# Make In India - Fighter Jet musings - News, Developments, Updates - F16,F18, Gripen, Any other



## PARIKRAMA

*Make In India - Fighter Jet musings - News, Developments, Updates - F16,F18, Gripen, Any other (F35,LSA, etc)*

*All except Rafale Jet deal. Thats for the Rafale Sticky Only.*

*Pls dont open any more thread pertaining to this topic. All are requested to post it in this one main thread.*

@WAJsal @waz @Oscar
Request you for this sticky in order to collate all news, developments, updates under 1 place and also lead to a continuity for all such discussions

Threads on this topic from 1st of June 2016 onwards

https://defence.pk/threads/in-sweden-parrikar-to-negotiate-gripen-deal.448765/
https://defence.pk/threads/indias-d...tiating-gripen-fighter-deal-in-sweden.448736/
https://defence.pk/threads/gripen-e-beyond-hype-“reality-is-much-stormier-much-murkier-much-scarier”.439492/
https://defence.pk/threads/gripen-mii-production-deal-signed.434392/
https://defence.pk/threads/us-links...ect-to-manufacture-fighter-plan.448251/unread
https://defence.pk/threads/pentagon-backs-proposal-to-give-us-fighter-jets-‘make-in-india’-tag.447731/
https://defence.pk/threads/india-us...engine-under-make-in-india-initiative.448632/
https://defence.pk/threads/india-no...-production-of-f16-fighter-jets.448639/unread
https://defence.pk/threads/india-ke...combat-aircraft-manufacturing-project.448638/
https://defence.pk/threads/parrikar-trip-to-bofors-land.448586/
https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed...ndia-from-india-exported-to-the-world.443136/
https://defence.pk/threads/the-f-16-offer-to-india-—-india-might-refuse-it-but-pakistan-can’t-ignore-it.446934/
https://defence.pk/threads/is-parrikars-”-sasta-aur-tikau-”-logic-behind-india’s-f-16-interest-p.447647/
https://defence.pk/threads/india-could-become-next-hub-for-f-16-jets-in-a-blow-to-pakistan.445573/
https://defence.pk/threads/f-16v-vs-gripen-e-clear-winner-is-f-16v.444991/unread
https://defence.pk/threads/india-rejects-saabs-offer-to-develop-tejas-mk1a-aircraft.443907/unread
https://defence.pk/threads/f-16s-may-replace-india’s-obsolete-fleet-as-rafale-deal-stalling.443110/
https://defence.pk/threads/if-iaf-selects-f-16-we-will-make-it-in-india.442766/
https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed...-potential-for-made-in-india-f16-jets.442658/
https://defence.pk/threads/why-india-should-consider-lockheed-martins-f-16-offer.441731/
https://defence.pk/threads/pentagon-to-offer-f-35-to-india-in-upcoming-tech-transfer-talks.440757/
https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed-martin-to-offer-f-35-to-india.440688/
https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed...partner-to-make-fighter-jets-in-india.439476/
https://defence.pk/threads/in-exclusive-deal-india-to-get-‘most-advanced’-f-16-fighter-jets-by-2019-20.438848/
https://defence.pk/threads/gripen-mii-production-deal-signed.434392/
https://defence.pk/threads/us-wants-indias-fighter-jet-order-dangles-f-35.6368/
https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed-raises-pitch-for-f-16s.438257/
https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...ghter-jets-set-to-take-off-next-month.437057/
https://defence.pk/threads/made-in-india’-f-16s-on-radar-thanks-to-fdi.435934/
https://defence.pk/threads/f-16s-on-radar-made-in-india’.435962/
https://defence.pk/threads/can-gripen-e-and-lca-tejas-co-exist-in-indian-air-force.435137/
https://defence.pk/threads/saab-offers-to-create-aerospace-system-under-make-in-india.435078/
https://defence.pk/threads/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-in-india-gripen-pitch.434318/
https://defence.pk/threads/air-chief-marshal-raha-to-visit-sweden-lca-mk2-aka-gripen-in.433861/

++++
*This thread in senior sections is a latest discussion on probabilities and for exercise purposes to comprehend different views.*

https://defence.pk/threads/indian-airforce-mmrca-lwf-alternate-discussion.448646/

++++

*All members are requested to use this thread only.*
*In case any thread is missed pls request to merge it here.*

Tagging all
@Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx- @Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param @Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90 @Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp @Crixus @waz @WAJsal @Oscar @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero https://defence.pk/members/bregs.148509/ @others @Armani @ashok321 @kahonapyarhai

Reactions: Like Like:
28


----------



## Perpendicular

Good work @PARIKRAMA 
At least over here in pdf we can streamline the cluster fck unlike our Indian defence ministry.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PARIKRAMA

randomradio said:


> I don't know how many of you noticed but we haven't had any pro-Gripen articles since July.
> 
> We signed the MoU with Saab in Feb. And then signed the GTG deal with Sweden in June. Until Feb to June, there were pro-Gripen articles and quotes from Saab officials constantly, but after the signature in June end, all articles died. This is part of the GoI rules which prohibit companies from talking to the media when they are under contract with GoI. It was the same with Rafale, only contract related news was released.
> 
> The Gripen GTG deal itself was very low profile. It was signed in Singapore between defence secretaries.



MOU between Sweden and India or between Saab and India has not happened. Nor any Signature between Defence secretaries has happened.
Post the last concrete offer from Sweden, Saab is suppose to come back with the list of technologies which it can transfer comprehensively and needed time to talk with its partners to get a go ahead in written form to submit their proposal.
Saab Marketing team ppl are known to me and in their own words they are reworking the strategy
They have faced severe backlash bcz Gripen is seen as a fighter which will curtail LCA program so they are needing a re positioning and their media blitz actually backfired as they became too much visible.
ACM Raha visit and now DM MP visit is to assure them of the confidence that they will be able to get the partners consent for the tech transfer aspect.
There is an expectation that Saab has secured the requisite details and will hand over the confirmation to DM MP when he meets them and also some partners are invited in that meeting to have face to face interaction on the same.
The final decision on single engine jet is pretty far ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Wet Shirt Contest

Your posts are always treat to read

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

only remain j-10 and jf-17 as mmrca threads P

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

freeskylord said:


> lots of news about airforce, fighter jet deals.. blah blah!
> 
> and in hand we have ... baba ji ka thullu!! nikamme log




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter's_law

Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

— Douglas Hofstadter, _Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

@PARIKRAMA Good. Will clear a lot of clutter in this section.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## freeskylord

PARIKRAMA said:


> Saab Marketing team ppl are known to me and in their own words they are reworking the strategy



is there any link on public forum which you can provide? Or was this something which was told you by some one in SAAB?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARIKRAMA

*Examining F-16 offer to India : Will it be Viper with a Sting ?*
Published September 11, 2016

SOURCE: Adhir Naik / FOR MY TAKE / IDRW.ORG

Despite production backlog of only 15 aircraft which will be completed by end of 2017, Lockheed Martin is keen to establish an F-16 line in India to meet not only IAF needs but also the global spares and support market for their legacy product.

*F-16V on offer to India will formally be given Block 70/72 designation when it enters production. The F-16Vs specification is primarily centred around a Northrop Grumman AESA radar and improved cockpit layout and externally will be very similar to UAE operated Block-60 and most striking feature of the F-16V will be two shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks, integrated FLIR and targeting system (IFTS) and Falcon Edge electronic-warfare (EW) suite .*

*Lockheed Martin has told India that any new build of F-16s will be only of F-16V and currently it is in talks with dozen countries operating various models of the base aircraft who are interested in upgrading their F-16s to newest block F-16V which will lead to sourcing of many materials and components from its India subsidiary and Indian Partners .*

*Lockheed Martin has provided a roadmap to the Indian government that it is close to securing upgrade programme orders for nearly 300 legacy F-16s from three undisclosed customers who are keen on keeping their F-16s fighting fit even after 2040 and many more countries might agree to upgrade their F-16s at a later stage .*

F-16s which is the second largest production fighter jet ever and no doubt is still widely used and in operation fighter jet around the world which Lockheed Martin believes will win it further upgrade and spare & support orders , a commitment which it is hard selling to Indian government but Lockheed Martin Business Development and its growth is with sale of its 5th generation stealth F-35 fighter jet and not with legacy F-16s .

*Conclusion : India has to weight pros and cons of Lockheed Martin’s offer on F-16 and consider whether it wants to give its force a modern and efficient fighter jet for its airforce or just wants to create a business opportunity in global arms sales with the critical transfer of technology and play job of outsourcing Industry to American Arms manufacturers .*




Source: http://idrw.org/examining-f-16-offer-to-india-will-it-be-viper-with-a-sting/

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## punit

PARIKRAMA said:


> *Examining F-16 offer to India : Will it be Viper with a Sting ?*
> Published September 11, 2016
> 
> SOURCE: Adhir Naik / FOR MY TAKE / IDRW.ORG
> 
> Despite production backlog of only 15 aircraft which will be completed by end of 2017, Lockheed Martin is keen to establish an F-16 line in India to meet not only IAF needs but also the global spares and support market for their legacy product.
> 
> *F-16V on offer to India will formally be given Block 70/72 designation when it enters production. The F-16Vs specification is primarily centred around a Northrop Grumman AESA radar and improved cockpit layout and externally will be very similar to UAE operated Block-60 and most striking feature of the F-16V will be two shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks, integrated FLIR and targeting system (IFTS) and Falcon Edge electronic-warfare (EW) suite .*
> 
> *Lockheed Martin has told India that any new build of F-16s will be only of F-16V and currently it is in talks with dozen countries operating various models of the base aircraft who are interested in upgrading their F-16s to newest block F-16V which will lead to sourcing of many materials and components from its India subsidiary and Indian Partners .*
> 
> *Lockheed Martin has provided a roadmap to the Indian government that it is close to securing upgrade programme orders for nearly 300 legacy F-16s from three undisclosed customers who are keen on keeping their F-16s fighting fit even after 2040 and many more countries might agree to upgrade their F-16s at a later stage .*
> 
> F-16s which is the second largest production fighter jet ever and no doubt is still widely used and in operation fighter jet around the world which Lockheed Martin believes will win it further upgrade and spare & support orders , a commitment which it is hard selling to Indian government but Lockheed Martin Business Development and its growth is with sale of its 5th generation stealth F-35 fighter jet and not with legacy F-16s .
> 
> *Conclusion : India has to weight pros and cons of Lockheed Martin’s offer on F-16 and consider whether it wants to give its force a modern and efficient fighter jet for its airforce or just wants to create a business opportunity in global arms sales with the critical transfer of technology and play job of outsourcing Industry to American Arms manufacturers .*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://idrw.org/examining-f-16-offer-to-india-will-it-be-viper-with-a-sting/


IMO we should buy F-16 with extensive modification and in sufficient numbers to replace our current Migs 21 and 27. ( 150-200 Nos.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## proud_indian

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774990547786330113
@PARIKRAMA

He is the one who broke cancellation of MMRCA and GTG deal of 36 fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARIKRAMA

So first assembly line is Rafale and second assembly line most probably will be a LWF a direct fight between 3 contenders - LM F16, Saab Gripen E, and indigenous project LSA.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## wiseone2

order for 36 Rafale does not justify assembly line

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

PARIKRAMA said:


> View attachment 333581
> 
> 
> View attachment 333582
> 
> 
> So first assembly line is Rafale and second assembly line most probably will be a LWF a direct fight between 3 contenders - LM F16, Saab Gripen E, and indigenous project LSA.




F18 is still in this. MoD directly states this in the Boeing Apache fuselage plant conference, Boeing was briefed on this as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PARIKRAMA

*Bursting a myth. All were said F16 Block 70/72 is the latest right. 
Here you go*

Credit to somedude for posting in another forum


*09/11/2016*
*Lockheed Martin launched the F-16 "Viper" Block80 / 85!*






I told you about last July under the title "the F-16 has not said its last word," the US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin has just introduced a new version of its popular F-16. The aim is twofold, a hand modernize the current fleet still in service and other new markets there or the F-35 is too expensive. In some markets, the manufacturer even plans to introduce a dual offers customer choice with the F-35 and the new F-16.

*The F-16 "Viper" Block80 / 85*

The Lockheed Martin F-16 "Viper" Block80 / 85 is the latest and most advanced family of "Fighting Falcon". The F-16V configuration includes many enhancements designed to keep the F-16 advanced fighter planes. According to Lockheed Martin, this new version will provide advanced combat capabilities while remaining scalable and affordable solution for the customer.

*The F-16V features a new electronic radar antenna Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Northrop Grumman APG-83 "Scalable Agile Beam Radar". The APG-83 provides pilots unmatched vision detail in terms of the target area and digital map displays coupled with an IRST system. Avionics is also improved with a central giant screen 6x8 (CPD) at high resolution, a new high-speed data bus.Operational capabilities are improved through a new system of Link-16 datalink "Theater Data Link", the addition of the latest version of the targeting pod "Sniper", a new navigation and precision system GPS. The aircraft is also equipped with the automatic system Ground Collision Avoidance (Auto GCAS). In addition a large number of software are common with F-22 and F-35. This commonality allows systems to make the F-16V-compatible for the exchange of data with the other two devices.In armaments, the F-16V allows you to carry all the weapons available and future of US Air Force.*

*Developing new markets:*

For Boeing, the new F-16 is the opportunity to explore new markets in Asia, Latin America and Europe and to fill gaps price of the F-35. Furthermore, an internal study shows that many potential customers do not have the means to acquire the F-35, but does not have a legitimate interest in acquiring a stealth type aircraft.

*The F-16V proposed to Switzerland?*

Regarding the project of new fighter aircraft whose preparation began in January, Lockheed Martin seems very interested to offer a double proposal with the F-35 but also the F-16V. For Lockheed Martin, the F-16V has a price / quality excellent for our country and requires no adaptation of existing infrastructure.
http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive...in-lance-le-f-16-viper-block80-85-862076.html

+++

Block 70/72














So much for exclusive to India and most latest versions. When the same with minor cosmetic changes with a newer Blcok name is offered to others

Enjoy the hypocrisy... And they will put a spin. A Make In India F16 Block 80/85 sold to Switzerland. 

@Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Vergennes @hellfire @MilSpec @Ankit Kumar 002 @randomradio @Armani @GuardianRED https://defence.pk/members/bregs.148509/ @R!CK @Picdelamirand-oil

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Hellfire

PARIKRAMA said:


> So much for exclusive to India and most latest versions. When the same with minor cosmetic changes with a newer Blcok name is offered to others
> 
> Enjoy the hypocrisy... And they will put a spin. A Make In India F16 Block 80/85 sold to Switzerland.



Another ticklish idea. Su-30, Rafale and LCA with Gripen (if Sweden gives assurance on engine). US totally out.

That gives us the edge we need with Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## [Bregs]

Hmm so being laced with lots of chocolates and creams, with all these add on features the price will rise too but technology transfer might be as good as assembling by india

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PARIKRAMA

[Bregs] said:


> Hmm so being laced with lots of chocolates and creams, with all these add on features the price will rise too but technology transfer might be as good as assembling by india


Screw driver level
Nut and bolt and riveting assembly in a Air conditioned plant and with a bio metric access and a ID card based locator to keep a track where you are all the time and you are not in other "secretive" areas for which you are not authorised.

Thats "State of the Art"

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Hellfire

PARIKRAMA said:


> Screw driver level
> Nut and bolt and riveting assembly in a Air conditioned plant and with a bio metric access and a ID card based locator to keep a track where you are all the time and you are not in other "secretive" areas for which you are not authorised.
> 
> Thats "State of the Art"




A big NO THANKS 

Lets hope GoI works up faster and wraps up asap. Things have got delayed too long.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## [Bregs]

hellfire said:


> A big NO THANKS
> 
> Lets hope GoI works up faster and wraps up asap. Things have got delayed too long.



Another angle we are all forgetting that apart from convergence of interests on china factor to a certain level between India and US, by offering such planes to india to assemble, the US is also very cleverly luring India away from Russia which we can not afford in any case with vast amount of weaponry of Russian origin

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hellfire

[Bregs] said:


> Another angle we are all forgetting that apart from convergence of interests on china factor to a certain level between India and US, by offering such planes to india to assemble, the US is also very cleverly luring India away from Russia which we can not afford in any case with vast amount of weaponry of Russian origin



No. We are not forgetting that. I don't think anyone if us has negated the Russian factor.

Project 23000e, the four warships, sukhoi upgrade, and other equipment on order as earlier elucidated by @PARIKRAMA is a bigger deal.
Money speaks

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## [Bregs]

hellfire said:


> No. We are not forgetting that. I don't think anyone if us has negated the Russian factor.
> 
> Project 23000e, the four warships, sukhoi upgrade, and other equipment on order as earlier elucidated by @PARIKRAMA is a bigger deal.
> Money speaks



i am eager to some big tickets deals with Russian when Putin is in Goa next month

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Abingdonboy

hellfire said:


> Another ticklish idea. Su-30, Rafale and LCA with Gripen (if Sweden gives assurance on engine). US totally out.
> 
> That gives us the edge we need with Russia.


The US is hardly "out" in this scenario as 2 of the above Jets would have critical US tech (propulsion) and thus India would be in their vice. Rafale, LCA (long term with Kaveri fitted), AMCA, Su-30 and FGFA would easily be the optimum solution for India's strategic considerations.

With SAAB already offering exclusive rights to Brazil for the NG the little incentive that existed for India is now non-existent as far as the Gripen Goes.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hellfire

Abingdonboy said:


> With SAAB already offering exclusive rights to Brazil for the NG the little incentive that existed for India is now non-existent as far as the Gripen Goes.



This I missed somehow. Wasnt keeping a track thoroughly. Thanks for this point.

US 'out' in terms of platform only was my intent.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PARIKRAMA

ashok321 said:


> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Boeing-bullish-on-India-as-manufacturing-base
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> India is currently finalizing negotiations to buy 36 French Rafale multi-role fighter jets -- a deal for which Boeing unsuccessfully pitched its F/A-18 Super Hornet. But Boeing India president Pratyush Kumar is looking to life beyond the Rafale deal, and to India's growing role in the company's global operations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pratyush Kumar, President of Boeing India
> 
> 
> 
> "In India we have a robust and growing business partnership in both the commercial and defense space," Kumar said. "Just this past month, the Indian government placed an order for four P8-I maritime reconnaissance aircraft." That deal is worth more than $1 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> The company also announced the start of construction in Hyderabad of a joint venture aerospace factory with Tata Advanced Systems, part of the Tata Group, in June.
> 
> "This factory will make the entire fuselage for the Apache attack helicopter. This is not just for the 22 Apaches that India has contracted for -- but also for the global supply chain of Boeing. This is just the beginning; we see India as a part of Boeing's global aviation ecosystem in the years ahead."
> 
> The joint venture will manufacture the Apache's fuselage, door frames for the P8-I and will also scale up for Boeing's global needs. Tata will benefit from technology transfer through the joint venture.
> 
> Kumar is also bullish on combat aircraft, despite the Rafale deal. "The [Indian Air Force] will gradually phase out the Mig-21, Mirage 2000 and Jaguar squadrons over the next decade. This creates an opportunity for more aircraft for the IAF," he said.
> 
> "India will look beyond the India-made light combat aircraft and the French Rafale. Boeing is willing to create an aircraft ecosystem by transferring the entire production line of the Super Hornet [F/A-18] to India."
> 
> Present in India for 77 years, Boeing is the largest single defense vendor to the country, where it has an estimated $11 billion order book. This is a sea change from just a few years ago, when Russian and Israeli companies dominated Indian defense imports.
> 
> *Zero defect domain*
> 
> Kumar attributes the opportunity for sourcing globally from India to the available pool of engineering talent. However, for India to best leverage the global opportunity, government rules requiring 30% to 50% of each contract to be made in India -- depending on the contract size -- need to be made more flexible, he said.
> 
> "Capacity building is critical in aviation, which is a different kind of business from, say, the automotive industry," he said. Aviation "is a zero defect domain. Aviation needs an ecosystem to be put into place. India should consider using offset dollars in skill development to create a new generation of aeronautical engineers."
> 
> In its recently released market outlook for 2016, Boeing said it expects the Indian commercial aviation market to grow significantly in the medium term. It projects demand at 1,850 new aircraft, valued at $265 billion, by 2035. Of these, the company believes 1,500 aircraft will be single-aisle, while 280 will be wide-bodied.
> 
> According to the International Air Transport Association, air travel in India grew by 20% in 2015 -- the fastest growth rate in the world.
> 
> However, some analysts believe that Indian skies may be becoming over crowded as the number of competing airlines continues to soar -- the latest to enter the market include Vistara, a joint venture launched by Tata and Singapore Airlines, and Air Asia India, an offshoot of Malaysia's Air Asia. Boeing recently announced that Jet Airways, India's second-largest airline by passenger numbers, has put on hold the delivery of 10 Boeing 787 aircraft.
> 
> The country's new civil aviation policy, introduced earlier this year, mandates that a one-hour flight anywhere in India must cost no more than 2,500 rupees ($36) compared with a typical previous cost of about 4,500 rupees. The policy also frees airlines from rules requiring them to have been in business for at least five years and to possess a fleet of 20 aircraft before they can fly abroad.
> 
> "The new civil aviation policy will sustain aviation momentum going forward. The reform will spur cheaper regional connectivity. This will expand the Indian civil aviation market spatially -- beyond India's key mega cities," Kumar said. Boeing plans to pitch the 737-8 MAX, its prime regional jet, for the Indian market.



Thanks @ashok321 for this article
But please use this sticky for all F18, F16, Gripen news.. All except Rafale which goes to Rafale sticky

+++


> "India will look beyond the India-made light combat aircraft and the French Rafale. Boeing is willing to create an aircraft ecosystem by transferring the entire production line of the Super Hornet [F/A-18] to India."





> Kumar is also bullish on combat aircraft, despite the Rafale deal. "The [Indian Air Force] will gradually phase out the Mig-21, Mirage 2000 and Jaguar squadrons over the next decade. This creates an opportunity for more aircraft for the IAF," he said.



Beyond these two customary quotes his focus seems to be more on the offset and parts being made for other orders of Apache and civilian aircrafts which is a very big market.

If for him opportunity lies at Mig 21, Mirage and Jags replacement then its questionable. Mig21 are to be replaced outright by LCA and other 2 will be in service for at least 15 more years.

So what is F18 trying to replace is a very good guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## zebra7

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773413440249597952

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PARIKRAMA

Force Magazine carries an article about F16. I am uploading the article with parts of the page so that its more legible.

Please note 

*it takes 36 months to build a F16. *
*On top Indian line will take minimum 3 years.*
*If approval for MII comes in by March 2017, then by 2023 mid, we should see First F16 roll out*
*Now how can F16 meet our squadron needs or LWF need when first jet comes out by 2023.*
Please see the article

















*Comment*

*Imperatively Saab Gripen E/F is also in the same timeline*
*LCA MK2 should also be available by 2023/24 if we do make it as per original plan*
*Now LWF fleet will be augmented how when both F16/Gripen will be available only after 2023?*
*Its the same case with F18, a similar timeline there also*
*Unless the original line in US churns out some jets (2 squads) during that time till we do production under MII, the whole thing is non feasible and if we order off the shelf then it means we decrease MII numbers as well.*
*Now you all can understand why practically the other Jet (Rafale which is in sticky) is the only one practically possible and all these others are a non starter.*
*The timeline proves clearly LWF fleet wont get new numbers really under MII with what everyone is proposing.*

Tagging all. Would love to hear your thoughts after reading all this

@Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx- @Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param @Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90 @Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp @Crixus @waz @WAJsal @Oscar @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @Armani @salarsikander @others

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Abingdonboy

PARIKRAMA said:


> Force Magazine carries an article about F16. I am uploading the article with parts of the page so that its more legible.
> 
> Please note
> 
> *it takes 36 months to build a F16. *
> *On top Indian line will take minimum 3 years.*
> *If approval for MII comes in by March 2017, then by 2023 mid, we should see First F16 roll out*
> *Now how can F16 meet our squadron needs or LWF need when first jet comes out by 2023.*
> Please see the article
> View attachment 334248
> View attachment 334249
> View attachment 334250
> View attachment 334252
> View attachment 334253
> 
> 
> *Comment*
> 
> *Imperatively Saab Gripen E/F is also in the same timeline*
> *LCA MK2 should also be available by 2023/24 if we do make it as per original plan*
> *Now LWF fleet will be augmented how when both F16/Gripen will be available only after 2023?*
> *Its the same case with F18, a similar timeline there also*
> *Unless the original line in US churns out some jets (2 squads) during that time till we do production under MII, the whole thing is non feasible and if we order off the shelf then it means we decrease MII numbers as well.*
> *Now you all can understand why practically the other Jet (Rafale which is in sticky) is the only one practically possible and all these others are a non starter.*
> *The timeline proves clearly LWF fleet wont get new numbers really under MII with what everyone is proposing.*
> 
> Tagging all. Would love to hear your thoughts after reading all this
> 
> @Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx- @Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param @Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90 @Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp @Crixus @waz @WAJsal @Oscar @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @Armani @salarsikander @others


Oh look, the emprorer isn't wearing any clothes.......


Bro, it's amply clear to anyone who is interested in the truth that the SAAB and LM offers are basically exercises in futility. The Gripen NG is matched by the LCA MK.2 in almost every manner and the F-16 is a 1960s design, there is no room for a foreign LWF in the IAF. The only people pushing this are their agents and proxies in the media, neither the IAF or MoD are interested.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Ali Zadi

PARIKRAMA said:


> Force Magthers



Thanks for the tag

The only thing that America can give of value is aerospace tech not the F16 but the tech surrounding it. The engine "Full", experiment with the F16 frame aka XL, etc and related technologies. As a package the F16 is limited while it maybe ahead of the LCA in its latest iteration new updates might as well be totally dependent on Indian funding and its better to experiment locally with the LCA than with a F16.

If there is no technology of value being passed better to just make up more lines for the LCA and get a engine up and ready. The frame it self is a beautiful not to mention the navy version on which the Mk.2 is said to be based on. In fact maybe they will include some design cues from the navy version in the Mk.1A

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> The US is hardly "out" in this scenario as 2 of the above Jets would have critical US tech (propulsion) and thus India would be in their vice. Rafale, LCA (long term with Kaveri fitted), AMCA, Su-30 and FGFA would easily be the optimum solution for India's strategic considerations.
> 
> With SAAB already offering exclusive rights to Brazil for the NG the little incentive that existed for India is now non-existent as far as the Gripen Goes.



What exclusive rights, nothing of the sort mentioned here...


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> What exclusive rights, nothing of the sort mentioned here...


SAAB would be setting up a production line in India with India only reaping the benefits if there are long term export prospects from this line. SAAB has promised Brazil exclusive marketing rights in S.America that could be one of the few large markets for the Gripen (Europe is already saturated and would be services from Sweden anyway and Asia is not all that promising for the Gripen) . There is little incentive for India thusly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> Oh look, the emprorer isn't wearing any clothes.......
> 
> 
> Bro, it's amply clear to anyone who is interested in the truth that the SAAB and LM offers are basically exercises in futility. The Gripen NG is matched by the LCA MK.2 in almost every manner and the F-16 is a 1960s design, there is no room for a foreign LWF in the IAF. The only people pushing this are their agents and proxies in the media, neither the IAF or MoD are interested.



Gripen E will fly this Year., LCA Mk. 2 is nowhere close.
LCA Mk. 2 will certainly not speed up any schedule,
and significant extra delays is a significant risk here, based on experience.

Main problems with Gripen E.
1. Meaningless to buy, since LCA is as good.
2. If Gripen E is bought, LCA will be cancelled, because noone would want it.

Indian Logic....



Abingdonboy said:


> SAAB would be setting up a production line in India with India only reaping the benefits if there are long term export prospects from this line. SAAB has promised Brazil exclusive marketing rights in S.America that could be one of the few large markets for the Gripen (Europe is already saturated and would be services from Sweden anyway and Asia is not all that promising for the Gripen) . There is little incentive for India thusly.



SAAB is discussing with several countries in Asia and Africa.
Based on the needs to increase strength of the IAF, the production line
is going to be fully booked for a number of years.

