On 20 September 1999, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-156) from Airwing F 7 Såtenäs crashed into Lake Vänern during a dogfight exercise. After passing through the wake vortex of the other aircraft, the aircraft abruptly changed course.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Feb 2011 19:26

wickberg has been banned for consistent rude behaviour. he doesn't seem to have improved from his last forced exile from BRF. my apologies to forumites for the late response.

B_Ambuj ji, kindly argue with the members, not about the members, IOW no ad hominem attacks, that means no accusations of being some firm's agent. since this is your first infraction I'll not issue an official warning this time.
Rahul.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 03 Feb 2011 19:32

Rahul M wrote:wickberg has been banned for consistent rude behaviour. he doesn't seem to have improved from his last forced exile from BRF. my apologies to forumites for the late response.

B_Ambuj ji, kindly argue with the members, not about the members, IOW no ad hominem attacks, that means no accusations of being some firm's agent. since this is your first infraction I'll not issue an official warning this time.
Rahul.

Thank you for notifying me. I will follow BFR 's rules

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 03 Feb 2011 19:46

B_Ambuj wrote:Henrik,

With the kind of talent you are having, I am sure you will be able to market our HF Marut ( if we resurrect that ) to Unkil even. May be some one from India should approach you with a deal.

Do you mind referring to the link below :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen

Of the Multiple number of incidents involving Grippen, the below mentioned ones do not seem to be pilot induced. Most of them depicts the inherent inability of Grippen. Most of the incidents are quite recent.

January 2011
On 12 January 2011, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge slid off the hard surface when taxiing after landing.
May 2010
On 31 May 2010, a Gripen from F 21 Luleå came loose and sped away during an engine test.
August 2009
On 6 August 2009, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge belly-landed after a routine mission and skidded off the runway.
November 2008
On 17 November 2008, the landing gear of a Swedish Air Force Gripen collapsed after landing at F 17 Kallinge. The pilot was on a routine mission.
April 2007
On 19 April 2007, a JAS 39C Gripen (serial no 39-259) from Airwing F 21 Luleå crashed at the Vidsel airfield in northern Sweden. The pilot, Stefan Kaarle, was involuntarily ejected out of the aircraft in mid-air while approaching the airstrip in order to land.
June 2005
On 1 June 2005, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-184) from Airwing F 17 Kallinge, when acting as a target in a dogfight exercise, apparently ceased to obey commands from the pilot
September 1999
On 20 September 1999, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-156) from Airwing F 7 Såtenäs crashed into Lake Vänern during a dogfight exercise. After passing through the wake vortex of the other aircraft, the aircraft abruptly changed course.

Pardon my language sir, but shit happens all the time to all kinds of aircrafts; from 747's to fighters. Numerous unkil fighters have also crashed and the most famous one that I can recite from the top of my head is the programming glitch in the FA 22 prototype that caused it to crash. I shall argue to some of your listed examples from Wikipedia.

The first two are act of god freaks of nature incidents, maybe duct tape should have been used to secure plane to test bed. Belly landing is a common ordeal because machines break sometimes and landing gears are the most likely not to come out.

The incident where the plane ceased to obey commands from pilot could be a result of electrical failure or electronics malfunctioning, it happens all the time (blue screen of death on Windows OS) and modern fighters sadly from any country that has digital control will be more susceptible to such occurrences. Diligent upkeep and maintenance will reduce chances of such travesty's and tragedies from occurring.

Wake vortex's are a nasty business, because the air pressure fluctuations in them causes planes to drop a few hundred feet on good occasions. I can site an example over YVR (Vancouver Intern. Arpt) when a fixed wing dropped straight to the ground when it was caught in the wake vortex of a jet (approaching runway).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvr#Accide ... _incidents
cites a bit, but the provincial newspaper had more material on the incident, you can look it up if your wish (July 9, 2009 incident).