Development cost of upgrades would be shared with Brazil & Sweden,
not payed by India alone, like for LCA, F-16, F/A-18.


----------



## Hephaestus

Abingdonboy said:


> Oh look, the emprorer isn't wearing any clothes.......
> 
> 
> Bro, it's amply clear to anyone who is interested in the truth that the SAAB and LM offers are basically exercises in futility. The Gripen NG is matched by the LCA MK.2 in almost every manner and the F-16 is a 1960s design, there is no room for a foreign LWF in the IAF. The only people pushing this are their agents and proxies in the media, neither the IAF or MoD are interested.


Sir,
I read sometime back that India might go for 2 MII fighter programs (cryptic comments from RM MP). Is that a feasible option. If so what should be the 2nd line - Rafale being 1st. More so i'm interested in knowing how does it translate to Naval Air Wings requirements. Shouldn't there be some commonality.

A person i know tells me N-LCA is definitely on and was impressed with the initial capabilities.

Apologies if this has been discussed earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sathya

Lets GET the Dassault help in setting up modern LCA production line, with private sector .
with snecma help we can even get kauveri engine to work in MK2 
all made in india.

case closed, no F16/ GRIPEN.

Lets think about US UAV ..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen E will fly this Year., LCA Mk. 2 is nowhere close.
> LCA Mk. 2 will certainly not speed up any schedule,
> and significant extra delays is a significant risk here, based on experience.
> 
> Main problems with Gripen E.
> 1. Meaningless to buy, since LCA is as good.
> 2. If Gripen E is bought, LCA will be cancelled, because noone would want it.
> 
> Indian Logic....


As @PARIKRAMA bas pointed out, for India the timeline for a Gripen or F-16 MII line would be a 2023 (at best) roll out of the first unit, by this time the LCA MK.2 will be readying for induction and the MK.1A will be close to 100 units in service. I'm not talking about anyone else but using the actual Indian context. 


As for "Indian logic" most of it is common sense mate. 




Hephaestus said:


> Sir,
> I read sometime back that India might go for 2 MII fighter programs (cryptic comments from RM MP). Is that a feasible option. If so what should be the 2nd line - Rafale being 1st. More so i'm interested in knowing how does it translate to Naval Air Wings requirements. Shouldn't there be some commonality.
> 
> A person i know tells me N-LCA is definitely on and was impressed with the initial capabilities.
> 
> Apologies if this has been discussed earlier.


Parrikar is playing games, since then it has been made clear there is only one foreign OEM that is seriously discussing MII whilst the others (SAAB/Boeing/LM) are being allowed to make their case but it is more than a little doubtful that they will ever be seriously entertained. Not even the IAF wants their products now.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## [Bregs]

Super sukhoi upgrades, faster induction of Tejas and MII of Rafale are the only logical choices for next 4-5 yrs for India which makes sense too. At later stages AMCA and FGFA should be expedited too

No where is the scope left for Gripen killing Tejas, F-16( Older design and risk of sanctions) and F-18 is of no use when in heavy category we will have super sukhoi and Rafale is medium role

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> As @PARIKRAMA bas pointed out, for India the timeline for a Gripen or F-16 MII line would be a 2023 (at best) roll out of the first unit, by this time the LCA MK.2 will be readying for induction and the MK.1A will be close to 100 units in service. I'm not talking about anyone else but using the actual Indian context.
> 
> 
> As for "Indian logic" most of it is common sense mate.


100 LCAs does not meet the stated needs of IAF.

The LCA Mk.2, may suffer from the same type of delays as the Mk.1.
Even if it is available, it may lack S/W needed for it to be useful.
Weapons needs to be qualified, so it may not be really ready until 2030...


----------



## surya kiran

A.P. Richelieu said:


> 100 LCAs does not meet the stated needs of IAF.
> 
> The LCA Mk.2, may suffer from the same type of delays as the Mk.1.
> Even if it is available, it may lack S/W needed for it to be useful.
> Weapons needs to be qualified, so it may not be really ready until 2030...



There is a second line for the Tejas being planned. This will be by the private sector. This will be for the Mk1.A. The roll out plan is for each line to scale up to 18 planes in a year and optimistically to 23-24. The final number of planes for the Tejas Mk1.A will be closer to 300 planes. Why? No private player will put up a plant for making 50 planes. They will need at the least 150 planes to make any sense. This private player will then be involved in the AMCA also. You will hear about all this once the current Rafale deal is closed.

The Mk.2 will be nothing but a further customised IAF version of the naval version of the Tejas.

If another fighter line consisting of either the F16 or Gripen is selected, then, there will be no Mk2 for the IAF. The development for the naval Tejas will continue. But, if this is selected, then there is a major squadron increase kicking in. Why? You are then talking about at the least 500 lower tier fighters, 200+ Rafales and 300 Sukkhois. Not to mention the UAV squadrons. Last I heard a crazy number of 1000. I will take that UAV number with a huge pinch of salt.

By the way, @PARIKRAMA have you heard of any Army Aviation role for the Combat Hawks? For Close air support?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> 100 LCAs does not meet the stated needs of IAF.
> 
> The LCA Mk.2, may suffer from the same type of delays as the Mk.1.
> Even if it is available, it may lack S/W needed for it to be useful.
> Weapons needs to be qualified, so it may not be really ready until 2030...


The MK.1A is more or less what the IAF wants from the LCA right now. The MK.2 may take a bit longer than is ed right now but the MK.1A line(s) can keep running to cover the delays.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the IAF's doctrine is to employ the LCA/single engined LWF as a point defence fighter and rear guard, it is not going to go striking enemy territory, that will be the job of the "heavies" (MKI/Rafale/FGFA/AMCA).

Today's news of the Rafale deal finally coming to a close further entrenches this doctrine. The MK.1A as a highly optimised A2A fighter with a decent range, small RCS, high availability and exceptional situational awareness (thanks to perfect integration with the C4I systems of the IAF and an AESA radar) is more than enough to meet the needs of the IAF for their point defence/rear guard fighter. If it isn't then they focus on the MK.2.

+ @surya kiran there is next to no market for the combat hawk in India, it is being developed by HAL/BAE primarily for the export market.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## dadeechi

I personally think there should be two separate sticky threads other than RAFALE. which would be the first MMRCA line

The second assembly line would be F-16.

SAAB would be for LCA MK2 (Re: its replacement)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARIKRAMA

dadeechi said:


> I personally think there should be two separate sticky threads other than RAFALE. which would be the first MMRCA line
> 
> The second assembly line would be F-16.
> 
> SAAB would be for LCA MK2 (Re: its replacement)


if formally any one of the 3 planes - F16,F18 and Saab gripen- any one is chosen as a MII line, a separate sticky will be created and this will be removed surely.

Till the time being since there is always 4-5 articles more or less every month and we dedicate and debate about them in separate thread , its necessary that this sticky thread is used for better collation of such news and discussions.


Combining this post with another here


Indiran Chandiran said:


> Fortunately or unfortunately , that means that most of the future inventory of IAF would be coming out of factories at the same time - Tejas Mk-2 , FGFA & Rafale ( MII ) .I'm referring to a timeline of 2023 - 26.
> 
> Given the rapidly declining nos of aircraft with the IAF & assuming we have the full quota of Tejas Mk-1a ( not exactly top of the line aircraft ) nducted along with half or three fourths of the Super Sukhoi ( post MLU Sukhoi -30 MKI ) , that still leaves a huge hole in the inventories of fighter aircrafts in the IAG considering that the Jaguars, MIG -29 & Mirage - 2000 would be on their last legs.
> 
> Where will the other nos come from ?? @Abingdonboy & @PARIKRAMA
> 
> Don't you think there is a case here for the F-16 ( irrespective of whether it comes with full ToT ) or the Gripen - E ( irrespective of whether it's a potential Tejas Mk - 2 killer.IMHO , irrespective of the similarities between both the Tejas & Gripen , developmental work will not cease & we shall actually see both a naval & air force version of MK 2 .I have some additional points too which I shall make after your posts if you would be kind enough to oblige us with your views



Tagging @Abingdonboy too as this is a more appropriate thread for this.

There are two aspects. One the Mig29,Jags and Mirages would be used for another 15 years with reduced number of hours per year flight hours to sustain their life and will be retired from 2030 onwards (give and take couple of years)

The production numbers of new jets inducted of say when these above jets retire
LCA Mk2 - 16
Rafale MII - 16
FGFA - 8
Minus
1 squadron ~ 18- 20
----------------
Total new jets inducted 20-22 new jets per year.

So ideally it should balance it out.

Now if we consider LWF of F16/Gripen E
This thread has some of the views https://defence.pk/threads/indian-airforce-mmrca-lwf-alternate-discussion.448646/
Its about possible permutation combinations

Coming back to the point of say F16/Gripen E as second line

Assuming F16 uses the present Mig21 base infrastructure with minimal change , The cost of F16 Blk 70 as given by newspaper as $70Mn +other support packages + say Derby, Derby ER and Python combo + training simulator etc etc will cost anything in upward of $120 Mn

Assuming Saab Gripen E as LCA Mk2 (which is a wrong move as per me and i have said this to Saab), it will cost again in a similar cost for a package in and around $120+ Mn and even more owing to certain new specs and additional cost bcz of the much superior tech in Gripen .

The purpose of LCA Mk1A with such packages and weapons will all inclusive be around $60 Mn or 50% of this cost.

Its true capability wise Gripen E will be multiple of LCA MK1A but so is also 2-2.5X cost.

This implies if we justify Saab Gripen E as LCA MK2, either we have to drop F16 packaged deal or we have to get this package at best say 10-15% superior price to LCA Mk2. Implying if we get say flyaway also at $45-50Mn and all inclusive package price of say $70-75Mn for a Block 70 F16, yes it can be justified saying its additional capabilities at a suitable but manageable premium. And prime focus is to just get the numbers. In return keep USA happy and get something in bargain.

No doubt Gripen E will outclass and outsmart F16 Block 70. So if we are building a capability addition then i would prefer Gripen E as it gives me multiple effect of LCA and F16 . In such a scenario a little lower than 1:1 replacements wont eb bad also.

BUT

If we negate all cost stuff angle and focus on other points, Pilot training and evolving a matured strategy/tactic will take anywhere between 5-7 years. On top the surge in number of pilots required may also be a potential challenge . This does makes me feel LWF if needed does nt need a MII line.

Rather i would get say for example F16 from USA and get 5-6 squadron delivered between 2019-25 (6 years 6 squadron) and use the leverage and offsets in some other stuff /collaboration.

This helps me reduce time and unnecessary cost that comes with establishing MII line and waiting for so called benefit and TOT thing. Even reduce offsets if it gives a good bargained deal.

Incredibly such a move gives us the additional number by max by 2025 itself.

BTW my Gripen E POV in another forum






The Gripen E FOC is still some time awa. So negating the TOT part and if its for numbers credibly they can deliver more like in between 2023+ timeline post FOC attainment. So only viable soluton for quick numbers directly off the shelf is F16.

Now that goes against the very essence of a second line which aims at meeting the demands as well as creating a proper second aircraft manufacturing hub and MIC. This is as where the issue plagues me as both dont help us either.

The best solution according to me is using L&T and establishing a 16-24 jet per year line for LCA in private sector and start churning out HAL+L&T minimum 30-40 jets a year from 2021 onwards. Till MK2 comes keep churning our MK1A or a improved version of Mk1A+.

basically the cost benefit and established line and eco system helps us get a similar number like F16 with a much lesser investment. Not saying LCA Mk1A is more capable than F16 block 70 but it meets the numbers requirement quite easily. and also in a similar timeline.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Abingdonboy

Indiran Chandiran said:


> Fortunately or unfortunately , that means that most of the future inventory of IAF would be coming out of factories at the same time - Tejas Mk-2 , FGFA & Rafale ( MII ) .I'm referring to a timeline of 2023 - 26.
> 
> Given the rapidly declining nos of aircraft with the IAF & assuming we have the full quota of Tejas Mk-1a ( not exactly top of the line aircraft ) nducted along with half or three fourths of the Super Sukhoi ( post MLU Sukhoi -30 MKI ) , that still leaves a huge hole in the inventories of fighter aircrafts in the IAG considering that the Jaguars, MIG -29 & Mirage - 2000 would be on their last legs .The full component of MIG - 21 & MIG 27 would be mothballed between 2019 - 2024.
> 
> Where will the other nos come from ?? @Abingdonboy & @PARIKRAMA
> 
> Don't you think there is a case here for the F-16 ( irrespective of whether it comes with full ToT ) or the Gripen - E ( irrespective of whether it's a potential Tejas Mk - 2 killer.IMHO , irrespective of the similarities between both the Tejas & Gripen , developmental work will not cease & we shall actually see both a naval & air force version of MK 2 .I have some additional points too which I shall make after your posts if you would be kind enough to oblige us with your views )


Don't worry too much about the IAF once the Rafale deal is signed bro.

1)The MiG-29s and M2Ks have been given extensive upgrades that will see them remaining relevent until 2030 at least (alone they easily match the PAF's top of the line fighter in capabilities and numbers ).
2) a similar story exists with the Jags (the newest airframes will be re-engined and also upgraded to the DARIN III standard that will keep them relevent for another 10-15 years).
3) The MKI is being inducted at a decent pace and the IAF will keep ordering them up to and beyond the 300 unit figure as they see fit. I won't discuss the Super MKI upgrade (needless to say it itself is a game changer in the region) but just the addition of the Brahmos-A ALCM is a major boost for the Indian military and a strategic asset.
4) The LCA is finally coming online and the MK.1A will be all the IAF needs it to be (and then some more)
5) Existing fleets (MiG-21/7) are being phased out but the pinch will only really be felt from 2019 onwards and the moves being made today (Rafale off the shelf induction, LCA induction etc) will stem this (somewhat).
6) From 2022/3 the IAF is going to expand RAPIDLY in both numbers and capabilities, some pain now will see plenty of gains in the not too distant future. If India can keep itself out of a conflict for the next 6 years you have nothing to be concerned about (and if it can't the IAF will more than hold its own).

Credit where credit is due, in the span of 20 something months this GoI has turned the IAF's fortunes around (Rafale and FGFA on track with AMCA developing in the wings also). Yes they will have to limp on for a little bit longer but the groundwork has been laid for them to be THE airpower in Asia and easily the finest airpower outside of N.America. The rot had set in so deep that the fix was never going to be quick. 2 decades of neglect has at least been stemmed and will soon(ish) be addressed.

Good days are ahead bro.


@PARIKRAMA bro I think I'll refrain (to the best of my ability) from commentating in threads about the Gripen/F-16/18/EFT for India, it is just too absurd to consider at this point. Unless something very dramatic changes I may as well discuss whether ancient Indians could fly. I'd prefer to live in reality and discuss what will actually happen, hypothetical matters do not really interest me.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Indiran Chandiran

PARIKRAMA said:


> if formally any one of the 3 planes - F16,F18 and Saab gripen- any one is chosen as a MII line, a separate sticky will be created and this will be removed surely.
> 
> Till the time being since there is always 4-5 articles more or less every month and we dedicate and debate about them in separate thread , its necessary that this sticky thread is used for better collation of such news and discussions.
> 
> 
> Combining this post with another here
> 
> 
> Tagging @Abingdonboy too as this is a more appropriate thread for this.
> 
> There are two aspects. One the Mig29,Jags and Mirages would be used for another 15 years with reduced number of hours per year flight hours to sustain their life and will be retired from 2030 onwards (give and take couple of years)
> 
> The production numbers of new jets inducted of say when these above jets retire
> LCA Mk2 - 16
> Rafale MII - 16
> FGFA - 8
> Minus
> 1 squadron ~ 18- 20
> ----------------
> Total new jets inducted 20-22 new jets per year.
> 
> So ideally it should balance it out.
> 
> Now if we consider LWF of F16/Gripen E
> This thread has some of the views https://defence.pk/threads/indian-airforce-mmrca-lwf-alternate-discussion.448646/
> Its about possible permutation combinations
> 
> Coming back to the point of say F16/Gripen E as second line
> 
> Assuming F16 uses the present Mig21 base infrastructure with minimal change , The cost of F16 Blk 70 as given by newspaper as $70Mn +other support packages + say Derby, Derby ER and Python combo + training simulator etc etc will cost anything in upward of $120 Mn
> 
> Assuming Saab Gripen E as LCA Mk2 (which is a wrong move as per me and i have said this to Saab), it will cost again in a similar cost for a package in and around $120+ Mn and even more owing to certain new specs and additional cost bcz of the much superior tech in Gripen .
> 
> The purpose of LCA Mk1A with such packages and weapons will all inclusive be around $60 Mn or 50% of this cost.
> 
> Its true capability wise Gripen E will be multiple of LCA MK1A but so is also 2-2.5X cost.
> 
> This implies if we justify Saab Gripen E as LCA MK2, either we have to drop F16 packaged deal or we have to get this package at best say 10-15% superior price to LCA Mk2. Implying if we get say flyaway also at $45-50Mn and all inclusive package price of say $70-75Mn for a Block 70 F16, yes it can be justified saying its additional capabilities at a suitable but manageable premium. And prime focus is to just get the numbers. In return keep USA happy and get something in bargain.
> 
> No doubt Gripen E will outclass and outsmart F16 Block 70. So if we are building a capability addition then i would prefer Gripen E as it gives me multiple effect of LCA and F16 . In such a scenario a little lower than 1:1 replacements wont eb bad also.
> 
> BUT
> 
> If we negate all cost stuff angle and focus on other points, Pilot training and evolving a matured strategy/tactic will take anywhere between 5-7 years. On top the surge in number of pilots required may also be a potential challenge . This does makes me feel LWF if needed does nt need a MII line.
> 
> Rather i would get say for example F16 from USA and get 5-6 squadron delivered between 2019-25 (6 years 6 squadron) and use the leverage and offsets in some other stuff /collaboration.
> 
> This helps me reduce time and unnecessary cost that comes with establishing MII line and waiting for so called benefit and TOT thing. Even reduce offsets if it gives a good bargained deal.
> 
> Incredibly such a move gives us the additional number by max by 2025 itself.
> 
> BTW my Gripen E POV in another forum
> View attachment 335420
> 
> 
> The Gripen E FOC is still some time awa. So negating the TOT part and if its for numbers credibly they can deliver more like in between 2023+ timeline post FOC attainment. So only viable soluton for quick numbers directly off the shelf is F16.
> 
> Now that goes against the very essence of a second line which aims at meeting the demands as well as creating a proper second aircraft manufacturing hub and MIC. This is as where the issue plagues me as both dont help us either.
> 
> The best solution according to me is using L&T and establishing a 16-24 jet per year line for LCA in private sector and start churning out HAL+L&T minimum 30-40 jets a year from 2021 onwards. Till MK2 comes keep churning our MK1A or a improved version of Mk1A+.
> 
> basically the cost benefit and established line and eco system helps us get a similar number like F16 with a much lesser investment. Not saying LCA Mk1A is more capable than F16 block 70 but it meets the numbers requirement quite easily. and also in a similar timeline.




I agree .This is cleatly going to be a toss up between the Gripen & F - 16.I don't foresee both being inducted .Though that would be stand of most posters here too . Further , I don't think it ought to or will be a case of Gripen E being our Mk 2 too.Not under this governments watch .

Gripen essentially rules itself out primarily coz it's work in progress.By the time Gripen E is out , we'd be out with our Tejas Mk 2 in plus 2-4 years which in my opinion is a reasonable time frame.While it may not match the Gripen in terms of its avionics & EW suite among a few other accessories, it certainly would be what the IAG desires & more importantly what ADE / HAL can deliver.

Morover , whatever short comings Tejas MK 2 may suffer vis a vis the Gripen E can always be made up in MLU given that Tejas Mk 1a , in my understanding doesn't offer much scope for it , or in a 3 rd iteration - Mk 3 which can also build on the LSA concept & be a fore runner for many of the technologies to be deployed in the AMCA .

Coming back to your theory of the Mk- 1a being CO manufactured by an L & T ( any other Pvt Player ) / HAL combine while full of common sense seems unlikely to take off given turf warfare & lines being drawn in stone by HAL ( though I suspect were it any other aircraft manufacturer in the world , you'd see a similar response.That'd be how any industry operates .The higher the stakes the more zealously companies protect their turf .The most likely excuse & deal breaker would be none of the Pvt sector players have any credible experience in full fledged manufacturing or assembly of fighter aircraft.) . We may see some positive movement in this direction in the Mk 2 series.

I won't delve into the ToT part of either Gripen or F - 16 , since as you rightly grasped the thrust of argument was on making up the nos ASAP. The idea of importing whole sale some 6-7 squadrons of the F -16 , while making eminent sense with the argument you made bolstering your point will not hold much water here with the present government given their emphasis on MII .

For a moment let's leave the cost part aside - for both Gripen as well as F 16 as the emphasis is on making up the nos ASAP.(Unfortunately , if we opt for the F - 16 , under the MII not only would the cost shoot up , the fact remains that there simply isn't much scope for any MLU which in turn means that in another 20 years from the date of induction somewhere around 2040 - 45 you'd be looking at replacements for both - Mk 1a & F - 16.But that's leaping too far ahead .)

The larger picture now unfolding is this - in mastering critical technologies as we progress , given the rate of progress in the current programmes we may see an active Plan B where in a stand by will be identified & agreements concluded just in case our desi R & D companies fail to deliver within a reasonable time frame .Such thinking which may make for ad hoc thinking or juggad now , will definitely emerge as a policy decision soon although the cost implication will be terrible given the pursuit of two platforms for the same role though I suspect that's the price one pays for self reliance & for leap frogging from 3.5 + to 5 + technology .I believe it's a price worth paying .Something which will yield big dividends in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dadeechi

[Bregs] said:


> Another angle we are all forgetting that apart from convergence of interests on china factor to a certain level between India and US, by offering such planes to india to assemble, the US is also very cleverly luring India away from Russia which we can not afford in any case with vast amount of weaponry of Russian origin





hellfire said:


> No. We are not forgetting that. I don't think anyone if us has negated the Russian factor.
> 
> Project 23000e, the four warships, sukhoi upgrade, and other equipment on order as earlier elucidated by @PARIKRAMA is a bigger deal.
> Money speaks




F-16 deal would pave the way for CISMOA and BECA.

Which other deal can do that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indiran Chandiran

Abingdonboy said:


> Don't worry too much about the IAF once the Rafale deal is signed bro.
> 
> 1)The MiG-29s and M2Ks have been given extensive upgrades that will see them remaining relevent until 2030 at least (alone they easily match the PAF's top of the line fighter in capabilities and numbers ).
> 2) a similar story exists with the Jags (the newest airframes will be re-engined and also upgraded to the DARIN III standard that will keep them relevent for another 10-15 years).



Agreed.But the point I'm trying to make is irrespective of the nature of the upgrades , all the above mentioned aircraft will be nearing the end of its life from 2025 onwards .That's precisely around the time , we're assuming the first MIi fighters from Tejas - Mk 2 , Rafale & FGFA makes it's appearance .

From training to getting the manuals wriiten to honing tactics on 2 different fighter jets ( not including the Rafale here ) would be quite a task



Abingdonboy said:


> 3) The MKI is being inducted at a decent pace and the IAF will keep ordering them up to and beyond the 300 unit figure as they see fit. I won't discuss the Super MKI upgrade (needless to say it itself is a game changer in the region) but just the addition of the Brahmos-A ALCM is a major boost for the Indian military and a strategic asset.
> 4) The LCA is finally coming online and the MK.1A will be all the IAF needs it to be (and then some more)
> 5) Existing fleets (MiG-21/7) are being phased out but the pinch will only really be felt from 2019 onwards and the moves being made today (Rafale off the shelf induction, LCA induction etc) will stem this (somewhat).
> 6) From 2022/3 the IAF is going to expand RAPIDLY in both numbers and capabilities, some pain now will see plenty of gains in the not too distant future. If India can keep itself out of a conflict for the next 6 years you have nothing to be concerned about (and if it can't the IAF will more than hold its own).
> 
> Credit where credit is due, in the span of 20 something months this GoI has turned the IAF's fortunes around (Rafale and FGFA on track with AMCA developing in the wings also). Yes they will have to limp on for a little bit longer but the groundwork has been laid for them to be THE airpower in Asia and easily the finest airpower outside of N.America. The rot had set in so deep that the fix was never going to be quick. 2 decades of neglect has at least been stemmed and will soon(ish) be addressed.
> 
> Good days are ahead bro.
> 
> 
> @PARIKRAMA bro I think I'll refrain (to the best of my ability) from commentating in threads about the Gripen/F-16/18/EFT for India, it is just too absurd to consider at this point. Unless something very dramatic changes I may as well discuss whether ancient Indians could fly. I'd prefer to live in reality and discuss what will actually happen, hypothetical matters do not really interest me.




It's the fact that the Tejas -Mk 1a , which won't come in adequate nos between 2019-25 to mitigate the loss of the retired MIG's, which has prompted my posts.

That period is going to be one of the most critical times in the IAF's existence as it's mainstay the MIG 21 would start being mothballed ( the process for the MIG 27 begins next year onwards ) .Given that we're expecting the FOC for Tejas - Mk 1a around 2018-19, getting the full component of 100 odd aircrafts by 2026 will be our priority .That part seems achievable except in my opinion they'd be merely filling in the nos & not bolster the capacity of the IAF in any major way.

The induction of these aircraft isn't going to provide any cutting edge to the IAF.That will come with the Mk2 on which developmental work will proceed at full speed post FOC for Mk1.That would be 2019.Which means , all milestones having been met on time , we can expect FOC to be granted to Mk 2 around 2024-25 .Now , that's making a lot of favourable assumptions .

Which in turn means that around 2024 - 26 , all things proceeding as per plan we shall see the first Mk 2 , Rafale & FGFA ( all under MII) roll out simultaneously.

Up until this point , we are expected to have close to 140 Tejas ( both Mk1 & Mk 1a) , 54 Rafales ( ?) & upto 235 odd MKI ( not counting the full compliment of 275 as 40 will be ear marked the SFC ) .With the information posted just now by @PARIKRAMA on the Dassault Rafale thread , it seems the first compliment of 36 Rafale from Merignac seems destined for the SFC as well (??? Have I understood this right? )

This leaves a huge hole in our nos of fighter aircraft given the retirement of close to 271 MIG 21 & MIG 27.Where are the adequate replacements going to come from ?

While there is a big case to be made for proceeding with further production of the MKI till we hit the 375 - 400 mark , we see no signs of any progress on this front ( current nos stand at approx 240 & HAL is expected to meet its target of manufacturing all the MII ordered compliment by 2019 as per the current order book ) .An increase of 100 MKI will definitely boost the nos although they're meant for a different role .

Which is why I'm not entirely convinced by your claims that we will not be considering the F - 16 or Gripens or even the F-18 ( though the latter has the least chances of making it ) @Abingdonboy & @PARIKRAMA .

The period between 2019-25 is going to see the IAF in a severely depleted form & at its most vulnerable .

This in itself makes for a strong case for a 2 nd LWA .I believe that's the thinking in the MoD & that's why they're re opening the entire case of a Dekko at Gripens & the teens .

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dadeechi

Cross posting


HWF - SU-30MKIs, FGFA (2024 onwards)

MWF - M2K, MIG-29s, RAFALEs (2019-2022), AMCA ( 2027 onwards)

LWF - LCA, LCA MK1A (2019 onwards), LCA MK2 (2024 onwards)

So if LFW is post 2019, does it make any sense unless it is a 5th generation fighter replacing the LCA MK2 program? This is where LSA program replacing LCA MK2 makes sense.

What does LCA Mk2 bring on top of LCA MK1A? Isn't too little and too late?

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/dassault-rafale-tender-news-discussions-thread-2.230070/page-384#ixzz4LJpeU8ka

@Nilgiri What I know is that LCA MK2 is suppose to sport an indigenous AESA while MK1A would use an upgraded Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA radar.

The other change could be use of Kaveri engine

I do not see any value in pursuing LCA MK2 after MK1A has been conceived and approved.

@PARIKRAMA @RICK @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @cerberus @Abingdonboy @MilSpec your thoughts?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nilgiri

dadeechi said:


> @Nilgiri What I know is that LCA MK2 is suppose to sport an indigenous AESA while MK1A would use an upgraded Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA radar.