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 03 Feb 2011 19:52

@ambuj
im not here to support any aircraft in particular but your arguements about crashes involving gripen sounds naive to me.you have to remember that most of the fighter aircrafts have suffered crashes when they are under testing and also under service.take the case of uber cool F22 or eurocanards.gripen entered service as early as 1998 and had almost 13 years of service.during that long period some crashes are bound to happen.most of the crashes you have mentioned above involves applying large angle of attack and pilot error.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 03 Feb 2011 20:05

Gurinder P ji and ranjithnath ji,

Thank you for your views, I am not disagreeing with your views. Your comments are logical.
But, for a prospective customer it would become a matter of concern if it happens quite so often.
Please, refer to the dates of the incidents.
Don't you think so?

OT : If I bring an analogy of TATA Nano here. Probably 3-4 Nanos caught fire and it may due to hot climate or something else. Imagine the bad press TATA got because of that. Common people now fear to buy a Nano as they think it might catch fire despite the assurance given by TATA.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 03 Feb 2011 20:15

B_Ambuj wrote:Henrik,

Do you mind referring to the link below :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen

Of the Multiple number of incidents involving Grippen, the below mentioned ones do not seem to be pilot induced. Most of them depicts the inherent inability of Grippen. Most of the incidents are quite recent.

As you will see below, most of the incidents was caused by man, not machine. For heavens sake, all the reasons behind the incidents are on the same page as the one you copied from! Either you are just being ignorant and desperately trying to pick a fight, or you just lie in hope everyone will believe you.

January 2011
On 12 January 2011, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge slid off the hard surface when taxiing after landing.

Iced down runway, plane was back in the air two days later.

May 2010
On 31 May 2010, a Gripen from F 21 Luleå came loose and sped away during an engine test.

Stupid mechanic had put the throttle in the wrong position.

August 2009
On 6 August 2009, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge belly-landed after a routine mission and skidded off the runway.

Pilot forgot to extend the landing-gear.

November 2008
On 17 November 2008, the landing gear of a Swedish Air Force Gripen collapsed after landing at F 17 Kallinge. The pilot was on a routine mission.

On 17 November 2008, the landing gear of a Swedish Air Force Gripen collapsed after landing at F 17 Kallinge. The pilot was on a routine mission, when he received an error indication. He decided to abort the mission and return to the airfield. When taxiing, he felt that the brakes did not work properly, so he decided to stop as soon as possible. As the engine was switched off, the front landing gear suddenly collapsed, and the aircraft fell on its nose. The pilot escaped unharmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen
Do not make it sound more dramatic than it actually was. A minor mechanical failure, it just showed that the warning-systems worked properly.

April 2007
On 19 April 2007, a JAS 39C Gripen (serial no 39-259) from Airwing F 21 Luleå crashed at the Vidsel airfield in northern Sweden. The pilot, Stefan Kaarle, was involuntarily ejected out of the aircraft in mid-air while approaching the airstrip in order to land.

A design flaw after modifications in the cockpit. It was the G-suit that somehow had activated the ejection-seat. The problem was solved afterwards.

June 2005
On 1 June 2005, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-184) from Airwing F 17 Kallinge, when acting as a target in a dogfight exercise, apparently ceased to obey commands from the pilot.

Pilot error.

SHK's investigation — report published in June 2007 — showed that the aircraft initially travelled at Mach 0.6 in a shallow dive at an altitude of 5500 m. When attacked, the pilot, not fully aware of the rather low speed, tried to escape by taking the plane into a steep (60 degrees) climb. This led to a "low speed"-warning, for which the pilot tried to compensate by lighting the afterburner and manoeuvering into an offset looping, briefly applying maximum angle of attack. The intent was to regain speed at the top of the loop. However, the speed was too low, and the aircraft ended up in an inverted (upside-down) superstall, and started to descend slowly.

While there are measures to get out of this situation, those taken by the not-fully-trained pilot were either inadequate, insufficient or counter-productive, and he ultimately had to abandon the aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen

September 1999
On 20 September 1999, a JAS 39A Gripen (serial no 39-156) from Airwing F 7 Såtenäs crashed into Lake Vänern during a dogfight exercise. After passing through the wake vortex of the other aircraft, the aircraft abruptly changed course.

The crash-report.