Yah thats what I've heard too. But I will wait for it to actually be flying and produced in numbers etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VivasvatManu

There was a news earlier that F18 has not yet received clearance from the US govt. so only F16 is on the table right now. 

So the only realistic offer on the table is either the Grippen (if they make a delicious offer) or the Rafale. Needless to say, Grippen do not have the engine tech. 

Everything else is just cacophony.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dadeechi

VivasvatManu said:


> There was a news earlier that F18 has not yet received clearance from the US govt. so only F16 is on the table right now.
> 
> So the only realistic offer on the table is either the Grippen (if they make a delicious offer) or the Rafale. Needless to say, Grippen do not have the engine tech.
> 
> Everything else is just cacophony.




RAFALE MII deal is assured now after the 36 deal has been signed and the French offer to partner on Kaveri engine program which is critical for the AMCA program.

F-16s deal would be part of DTTI and is needed to close CISMOA & BECA agreements

Gripen is proposing a JV for Gripen NG (5th gen). This would replace LCA MK2 program.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VivasvatManu

dadeechi said:


> RAFALE MII deal is assured now after the 36 deal has been signed and the French offer to partner on Kaveri engine program which is critical for the AMCA program.
> 
> F-16s deal would be part of DTTI and is needed to close CISMOA & BECA agreements
> 
> Gripen is proposing a JV for Gripen NG (5th gen). This would replace LCA MK2 program.



Yes, you are only rehashing what others have said earlier. 

F16 is not happening. 

Gripen engine is still made in USA. So unless they have a plan to make it in India, SAAB will be hard pressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

dadeechi said:


> Cross posting
> 
> 
> HWF - SU-30MKIs, FGFA (2024 onwards)
> 
> MWF - M2K, MIG-29s, RAFALEs (2019-2022), AMCA ( 2027 onwards)
> 
> LWF - LCA, LCA MK1A (2019 onwards), LCA MK2 (2024 onwards)
> 
> So if LFW is post 2019, does it make any sense unless it is a 5th generation fighter replacing the LCA MK2 program? This is where LSA program replacing LCA MK2 makes sense.
> 
> What does LCA Mk2 bring on top of LCA MK1A? Isn't too little and too late?
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/dassault-rafale-tender-news-discussions-thread-2.230070/page-384#ixzz4LJpeU8ka
> 
> @Nilgiri What I know is that LCA MK2 is suppose to sport an indigenous AESA while MK1A would use an upgraded Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA radar.
> 
> The other change could be use of Kaveri engine
> 
> I do not see any value in pursuing LCA MK2 after MK1A has been conceived and approved.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @RICK @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @cerberus @Abingdonboy @MilSpec your thoughts?



For me the matter is wide.
The issues are

1) Replacement of equipments which are past their expiry dates.
2) Bringing up the numbers .

The first one , is more important as a man in uniform losing life due to faulty equipment is the greatest shame for any nation.

And coming on numbers , we atleast need

A.) 1.25:1 Ratio in our favor in the western sector , and atleast 1/3rd of PLAAF in the north and east. Means about 450-500.

This means if I take 21 aircrafts to be a squadron , we need atleast 52 squadrons.

Now comes the two questions
1.) Money
2.) Options

Coming to first even if we are looking to spend 20-30 billion USD(not defence budget ,but budget for capital purchase) each year , for next 15 years , it is quite possible and money won't be a problem.

Now coming to options.

1.) Su30MKI
As of today we would be having ~232 of them. And the present order of 272 will be competed by 2019. Now here is what is disappointing. We have one working option here , and clowns at HAL have been "Successful in bringing down the production rate" from 15 in 2014-15 to 12 in 2015-16 , so as to extend the production .

What we need is to drill some arses, and get the production upto atleast 18 aircrafts a year.

And the Su30MKI line is the most probably one which will be transformed by 2024 to build FGFA.

So it gives us a window to utilise this option more.Order atleast 4-5 more squadrons , 2 for Strategic needs , and two more to get 2 Mig 21 squadron replaced. ( Which by the 18/Year rate from mid 2018, to 2024 is possible ) [Here I am taking that 18/year from next year we will compete the present orders earlier. ]

This is possible, economically good idea too.

If we actually utilise this option we would be able to operate 18 Full Strength Su30MKI squadrons .

The Spare Parts Manufacturing in India and Super Sukhoi upgrade is also important.

2.) Rafale

36+18 from France should be aimed by 2022.
And meanwhile a MII deal , to ensure that we have a manufacturing unit by 2020 in India ready to roll out Rafale by 2021.

We should not wait to negotiate the MII deal , rather compete it by 2017-18 start constructing the manufacturing unit , capable of at least 1 aircraft every two weeks , meaning atleast 24 a year. 33 A year would be still better.

And order 198 more , so as to have 12 compete squadrons.


Now when we opt for the above two we already have 30 squadrons by 2030. (Assuming Super Sukhoi upgrade adds a minimum of 15 years to the very first Su30MKI ).

EVEN IF WE OPT THE TWO , problem remains with the quick replacement of over 150 Mig21s.

Here I would choose the cheaper option which is not even being thought about.

They are

3.) More Mig29SMT

Yes , order 2 full squadrons straight and add them all before 2021, which is all possible.

Its 1.) Cheap 2.) Damm Effective , and given the low numbers and direct G2G deal it will be easier to sign ( as there will be little pressure from other big companies here ) , and will also ensure Russia is in our side for at least 5 more years.

These along with present UPG will mean 5 modern 4+ gen multirole aircrafts , capable of taking on any aircraft which our enemy posses as of today.

4.) Second one is 2nd Hand Mirages .

Yes , you read it right.
We have an infrastructure in place ,capability to MLU too , and the experience too. And it will surely be cheaper .

Now you would think , where do we get the 2nd hand airframes from , answer is Egypt, Qatar and UAE. You will ask why would they sell us ?

Now let me take them one by one , Qatar as known is getting Rafales , to replace its seldom used fleet of 12 Mirage 2000, which it wants to get rid off. Second is Egypt , which too is getting Rafales , but you would say , how can I say that they want to get rid of their too ? Because UAE in 2014-15 offered Egypt 24 UAE airframes to strengthen their Mirage Fleet of 1 squadron , but they didn't , this also shows that how they are looking to replace the small fleet.

Now coming to UAE , the case is well known , and the new closeness too. 36 of their 67 are almost only a decade old.Also they are not going to sell all before any new deal signed , its better to negotiate and get the half.

Adding 12(Qatar) + 16( Egypt) + 36( UAE), to our 50, we will have 5 Squadrons.
And please , no , buying second hand if it serves our purpose is not shameful . Don't bring that type of crap to me.


And you can see , together the 3 and 4 , we are going to add 5 squadrons very early , replacing almost 5 Mig21 squadrons. They are cheaper options as of today .

5.) Su35 MKI

Now you would think why I am bringing this ? The answer is J31, 3 Squadrons of improved Su35 MKI , ( Which has been discussed with our top brass quite a few times by Russians) is the solution of the gap which may happen if PAF manages to get J31 before we get FGFA.

6.) LCA MK1A.

HAL at present is severely screwing this for its benefits , which is criminal.

Two lines , one Private and one HAL , with orders of 5 squadrons each.

These will replace the remaining gap.



And these 6 options , do solve our problem.

Untill we want to pay more , with more delays and more lives lost , I don't feel necessity of any 2nd foreign fighter jet.

@PARIKRAMA @anant_s @Abingdonboy 
I don't feel we should shell out another 20 billions for an aircraft whoes importance is only for next 5-7 years for replacing Mig21s , when we have very cheaper and very quick options.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Abingdonboy

dadeechi said:


> Cross posting
> 
> 
> HWF - SU-30MKIs, FGFA (2024 onwards)
> 
> MWF - M2K, MIG-29s, RAFALEs (2019-2022), AMCA ( 2027 onwards)
> 
> LWF - LCA, LCA MK1A (2019 onwards), LCA MK2 (2024 onwards)
> 
> So if LFW is post 2019, does it make any sense unless it is a 5th generation fighter replacing the LCA MK2 program? This is where LSA program replacing LCA MK2 makes sense.
> 
> What does LCA Mk2 bring on top of LCA MK1A? Isn't too little and too late?
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/dassault-rafale-tender-news-discussions-thread-2.230070/page-384#ixzz4LJpeU8ka
> 
> @Nilgiri What I know is that LCA MK2 is suppose to sport an indigenous AESA while MK1A would use an upgraded Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA radar.
> 
> The other change could be use of Kaveri engine
> 
> I do not see any value in pursuing LCA MK2 after MK1A has been conceived and approved.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @RICK @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @cerberus @Abingdonboy @MilSpec your thoughts?


The LCA MK.2 isn't simply a MK.1A with the indigenous UTAAM AESA radar fitted in place of the EL/M-2052. The MK.2 is a substantial redesign of the the LCA MK.1 with increased wingspan, internal fuel capacity, uprated engine, improved EW systems and avionics.

Now with the tech coming from the Rafale deal and with French help the MK.2 can be further optimised as a significant step up on the MK.1 and can truly eclipse the Gripen E as far as India's needs are concerned.


With SAAB having very little in the way of IPRs on critical tech (propulsion and sensors) on the Gripen I am waiting for a coherent argument as to why it is in the slightest bit attractive to India when the LCA MK.2 will be on par with it in most areas and will naturally be a greater boost to India's industrial development.

So the F-18 the IAF might be somewhat interested in (ASH) is not cleared for export to India and the F-16 offers next to no real industrial or strategic gains for India.

Once again one comes back to the natural (and cleanest) force structure:

LCA/LCA MK.2
Rafale
MKI
FGFA

----

AMCA (somewhere down the line)

A SIGNIFICANT streamlining of the IAF and a multiplying of capabilities that really would be radical.


As @GuardianRED rightly says, keep it simple.



By the way guys. Let us not lose sight of what the LWF is meant to be to the IAF, it is not meant to be an uber fighter meant to excel in every domain as the country's premier fighter. This is how the Gripen is marketed to smaller airforces but where the IAF is concerned their LWF is a rear guard point defence fighter that would protect Indian airspace/gains to release the "heavies" (MKI, FGFA, Rafale, AMCA) to prosecute targets deep(er) in enemy territory and take the fight to them. On a day to day basis the LWF will be utilised primarily in air policing roles negating the need for the far more expensive to fly twin engined fighters leaving them in their hangers/training for combat.

The IAF DOESN'T NEED anything other than what the Mk.2 will offer; increased on station time, improved sensors for A2A combat and improved availability/maintain ability. It fits perfectly with their needs. Let us not be duped here, the LWF is the very lowest rung of the IAF's firepower index and it needs to be as simple and easy to keep flying as possible. The MMRCA and LFW are VERY different requirements, some simply conflate the two and assume the LWF needs to be the very best in it's class also...NO.

@Nilgiri @PARIKRAMA @anant_s



Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> For me the matter is wide.
> The issues are
> 
> 1) Replacement of equipments which are past their expiry dates.
> 2) Bringing up the numbers .
> 
> The first one , is more important as a man in uniform losing life due to faulty equipment is the greatest shame for any nation.
> 
> And coming on numbers , we atleast need
> 
> A.) 1.25:1 Ratio in our favor in the western sector , and atleast 1/3rd of PLAAF in the north and east. Means about 450-500.
> 
> This means if I take 21 aircrafts to be a squadron , we need atleast 52 squadrons.
> 
> Now comes the two questions
> 1.) Money
> 2.) Options
> 
> Coming to first even if we are looking to spend 20-30 billion USD(not defence budget ,but budget for capital purchase) each year , for next 15 years , it is quite possible and money won't be a problem.
> 
> Now coming to options.
> 
> 1.) Su30MKI
> As of today we would be having ~232 of them. And the present order of 272 will be competed by 2019. Now here is what is disappointing. We have one working option here , and clowns at HAL have been "Successful in bringing down the production rate" from 15 in 2014-15 to 12 in 2015-16 , so as to extend the production .
> 
> What we need is to drill some arses, and get the production upto atleast 18 aircrafts a year.
> 
> And the Su30MKI line is the most probably one which will be transformed by 2024 to build FGFA.
> 
> So it gives us a window to utilise this option more.Order atleast 4-5 more squadrons , 2 for Strategic needs , and two more to get 2 Mig 21 squadron replaced. ( Which by the 18/Year rate from mid 2018, to 2024 is possible ) [Here I am taking that 18/year from next year we will compete the present orders earlier. ]
> 
> This is possible, economically good idea too.
> 
> If we actually utilise this option we would be able to operate 18 Full Strength Su30MKI squadrons .
> 
> The Spare Parts Manufacturing in India and Super Sukhoi upgrade is also important.
> 
> 2.) Rafale
> 
> 36+18 from France should be aimed by 2022.
> And meanwhile a MII deal , to ensure that we have a manufacturing unit by 2020 in India ready to roll out Rafale by 2021.
> 
> We should not wait to negotiate the MII deal , rather compete it by 2017-18 start constructing the manufacturing unit , capable of at least 1 aircraft every two weeks , meaning atleast 24 a year. 33 A year would be still better.
> 
> And order 198 more , so as to have 12 compete squadrons.
> 
> 
> Now when we opt for the above two we already have 30 squadrons by 2030. (Assuming Super Sukhoi upgrade adds a minimum of 15 years to the very first Su30MKI ).
> 
> EVEN IF WE OPT THE TWO , problem remains with the quick replacement of over 150 Mig21s.
> 
> Here I would choose the cheaper option which is not even being thought about.
> 
> They are
> 
> 3.) More Mig29SMT
> 
> Yes , order 2 full squadrons straight and add them all before 2021, which is all possible.
> 
> Its 1.) Cheap 2.) Damm Effective , and given the low numbers and direct G2G deal it will be easier to sign ( as there will be little pressure from other big companies here ) , and will also ensure Russia is in our side for at least 5 more years.
> 
> These along with present UPG will mean 5 modern 4+ gen multirole aircrafts , capable of taking on any aircraft which our enemy posses as of today.
> 
> 4.) Second one is 2nd Hand Mirages .
> 
> Yes , you read it right.
> We have an infrastructure in place ,capability to MLU too , and the experience too. And it will surely be cheaper .
> 
> Now you would think , where do we get the 2nd hand airframes from , answer is Egypt, Qatar and UAE. You will ask why would they sell us ?
> 
> Now let me take them one by one , Qatar as known is getting Rafales , to replace its seldom used fleet of 12 Mirage 2000, which it wants to get rid off. Second is Egypt , which too is getting Rafales , but you would say , how can I say that they want to get rid of their too ? Because UAE in 2014-15 offered Egypt 24 UAE airframes to strengthen their Mirage Fleet of 1 squadron , but they didn't , this also shows that how they are looking to replace the small fleet.
> 
> Now coming to UAE , the case is well known , and the new closeness too. 36 of their 67 are almost only a decade old.Also they are not going to sell all before any new deal signed , its better to negotiate and get the half.
> 
> Adding 12(Qatar) + 16( Egypt) + 36( UAE), to our 50, we will have 5 Squadrons.
> And please , no , buying second hand if it serves our purpose is not shameful . Don't bring that type of crap to me.
> 
> 
> And you can see , together the 3 and 4 , we are going to add 5 squadrons very early , replacing almost 5 Mig21 squadrons. They are cheaper options as of today .
> 
> 5.) Su35 MKI
> 
> Now you would think why I am bringing this ? The answer is J31, 3 Squadrons of improved Su35 MKI , ( Which has been discussed with our top brass quite a few times by Russians) is the solution of the gap which may happen if PAF manages to get J31 before we get FGFA.
> 
> 6.) LCA MK1A.
> 
> HAL at present is severely screwing this for its benefits , which is criminal.
> 
> Two lines , one Private and one HAL , with orders of 5 squadrons each.
> 
> These will replace the remaining gap.
> 
> 
> 
> And these 6 options , do solve our problem.
> 
> Untill we want to pay more , with more delays and more lives lost , I don't feel necessity of any 2nd foreign fighter jet.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @anant_s @Abingdonboy
> I don't feel we should shell out another 20 billions for an aircraft whoes importance is only for next 5-7 years for replacing Mig21s , when we have very cheaper and very quick options.


Sorry bro I have to disagree with respect to your Mig-21 replacement options (although fully fully agree on the MKI production uptake and Rafale MII orders).

I understand what you are suggesting and understand the logic behind it but really this is short termism. Sure the 150 MiG-21s need replacing ASAP but does that mean you screw the IAF for the next 30-40 years with rash decisions that they will have to pay for (literally)?

Two of your fixes are heavy twin engined Russian fighters, as India knows from it own experience this is not a good combination. The whole point of the LWF/MiG-21 replacement is to be a point defence fighter with quick reaction times and high availability, neither the MiG-29 nor Su-35 offers a solution here. Get ready for a lifetime of pain in this scenario. There is a reason Russian equipment is being rejected in many areas by the Indian military these days.

On the second hand Mirages I think the boat has long since sailed. It's a short term fix that would lead to long term pain. I'm assuming in your plan these second hand M2ks would not be upgraded to the IAF's -5 Mk.2 standard meaning there were commonality issues with the rest of the IAF's M2k fleet and also these birds would be rather dated in terms of on board systems. Furthermore by the time the IAF had signed the deal, inducted and operationalised these birds they would be close to needing to be retired. There is a reason the Indian military rarely goes for second hand options. It is penny wise but pound foolish.


The solution lays in fixing the production issues of the LCA (whether HAL likes it or not give L&T a production line of their own)

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Nilgiri

Abingdonboy said:


> By the way guys. Let us not lose sight of what the LWF is meant to be to the IAF, it is not meant to be an uber fighter meant to excel in every domain as the country's premier fighter. This is how the Gripen is marketed to smaller airforces but where the IAF is concerned their LWF is a rear guard point defence fighter that would protect Indian airspace/gains to release the "heavies" (MKI, FGFA, Rafale, AMCA) to prosecute targets deep(er) in enemy territory and take the fight to them. On a day today basis the LWF will be utilised primarily in air policing roles negating the need for the far more expensive to fly twin engined fighters in their hangers/training for combat.
> 
> The IAF DOESN'T NEED anything other than what the Mk.2 will offer; increased on station time, improved sensors for A2A combat and improved availability/maintain ability. It fits perfectly with their needs. Let us not be duped here, the LWF is the very lowest rung of the IAF's firepower index and it needs to be as simple and easy to keep flying as possible. The MMRCA and LFW are VERY different requirements, some simply conflate the two and assume the LWF needs to be the very best in it's class also...NO.



Yup, now only if they don't sewer the whole thing by having only HAL produce it with its measly capacity and attitude.

If this can be changed along with a prompt MII for Rafale....I will be soaring so high hehe.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abingdonboy

Nilgiri said:


> If this can be changed along with a prompt MII for Rafale....I will be soaring so high hehe.


If it can be done (and I'm fairly confident it will be) this govt will have turned around the fortunes of the IAF and ensured their superiority in the region. In other words they have done in 2-5 years what the UPA couldn't do in decades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Grevion

Abingdonboy said:


> By the way guys. Let us not lose sight of what the LWF is meant to be to the IAF, it is not meant to be an uber fighter meant to excel in every domain as the country's premier fighter. This is how the Gripen is marketed to smaller airforces but where the IAF is concerned their LWF is a rear guard point defence fighter that would protect Indian airspace/gains to release the "heavies" (MKI, FGFA, Rafale, AMCA) to prosecute targets deep(er) in enemy territory and take the fight to them. On a day to day basis the LWF will be utilised primarily in air policing roles negating the need for the far more expensive to fly twin engined fighters leaving them in their hangers/training for combat.
> 
> The IAF DOESN'T NEED anything other than what the Mk.2 will offer; increased on station time, improved sensors for A2A combat and improved availability/maintain ability. It fits perfectly with their needs. Let us not be duped here, the LWF is the very lowest rung of the IAF's firepower index and it needs to be as simple and easy to keep flying as possible. The MMRCA and LFW are VERY different requirements, some simply conflate the two and assume the LWF needs to be the very best in it's class also...NO.


Right and there is no point in spending more then 40-45 million dollars apiece for such aircrafts until we want some specific tech going into our light fighters. $70 million or $85 million for gripen or F-16 or even the ASH is not a very viable option after the rafales.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abingdonboy

litefire said:


> Right and there is no point in spending more then 40-45 million dollars apiece for such aircrafts until we want some specific tech going into our light fighters. $70 million or $85 million for gripen or F-16 or even the ASH is not a very viable option after the rafales.


Exactly. What's the point in spending >$60m on a plane that will only really be used to secure Indian airspace?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Abingdonboy said:


> Sorry bro I have to disagree with respect to your Mig-21 replacement options (although fully fully agree on the MKI production uptake and Rafale MII orders).
> 
> I understand what you are suggesting and understand the logic behind it but really this is short termism. Sure the 150 MiG-21s need replacing ASAP but does that mean you screw the IAF for the next 30-40 years with rash decisions that they will have to pay for (literally)?
> 
> Two of your fixes are heavy twin engined Russian fighters, as India knows from it own experience this is not a good combination. The whole point of the LWF/MiG-21 replacement is to be a point defence fighter with quick reaction times and high availability, neither the MiG-29 nor Su-35 offers a solution here. Get ready for a lifetime of pain in this scenario. There is a reason Russian equipment is being rejected in many areas by the Indian military these days.
> 
> On the second hand Mirages I think the boat has long since sailed. It's a short term fix that would lead to long term pain. I'm assuming in your plan these second hand M2ks would not be upgraded to the IAF's -5 Mk.2 standard meaning there were commonality issues with the rest of the IAF's M2k fleet and also these birds would be rather dated in terms of on board systems. Furthermore by the time the IAF had signed the deal, inducted and operationalised these birds they would be close to needing to be retired. There is a reason the Indian military rarely goes for second hand options. It is penny wise but pound foolish.
> 
> 
> The solution lays in fixing the production issues of the LCA (whether HAL likes it or not give L&T a production line of their own)



On the Su35, well that's exclusively in case western state here gets its hands on J31. 

2 Squadrons of Mig29s , if opted for has its own benefits.

1. The cost, No other option is so close. 
2. And I am not telling to replace all Mig21s with it. Its two squadrons from me for a reason. 

a) If we opt for such a deal , it won't be under pressure from the biggies due to its size and cost involved , means quick decision. 

b) Deliveries , quick deliveries , here this is the key . The reason I suggest this is because they will come quick. 

See the timeline between 2017-2023, only Su30MKI and to some extent Tejas will be produced. We will be left with a big hole to cover. 

Two Squadrons of Mig29s here will mean 2 squadrons replaced. 

And here I have taken in account 
1.) The most optimistic scenario with Tejas. 
2.) with Rafale and 3.) Su30MKI production. 

Coming to second hand Mirages , I am not simply suggesting to buy them , but to upgrade them too. Of course the UAE ones won't need them as they are new and have had a upgrade too. 

This option too is quick , means before 2022, we will havev all of them upgrade and inducted. 

And no , Mig21s do not only mean a simple LWF , today lack of aircrafts means they are used as air superiority aircrafts while escorting Strike Aircrafts and even strike aircrafts in some cases. 
There are 3 squadrons as of today placed such that you can guess how they are intended to be used. 

Those are better replaced by a proper Air Superiority Fighter and a strike fighter. 

Further I have added these, simultaneously taking that a private line for LCA with 24 aircrafts a year is also set up by 2019. 

And one more thing , buying F16s or Gripens won't solve our problem of immediate replacement ,they won't be coming before all our Mig21s have gone ( by crashing themselves ). 

Further the IAF expect to operate Mirage 2000 after upgrade for 15 years , and similar plans for Mig29 fleet too. So it can not be said that opting these in small numbers will cost IAF its future. 

It will only solve our problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Grevion

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> On the Su35, well that's exclusively in case western state here gets its hands on J31.
> 
> 2 Squadrons of Mig29s , if opted for has its own benefits.
> 
> 1. The cost, No other option is so close.
> 2. And I am not telling to replace all Mig21s with it. Its two squadrons from me for a reason.
> 
> a) If we opt for such a deal , it won't be under pressure from the biggies due to its size and cost involved , means quick decision.
> 
> b) Deliveries , quick deliveries , here this is the key . The reason I suggest this is because they will come quick.
> 
> See the timeline between 2017-2023, only Su30MKI and to some extent Tejas will be produced. We will be left with a big hole to cover.
> 
> Two Squadrons of Mig29s here will mean 2 squadrons replaced.
> 
> And here I have taken in account
> 1.) The most optimistic scenario with Tejas.
> 2.) with Rafale and 3.) Su30MKI production.
> 
> Coming to second hand Mirages , I am not simply suggesting to buy them , but to upgrade them too. Of course the UAE ones won't need them as they are new and have had a upgrade too.
> 
> This option too is quick , means before 2022, we will havev all of them upgrade and inducted.
> 
> And no , Mig21s do not only mean a simple LWF , today lack of aircrafts means they are used as air superiority aircrafts while escorting Strike Aircrafts and even strike aircrafts in some cases.
> There are 3 squadrons as of today placed such that you can guess how they are intended to be used.
> 
> Those are better replaced by a proper Air Superiority Fighter and a strike fighter.
> 
> Further I have added these, simultaneously taking that a private line for LCA with 24 aircrafts a year is also set up by 2019.
> 
> And one more thing , buying F16s or Gripens won't solve our problem of immediate replacement ,they won't be coming before all our Mig21s have gone ( by crashing themselves ).
> 
> Further the IAF expect to operate Mirage 2000 after upgrade for 15 years , and similar plans for Mig29 fleet too. So it can not be said that opting these in small numbers will cost IAF its future.
> 
> It will only solve our problems.


Why not order some su-35 from Russia.
Few months ago randomradio suggested that the further sukhois after the 272s will be ordered from Russian line i.e. made in Russia. Now we need to conclude super sukhoi program and for that we need to finish the fgfa agreement since a lot of tech will be integrated into the super sukhoi program.

@PARIKRAMA any inside inphormasun of the modi-putin meeting in goa and the fgfa contract signing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

litefire said:


> Why not order some su-35 from Russia.
> Few months ago randomradio suggested that the further sukhois after the 272s will be ordered from Russian lines made in Russia. Now we need to conclude super sukhoi program and for that we need to finish the fgfa agreement since a lot of tech will be integrated into the super sukhoi program.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA any inside inphormasun of the modi-putin meeting in goa and the fgfa contract signing.



Su35MKI is a back up plan , when Pakistan gets J31 before our FGFA is ready. 

Other than it , we won't need Su35. 

Unless of course Indian Navy gets full charge of A&N defence and wants its own shore based heavy air superiority Fighter Jet which can take on everything Indian Ocean Nations and Power can offer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Grevion

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Su35MKI is a back up plan , when Pakistan gets J31 before our FGFA is ready.
> 
> Other than it , we won't need Su35.
> 
> Unless of course Indian Navy gets full charge of A&N defence and wants its own shore based heavy air superiority Fighter Jet which can take on everything Indian Ocean Nations and Power can offer.


Not sure about the Su-35 for the navy. They opted for mig-29 rather then the su-33 for viki.

Now we don't need su-35 mki against the j-31 for point defense. Rafales and the super sukhoi will be more then enough.

Su-35 for the A&N islands is an interesting idea but don't you think some good SAM cover and an squadron of LCA navy and rafales/migs stationed there will be a more viable option??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

litefire said:


> Not sure about the Su-35 for the navy. They opted for mig-29 rather then the su-33Shoreiki.
> 
> Now we don't need su-35 mki against the j-31 for point defense. Rafales and the super sukhoi will be more then enough.
> 
> Su-35 for the A&N islands is an interesting idea but don't you think some good SAM cover and an squadron of LCA navy and rafales/migs stationed there will be a more viable option??



SAMs, good. But if a dedicated fighter squadron is to be placed , it should be high end air superiority one. Tejas can't do that.shore based Rafales would also work... 

But I would personally prefer a specialist. Anti Shipping missions is not a concern , air superiority is. 