The Swedish Accident Investigation Board (SHK) could not fully determine the cause of the crash until the black box was found some 15 months later. The preliminary report is available in English.[3]

SHK's final report — not available in English — concluded that the plane had passed through the other aircraft's wake vortex while in a steep (−70 degrees) dive. When passing, the pilot's pitch command was "up", but instead the vortex inflicted a large aerodynamic transient on the aircraft, throwing it down into an almost vertical (−85 degrees) dive. These factors combined to create an angle of attack that was too large for the command to be obeyed, and so the ground-collision warning system alerted the pilot that a turn to avoid a crash would require more than 10 g. He then chose, in full accordance with the flight manual, to eject. At the same moment, however, the vortex effect ceased as suddenly as it had appeared, instantly reducing the angle of attack to within limits, and thus the plane was flyable again, and could in theory have been saved.

The flight status in the moment of ejection was: altitude 750 m, flight angle −75 degrees, speed 350 km/h, angle of attack −8 degrees, and load −1.5 g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen
This could have happened to any fighter-aircraft. As stated above, if the pilot was a little more cool-headed, the plane could have been saved.

If you copied all that from Wikipedia, why didn't you also copy the stated reasons behind the incidents? I used the information from the very same page as you.
Maybe you just wanted it to look more dramatic?

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 03 Feb 2011 20:20

B_Ambuj wrote:Gurinder P ji and ranjithnath ji,

Thank you for your views, I am not disagreeing with your views. Your comments are logical.
But, for a prospective customer it would become a matter of concern if it happens quite so often.
Please, refer to the dates of the incidents.
Don't you think so?

I can only see kinks being ironed out if they are kinks. I can see why you think the Grippen is more accident prone than the other contenders but I have to stress one point: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SOURCE

sorry for the capslock but I had to get your attention on that.

The accident page on wikipedia for the F 18 does not include the spectacular crashes it had with the CAF and the accidents for the Mig 29 (why 29? because the 35 is the derivative of the 29 like the NG for the Grippen) are completely excluded.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 03 Feb 2011 20:56

Henrik,
When a plane crashes, easiest think to do and probably the first thing that is done is to blame the pilot and you are doing nothing different. At the first instance, nobody will probably point a finger at the aircraft.
Pilot community would agree with me.
As far as the incidents which I have quoted I have stated the following :

B_Ambuj wrote:Of the Multiple number of incidents involving Gripen, the below mentioned ones do not seem to be pilot induced.

Henrik wrote:
January 2011
On 12 January 2011, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge slid off the hard surface when taxiing after landing.
Iced down runway, plane was back in the air two days later.

That is not what the link suggested. Where is that mentioned in the link?

Henrik wrote:
May 2010
On 31 May 2010, a Gripen from F 21 Luleå came loose and sped away during an engine test.
Stupid mechanic had put the throttle in the wrong position.

That is not is clearly stated in the link. Now you are blaming the poor mechanic.

Henrik wrote:
August 2009
On 6 August 2009, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge belly-landed after a routine mission and skidded off the runway.
Pilot forgot to extend the landing-gear.

Blaming the pilot !! what is stated in the link is “A witness observing the plane landing claimed the nosewheel collapsed on the runway but this claim is unlikely. What he saw from such a long distance was more likely the front landing light lamp, which on the Gripen is placed in the hatch to the front landing gear and not on the landing gear itself where it would only be visible when the gear is out, in combination with the collapsing external fuel tank under the plane.”

Henrik wrote:
November 2008
On 17 November 2008, the landing gear of a Swedish Air Force Gripen collapsed after landing at F 17 Kallinge. The pilot was on a routine mission.

On 17 November 2008, the landing gear of a Swedish Air Force Gripen collapsed after landing at F 17 Kallinge. The pilot was on a routine mission, when he received an error indication. He decided to abort the mission and return to the airfield. When taxiing, he felt that the brakes did not work properly, so he decided to stop as soon as possible. As the engine was switched off, the front landing gear suddenly collapsed, and the aircraft fell on its nose. The pilot escaped unharmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_ ... _39_Gripen
Do not make it sound more dramatic than it actually was. A minor mechanical failure, it just showed that the warning-systems worked properly.