S400 and MRSAM would be placed in more important areas first. A&N by next fiscal end should get a BrahMos Regiment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indiran Chandiran

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> For me the matter is wide.
> The issues are
> 
> 1) Replacement of equipments which are past their expiry dates.
> 2) Bringing up the numbers .
> 
> The first one , is more important as a man in uniform losing life due to faulty equipment is the greatest shame for any nation.
> 
> And coming on numbers , we atleast need
> 
> A.) 1.25:1 Ratio in our favor in the western sector , and atleast 1/3rd of PLAAF in the north and east. Means about 450-500.
> 
> This means if I take 21 aircrafts to be a squadron , we need atleast 52 squadrons.
> 
> Now comes the two questions
> 1.) Money
> 2.) Options
> 
> Coming to first even if we are looking to spend 20-30 billion USD(not defence budget ,but budget for capital purchase) each year , for next 15 years , it is quite possible and money won't be a problem.
> 
> Now coming to options.
> 
> 1.) Su30MKI
> As of today we would be having ~232 of them. And the present order of 272 will be competed by 2019. Now here is what is disappointing. We have one working option here , and clowns at HAL have been "Successful in bringing down the production rate" from 15 in 2014-15 to 12 in 2015-16 , so as to extend the production .
> 
> What we need is to drill some arses, and get the production upto atleast 18 aircrafts a year.
> 
> And the Su30MKI line is the most probably one which will be transformed by 2024 to build FGFA.
> 
> So it gives us a window to utilise this option more.Order atleast 4-5 more squadrons , 2 for Strategic needs , and two more to get 2 Mig 21 squadron replaced. ( Which by the 18/Year rate from mid 2018, to 2024 is possible ) [Here I am taking that 18/year from next year we will compete the present orders earlier. ]
> 
> This is possible, economically good idea too.
> 
> If we actually utilise this option we would be able to operate 18 Full Strength Su30MKI squadrons .
> 
> The Spare Parts Manufacturing in India and Super Sukhoi upgrade is also important.
> 
> 2.) Rafale
> 
> 36+18 from France should be aimed by 2022.
> And meanwhile a MII deal , to ensure that we have a manufacturing unit by 2020 in India ready to roll out Rafale by 2021.
> 
> We should not wait to negotiate the MII deal , rather compete it by 2017-18 start constructing the manufacturing unit , capable of at least 1 aircraft every two weeks , meaning atleast 24 a year. 33 A year would be still better.
> 
> And order 198 more , so as to have 12 compete squadrons.
> 
> 
> Now when we opt for the above two we already have 30 squadrons by 2030. (Assuming Super Sukhoi upgrade adds a minimum of 15 years to the very first Su30MKI ).
> 
> EVEN IF WE OPT THE TWO , problem remains with the quick replacement of over 150 Mig21s.
> 
> Here I would choose the cheaper option which is not even being thought about.
> 
> They are
> 
> 3.) More Mig29SMT
> 
> Yes , order 2 full squadrons straight and add them all before 2021, which is all possible.
> 
> Its 1.) Cheap 2.) Damm Effective , and given the low numbers and direct G2G deal it will be easier to sign ( as there will be little pressure from other big companies here ) , and will also ensure Russia is in our side for at least 5 more years.
> 
> These along with present UPG will mean 5 modern 4+ gen multirole aircrafts , capable of taking on any aircraft which our enemy posses as of today.
> 
> 4.) Second one is 2nd Hand Mirages .
> 
> Yes , you read it right.
> We have an infrastructure in place ,capability to MLU too , and the experience too. And it will surely be cheaper .
> 
> Now you would think , where do we get the 2nd hand airframes from , answer is Egypt, Qatar and UAE. You will ask why would they sell us ?
> 
> Now let me take them one by one , Qatar as known is getting Rafales , to replace its seldom used fleet of 12 Mirage 2000, which it wants to get rid off. Second is Egypt , which too is getting Rafales , but you would say , how can I say that they want to get rid of their too ? Because UAE in 2014-15 offered Egypt 24 UAE airframes to strengthen their Mirage Fleet of 1 squadron , but they didn't , this also shows that how they are looking to replace the small fleet.
> 
> Now coming to UAE , the case is well known , and the new closeness too. 36 of their 67 are almost only a decade old.Also they are not going to sell all before any new deal signed , its better to negotiate and get the half.
> 
> Adding 12(Qatar) + 16( Egypt) + 36( UAE), to our 50, we will have 5 Squadrons.
> And please , no , buying second hand if it serves our purpose is not shameful . Don't bring that type of crap to me.
> 
> 
> And you can see , together the 3 and 4 , we are going to add 5 squadrons very early , replacing almost 5 Mig21 squadrons. They are cheaper options as of today .
> 
> 5.) Su35 MKI
> 
> Now you would think why I am bringing this ? The answer is J31, 3 Squadrons of improved Su35 MKI , ( Which has been discussed with our top brass quite a few times by Russians) is the solution of the gap which may happen if PAF manages to get J31 before we get FGFA.
> 
> 6.) LCA MK1A.
> 
> HAL at present is severely screwing this for its benefits , which is criminal.
> 
> Two lines , one Private and one HAL , with orders of 5 squadrons each.
> 
> These will replace the remaining gap.
> 
> 
> 
> And these 6 options , do solve our problem.
> 
> Untill we want to pay more , with more delays and more lives lost , I don't feel necessity of any 2nd foreign fighter jet.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @anant_s @Abingdonboy
> I don't feel we should shell out another 20 billions for an aircraft whoes importance is only for next 5-7 years for replacing Mig21s , when we have very cheaper and very quick options.




Except for point no 5 , all the other points make eminent sense.Particularly given the urgency of the situation post 2019 & the economics involved in procuring a brand new aircraft



Abingdonboy said:


> The LCA MK.2 isn't simply a MK.1A with the indigenous UTAAM AESA radar fitted in place of the EL/M-2052. The MK.2 is a substantial redesign of the the LCA MK.1 with increased wingspan, internal fuel capacity, uprated engine, improved EW systems and avionics.
> 
> Now with the tech coming from the Rafale deal and with French help the MK.2 can be further optimised as a significant step up on the MK.1 and can truly eclipse the Gripen E as far as India's needs are concerned.
> 
> 
> With SAAB having very little in the way of IPRs on critical tech (propulsion and sensors) on the Gripen I am waiting for a coherent argument as to why it is in the slightest bit attractive to India when the LCA MK.2 will be on par with it in most areas and will naturally be a greater boost to India's industrial development.
> 
> So the F-18 the IAF might be somewhat interested in (ASH) is not cleared for export to India and the F-16 offers next to no real industrial or strategic gains for India.
> 
> Once again one comes back to the natural (and cleanest) force structure:
> 
> LCA/LCA MK.2
> Rafale
> MKI
> FGFA
> 
> ----
> 
> AMCA (somewhere down the line)
> 
> A SIGNIFICANT streamlining of the IAF and a multiplying of capabilities that really would be radical.
> 
> 
> As @GuardianRED rightly says, keep it simple.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way guys. Let us not lose sight of what the LWF is meant to be to the IAF, it is not meant to be an uber fighter meant to excel in every domain as the country's premier fighter. This is how the Gripen is marketed to smaller airforces but where the IAF is concerned their LWF is a rear guard point defence fighter that would protect Indian airspace/gains to release the "heavies" (MKI, FGFA, Rafale, AMCA) to prosecute targets deep(er) in enemy territory and take the fight to them. On a day to day basis the LWF will be utilised primarily in air policing roles negating the need for the far more expensive to fly twin engined fighters leaving them in their hangers/training for combat.
> 
> The IAF DOESN'T NEED anything other than what the Mk.2 will offer; increased on station time, improved sensors for A2A combat and improved availability/maintain ability. It fits perfectly with their needs. Let us not be duped here, the LWF is the very lowest rung of the IAF's firepower index and it needs to be as simple and easy to keep flying as possible. The MMRCA and LFW are VERY different requirements, some simply conflate the two and assume the LWF needs to be the very best in it's class also...NO.
> 
> @Nilgiri @PARIKRAMA @anant_s
> 
> 
> Sorry bro I have to disagree with respect to your Mig-21 replacement options (although fully fully agree on the MKI production uptake and Rafale MII orders).
> 
> I understand what you are suggesting and understand the logic behind it but really this is short termism. Sure the 150 MiG-21s need replacing ASAP but does that mean you screw the IAF for the next 30-40 years with rash decisions that they will have to pay for (literally)?
> 
> Two of your fixes are heavy twin engined Russian fighters, as India knows from it own experience this is not a good combination. The whole point of the LWF/MiG-21 replacement is to be a point defence fighter with quick reaction times and high availability, neither the MiG-29 nor Su-35 offers a solution here. Get ready for a lifetime of pain in this scenario. There is a reason Russian equipment is being rejected in many areas by the Indian military these days.
> 
> On the second hand Mirages I think the boat has long since sailed. It's a short term fix that would lead to long term pain. I'm assuming in your plan these second hand M2ks would not be upgraded to the IAF's -5 Mk.2 standard meaning there were commonality issues with the rest of the IAF's M2k fleet and also these birds would be rather dated in terms of on board systems. Furthermore by the time the IAF had signed the deal, inducted and operationalised these birds they would be close to needing to be retired. There is a reason the Indian military rarely goes for second hand options. It is penny wise but pound foolish.
> 
> 
> The solution lays in fixing the production issues of the LCA (whether HAL likes it or not give L&T a production line of their own)




I think ordering the used M2K & upgrading them to what the IAF is doing to our M2K , provided the procurement is executed by 2018 & the upgradation takes 2-3 years , seems both a sensible & cost effective option.

It also runs in line with the philosophy( something which you endorse too) of not having an inventory of too many diverse aircrafts .Add to that the fact that these AC will not see active duty beyond 2030-35 timelines. The same would hold true for the upgraded MIG 29 & Jaguars.You could add the MIG 29 SBT to the mix in case the GoI opts to go in for them .

Of course , all these would birth a new set of problems around 2030-40 timelines , when all these AC are mothballed & the Mk1a is due for an MLU , given that there is little one can upgrade in a Mk1a .Hopefully , the Mk2 will remedy that & will be convertible to 5th gen during its MLU , with further scope for Mk 3 too after we're done with developing Mk 2. I hope Km not sounding too optimistic given the uninspiring past record of the ADA - HAL - DRDO triumvirate..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Between 2018 and 2024, Sweden plans to replace 100 Gripen C/D with 60-70 Gripen E.
The plan is to cannibalize some of the Gripen C, but if a deal is made with India,
I guess the 100 Gripen C could be sold to India instead, with new Gripen E manufactured 
under the MII program.
The last delivery of Gripen C, was 2015, so some are quite new.
While Gripen E will be significantly better, this would make up numbers quite fast.

The Gripen C has been qualified for Meteor, and has a nice radar upgrade,
so it is not to be sniffed at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

buildsRichelieu said:


> Between 2018 and 2024, Sweden plans to replace 100 Gripen C/D with 60-70 Gripen E.
> The plan is to cannibalize some of the Gripen C, but if a deal is made with India,
> I guess the 100 Gripen C could be sold to India instead, with new Gripen E manufactured
> under the MII program.
> The last delivery of Gripen C, was 2015, so some are quite new.
> While Gripen E will be significantly better, this would make up numbers quite fast.
> 
> The Gripen C has been qualified for Meteor, and has a nice radar upgrade,
> so it is not to be sniffed at.



No new builds, but is 100 airframes, fully refurbished , atleast as capable as Mirage 2000, with total deal under 6-8 billion USD.That would be nice....

But in the MMRCA result Gripen failed in front of the IAF test team, so G2G deal as of now is next to impossible . Same goes for F16 , F18 etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> No new builds, but is 100 airframes, fully refurbished , atleast as capable as Mirage 2000, with total deal under 6-8 billion USD.That would be nice....
> 
> But in the MMRCA result Gripen failed in front of the IAF test team, so G2G deal as of now is next to impossible . Same goes for F16 , F18 etc.



I am not sure that all demands for the MMRCA process needs to be fulfilled.
Does Tejas meet all requirements? If so, why induct Rafale.
India would get a large fleet of BVR capable fighters.


----------



## Agent_47

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I am not sure that all demands for the MMRCA process needs to be fulfilled.
> Does Tejas meet all requirements? If so, why induct Rafale.
> India would get a large fleet of BVR capable fighters.


2,000 + posts and thats all you learned?

LCA -> Light, point defence,interception
MMRCA -> Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft.

Yes, LCA has passed all requirements and it is capable of firing BVR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARIKRAMA

First one needs to understand what planners want really - 

Do they want a bird which primarily replaces Mig 21 and does secondary work of say Mig 27 types.. a 75%:25% kind of a division..

The replacement bird is LCA Tejas MK1A.

Now supposing the btter iteration is LCA MkXX. The LWF fighter so selected should be having incremental in terms of capabilities on the domestic platform.

For that both F16 and Gripen is a overkill.. Especially Gripen E.. But if its thought from teh perspective of the future its Gripen E which is a much better platform than F16 and i have no iota of doubt about it.

The question that finally comes down is 
3. Ease of Maintenance and Serviceability - Gripen E will turn out better owing to much modern plane and a new design to incorporate such feedbacks and ease of maintenance

2. Armaments - From Meteors/Mica combo to possibly getting Derby/Derby ER/Python combo also - The reason being Saab had held many discussions with Rafael Industries Israel in the past as well for such integrations.. GBU LGB, Scalp etc

1. Engines - Instead of GE414 if a possible situation arises and we can get it re engined with kaveri new engine completed with Safran help.. then its a big plus..

Why i said engine is bcz as long as its Ge 414 or any GE derived engine or a US engine, USA will prefer pushing their own LWF over any other..


Thus we need to see the package and fitment to understand where such a LWF bird will lead us too.. We might end up with just Mk1A only and not buy any F16/Gripen scenario as well..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Agent_47 said:


> 2,000 + posts and thats all you learned?
> 
> LCA -> Light, point defence,interception
> MMRCA -> Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft.
> 
> Yes, LCA has passed all requirements and it is capable of firing BVR.



The question was if LCA meets all the requirements for MMRCA...
Just because India considered Gripen C not good enough for MMRCA,
does not mean that it cannot find a place in IAF, if the alternative is waiting 5-10 years more.