In case of the above 2 cases you agree that it was mechanical failure?
Now tell me was Gripen not designed or manufactured to handle such kind of Mechanical Failures?
OMG !! What conclusion you are arriving at ?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 03 Feb 2011 21:09

OMG, it's spelled GRIPEN.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Feb 2011 21:13

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 03 Feb 2011 21:22

Damn Swedes playing games with odd mix of double letters. SAAB Draken (two A and one K), then SAAB Viggen (2 A and two G), then SAAB Gripen (2 A and 1 P). Who can keep track when they use two or one of A, S, G, P, N?
(BTW it is tongue-in-cheek... before someone takes it too seriously).

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 03 Feb 2011 21:38

B_Ambuj wrote:Henrik,
When a plane crashes, easiest think to do and probably the first thing that is done is to blame the pilot and you are doing nothing different. At the first instance, nobody will probably point a finger at the aircraft.
Pilot community would agree with me.

Tell that to the Swedish accident commision who is doing all investigative work. Or do you now claim that the commision lies and is conspiring against the pilots?

B_Ambuj wrote:That is not what the link suggested. Where is that mentioned in the link?

That is not in the link, it's here: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.as ... el=4326841

That is not is clearly stated in the link. Now you are blaming the poor mechanic.

Blaming the poor mechanic? Who else was even near the plane? The investigation into the incident is not finished yet, but so far all is pointing towards the mechanic making a misstake.
It's even on the Wikipedia link:

Wikipedia wrote:There is unconfirmed information that the engine was accidentally started with full throttle.[16] As the accident did not involve a flying plane, or a plane intended for flying, it is not considered to be a crash."

B_Ambuj wrote:Blaming the pilot !! what is stated in the link is “A witness observing the plane landing claimed the nosewheel collapsed on the runway but this claim is unlikely. What he saw from such a long distance was more likely the front landing light lamp, which on the Gripen is placed in the hatch to the front landing gear and not on the landing gear itself where it would only be visible when the gear is out, in combination with the collapsing external fuel tank under the plane.”

Now you are being ignorant again, this is the whole section on Wikipedia from which you copied your text, partially:

Wikipedia wrote:On 6 August 2009, a Gripen from F 17 Kallinge belly-landed after a routine mission and skidded off the runway. A minor fire broke out, but it was soon put out by the airbase fire brigade. The cause is believed to be pilot error. A witness observing the plane landing claimed the nosewheel collapsed on the runway but this claim is unlikely. What he saw from such a long distance was more likely the front landing light lamp, which on the Gripen is placed in the hatch to the front landing gear and not on the landing gear itself where it would only be visible when the gear is out, in combination with the collapsing external fuel tank under the plane. The pilot escaped unharmed and could walk away from the aircraft. SHK will investigate the incident.

B_Ambuj wrote:In case of the above 2 cases you agree that it was mechanical failure?

No, only in the case where the nose-wheel actually collapsed.

B_Ambuj wrote:Now tell me was Grippen not designed or manufactured to handle such kind of Mechanical Failures?

A collapsed wheel is a collapsed wheel, it's not like you're carrying a spare. The system warned the pilot that something with the gear was wrong, what else could have been done in this situation according to you?

B_Ambuj wrote:OMG !! What conclusion you are arriving at ?

What are you on about? The question is more about the wierd conclusions you are arriving at!

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 03 Feb 2011 21:45

Avid wrote:Damn Swedes playing games with odd mix of double letters. SAAB Draken (two A and one K), then SAAB Viggen (2 A and two G), then SAAB Gripen (2 A and 1 P). Who can keep track when they use two or one of A, S, G, P, N?
(BTW it is tongue-in-cheek... before someone takes it too seriously).

Why make it easy when you can make it hard, right?

Try this word (or more like a military term) out: "NORDÖSTERSJÖKUSTARTILLERIFLYGSPANINGSSIMULATORANLÄGGNINGSMATERIELUNDERHÅLLSUPPFÖLJNINGSSYSTEMDISKUSSIONSINLÄGGSFÖRBEREDELSEARBETEN" (130 letters)

- From Guinnes book of records 1996