----------



## Agent_47

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The question was if LCA meets all the requirements for MMRCA...
> Just because India considered Gripen C not good enough for MMRCA,
> does not mean that it cannot find a place in IAF, if the alternative is waiting 5-10 years more.


LCA does not want qualify in MMRCA because it was build as light/interception role which Gripen is not.
It does not have a place in IAF as MMRCA may be in LWF category which DM is talking about.
MMRCA requiremnet well be filled with second batch order of 72-90 rafales.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali Zadi

I dont exactly picture Tejas as an interceptor based squarely on the speed. Almost all of the interceptors I know of have high speed as an asset yet even with the 1.8Mach "FOC" its slower than say a typical interceptor.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Agent_47 said:


> LCA does not want qualify in MMRCA because it was build as light/interception role which Gripen is not.
> It does not have a place in IAF as MMRCA may be in LWF category which DM is talking about.
> MMRCA requiremnet well be filled with second batch order of 72-90 rafales.



Gripen was a built as a multi-role plane.
In Sweden it is called JAS-39 Gripen.
JAS = Jakt/Attack/Spaning or Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance

That means that it can be used as a Light/Interceptor role.
While India/HAL is talking about increasing production of LCA, the production rate
is still limited to much less than what is needed.

Even if a second batch of Rafale is ordered, and that is not clear, IAF are still short of squadrons,
and Gripen C is inifinitely better than any plane that has been scrapped due to old age.


----------



## Agent_47

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen was a built as a multi-role plane.
> In Sweden it is called JAS-39 Gripen.
> JAS = Jakt/Attack/Spaning or Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance
> 
> That means that it can be used as a Light/Interceptor role.
> While India/HAL is talking about increasing production of LCA, the production rate
> is still limited to much less than what is needed.
> 
> Even if a second batch of Rafale is ordered, and that is not clear, IAF are still short of squadrons,
> and Gripen C is inifinitely better than any plane that has been scrapped due to old age.


Why do IAF buy a costly European assembled plane for a regular role which can be done by our LCA ?
Your concerns duly noted, if we can build a fourth gen plane from scratch I'm sure we can increase production rate with respect to our needs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Allen Iverson

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen was a built as a multi-role plane.
> In Sweden it is called JAS-39 Gripen.
> JAS = Jakt/Attack/Spaning or Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance
> 
> That means that it can be used as a Light/Interceptor role.
> While India/HAL is talking about increasing production of LCA, the production rate
> is still limited to much less than what is needed.
> 
> Even if a second batch of Rafale is ordered, and that is not clear, IAF are still short of squadrons,
> and Gripen C is inifinitely better than any plane that has been scrapped due to old age.



Many of you guys are just looking at variables such as stealth charecteristics of the Aircraft, Armaments, cruise speed, AESA etc, but the far more important aspects are Logistics, Maintenance friendly, ease of Handling, Lesser operating cost etc..
I happened to participate in one of the SAAB sponsored programmes and happened to learn more about Gripen..The core ideas on which the Gripen NG was built would blow the minds of any fighter pilot because, Gripen is the only fighter which was built to be truly multirole in the whole world.. I mean truly multirole.. 
1. It can Take off in a 30 feet strip
2. It can take off and land in Highways and even a hot refuelling can be done in a highway..Trust me guys the Hot refuelling aspect is truly great in terms of war..
3. It is the only fighter that takes less than one hour before it gets compltetely refuelled and armed for a second sortie.. Wooww, that is amazing, compared to what we have operated so far..
4. The time taken for a complete engine change is 2 hours.. I mean this is truly a multi role fighter..
5. These are the sort of planes india need to go about in future..

All emotions aside, I personally Loved Gripen and the way SAAB approached India with such openness in terms of TOT..
Gripen is my favourite not to fill the gaps of existing squadrons, but as a partner in AMCA.. Why shouldn't we have a 5th Gen fighter with all the Goodies Gripen can offer and the Experience HAL had over Building Tejas.. It will become a potent combo.. Just my two cents..


----------



## Allen Iverson

Agent_47 said:


> Why do IAF buy a costly European assembled plane for a regular role which can be done by our LCA ?
> Your concerns duly noted, if we can build a fourth gen plane from scratch I'm sure we can increase production rate with respect to our needs.


Let us be honest and Practical boss.. did we just build a plane from scratch..? We had our shortfalls and gaps which were filled in time by GE ,ELTA & RAFAEL.. But we did get extremely valuable and costly knowledge of How to build a fighter from scratch, which no one in this world will offer.. And regarding the cost of manufacturing, unless the LCA production line is privatised, it will continue to remain a costly business.. Costlier than Gripen NG.. (I'm comparing just Airframes not weapons).. but the day when atleast 80 % of the parts manufactured by HAL are privatised, than we can see a real good toy in hand..


----------



## R!CK

Allen Iverson said:


> Many of you guys are just looking at variables such as stealth charecteristics of the Aircraft, Armaments, cruise speed, AESA etc, but the far more important aspects are Logistics, Maintenance friendly, ease of Handling, Lesser operating cost etc..
> I happened to participate in one of the SAAB sponsored programmes and happened to learn more about Gripen..The core ideas on which the Gripen NG was built would blow the minds of any fighter pilot because, Gripen is the only fighter which was built to be truly multirole in the whole world.. I mean truly multirole..
> 1. It can Take off in a 30 feet strip
> 2. It can take off and land in Highways and even a hot refuelling can be done in a highway..Trust me guys the Hot refuelling aspect is truly great in terms of war..
> 3. It is the only fighter that takes less than one hour before it gets compltetely refuelled and armed for a second sortie.. Wooww, that is amazing, compared to what we have operated so far..
> 4. The time taken for a complete engine change is 2 hours.. I mean this is truly a multi role fighter..
> 5. These are the sort of planes india need to go about in future..
> 
> All emotions aside, I personally Loved Gripen and the way SAAB approached India with such openness in terms of TOT..
> Gripen is my favourite not to fill the gaps of existing squadrons, but as a partner in AMCA.. Why shouldn't we have a 5th Gen fighter with all the Goodies Gripen can offer and the Experience HAL had over Building Tejas.. It will become a potent combo.. Just my two cents..



Grippen is definitely a great aircraft.No doubts about it. It is definitely more capable than Tejas and has better upgrade potential than F-16.

But do we really need a super duper plane as point defense? Maybe not. We just need a cheap replacement for Mig21. An AESA radar, multi-role and BVR capability, air-refuelling and decent range is all we need to replace Migs and there is no cheaper alternate than Tejas for it.

As for TOT, truth is SAAB is just an integrator for many sub systems in the aircraft. This means that control over several sub systems are with several manufacturers across the world. SAAB can never assure TOT of components they don't make themselves. Similar to how tejas has several sub systems from foreign vendors who are still reluctant to transfer technology to HAL. We can't speak for the future, regardless. With regards to GAN AESA, SAAB couldnt miniaturise it to fit into a fighter aircraft yet, which is why Grippen E flies with a Selex AESA? People from military production and research domain can endorse how tricky the term 'miniaturise' is.

But if I were to speak for a country that needs a cost effective alternative as their Back bone then there is no other aircraft that fits in perfectly than the Grippen. Unfortunately or fortunately, for a country operating Su30 and Rafale, there is no desperation for Grippen to take up 3rd layer of Defence.

Personally, if GOI pulls a miracle and fix production output, we don't need any other single engine aircraft for the next decade apart from MK1-A. That makes the most sense both financially, operationally and sometimes even politically.

Good Day!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Allen Iverson

R!CK said:


> Grippen is definitely a great aircraft.No doubts about it. It is definitely more capable than Tejas and has better upgrade potential than F-16.
> 
> But do we really need a super duper plane as point defense? Maybe not. We just need a cheap replacement for Mig21. An AESA radar, multi-role and BVR capability, air-refuelling and decent range is all we need to replace Migs and there is no cheaper alternate than Tejas for it.
> 
> But if I were to speak for a country that needs a cost effective alternative as their Back bone then there is no other aircraft that fits in perfectly than the Grippen. Unfortunately or fortunately, for a country operating Su30 and Rafale, there is no desperation for Grippen to take up 3rd layer of Defence.
> 
> Personally, if GOI pulls a miracle and fix production output, we don't need any other single engine aircraft for the next decade apart from MK1-A. That makes the most sense both financially, operationally and sometimes even politically.
> 
> Good Day!


Agreed that we don't need another super duper plane.. But the Super duper AMCA project is nowhere and it is till in the drawing boards.. My Proposal was to Join hands with SAAB for a hybrid LCA/Gripen stealth version for AMCA.. ? We are no where near to build a stealthy fifth generation fighterand let us not fcuk up the AMCA like we did with LCA without any clear vision.. I know it is wishful but imagine if this ever happens..??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## R!CK

Allen Iverson said:


> Agreed that we don't need another super duper plane.. But the Super duper AMCA project is nowhere and it is till in the drawing boards.. My Proposal was to Join hands with SAAB for a hybrid LCA/Gripen stealth version for AMCA.. ? We are no where near to build a stealthy fifth generation fighterand let us not fcuk up the AMCA like we did with LCA without any clear vision.. I know it is wishful but imagine if this ever happens..??



Agreed. But answer to your wish is in the Rafale and FGFA deal. 

P.S: I'd want my country to have all the best aircraft in the world but our inventory is already messed up with 7 types and 8th joining us soon in nearly 3 years time. We are assured to operate 7 types atleast until mid 2020s without even considering a second single engine type acquisition. 

Good Day to you!


----------



## Allen Iverson

R!CK said:


> Agreed. But answer to your wish is in the Rafale and FGFA deal.
> 
> P.S: I'd want my country to have all the best aircraft in the world but our inventory is already messed up with 7 types and 8th joining us soon in nearly 3 years time. We are assured to operate 7 types atleast until mid 2020s without even considering a second single engine type acquisition.
> 
> Good Day to you!


ohh cmon, pls don't say that we are partners in FGFA deal.. Our partnership is limited to money and Mission computers and few other electronic goodies that can be integrated to our version of FGFA.. I'm talking about real time design, development, testing and manufacturing of fifth Generation fighters.. The one in the Name of AMCA which was supposed to be Indian completely from the beginning.. Are we anywhere closer to even finalising the concept definition of our AMCA let alone designing..??? Nooooooooo..
Hence let us stop dreaming and start realising the situation and move on with real partners.. Not with those who are just using us for the money we can put in..


----------



## R!CK

FGFA deal will give us access to some technology, small or big. As far as design help is concerned, that's where the French come in.

I'll only tell you that good days are ahead. Currently AMCA is not upto speed mainly because the decided timelines takes into consideration the time required for help to flow from Rafale and FGFA deals. And yes I'm with you when you say AMCA should be fast tracked. At the cost of one more type introduced into the already zoo fleet? I don't know, maybe time will tell us.

Good Day!


----------



## Agent_47

Allen Iverson said:


> Let us be honest and Practical boss.. did we just build a plane from scratch..? We had our shortfalls and gaps which were filled in time by GE ,ELTA & RAFAEL.. But we did get extremely valuable and costly knowledge of How to build a fighter from scratch, which no one in this world will offer


Making from scratch means designing and developing a plane from a concept. Educate me how Saab is different? US engine,Italian radar, consultation from Lockheed Martin.



Allen Iverson said:


> And regarding the cost of manufacturing, unless the LCA production line is privatised, it will continue to remain a costly business.. Costlier than Gripen NG.. (I'm comparing just Airframes not weapons).. but the day when atleast 80 % of the parts manufactured by HAL are privatised, than we can see a real good toy in hand..



Cost of manufacturing more than Gripen ? Are you high dude?
70-80% of the work will be given to SMBs, HAL or any other private entry (second line) will only do final integration and testing. Every foreign parts will be manufactured in india under licence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Allen Iverson said:


> Agreed that we don't need another super duper plane.. But the Super duper AMCA project is nowhere and it is till in the drawing boards.. My Proposal was to Join hands with SAAB for a hybrid LCA/Gripen stealth version for AMCA.. ? We are no where near to build a stealthy fifth generation fighterand let us not fcuk up the AMCA like we did with LCA without any clear vision.. I know it is wishful but imagine if this ever happens..??



Co Development of AMCA ? 

What does SAAB brings in which we don't? 
List 3 things , which we will not get access to without them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Allen Iverson

Agent_47 said:


> Making from scratch means designing and developing a plane from a concept. Educate me how Saab is different? US engine,Italian radar, consultation from Lockheed Martin.



*Propulsion System*
SAAB Gripen is absolutely designed and developed from Scratch for their needs as did its predecessors SAAB Viggen and SAAB Draken Aircrafts.. Volvo initially started to provide powerplants to SAAB based on Pratt & Whittney RM8 Variants in the early 70s.. They flew the early versions of Gripen with RM12 which is built by Volvo.. Even in the latest models of Gripen or the earlier models of Viggen and Draken Volvo has made enough changes with the powerplants of OEMS as per their requirements to make it as good as a new powerplant.. So regarding Engines, SAAB has far more experience and expertise than HAL and their reason for going with the American derived power plant is of two folds
1. Volvo got Best deals on price and critical changes to the existing design as per the requirement of Sweden which was allowed by OEMs like P&W as well as GE and Volvo did all the finetuning's and changes.. They didn't have to invest a huge sum to set up a huge base to manufacture Turbo jet engines from the scratch for such a small country like Sweden..
2. NATO standards of Interoperability as per the mandatory requirement..
So even for argument's sake we cannot compare Indian LCA program and SAAB Gripen Program in terms of Propulsion systems..
*Radars*
We all know that SAAB is one of the pioneers in designing and developing multitude of Ground based, Fighter based and Naval Radars..
SAAB Erieye 2000 AEW&C which was acquired by Pakistan has forced us to go for the Phalcons with Israel.. During the initial days they were nightmarish for our defence forces until we acquire Phalcons from Israel..
SAAB Gripen was first equipped with PS-05/A developed by SAAB Ericsson..
Here also SAAB stands out in terms of radars.. The VIXEN AESA from Selex is again a part of NATO interoperability standards and a stop gap before SAAB could breakthrough their own AESA with GAN modules which is even better than the VIXEN..

We can be optimistic about our capabilities but we should not be Dickheaded and go chest thumping about every small achievements we accomplished.. It will only undermine our will to develop better systems.. I leave the rest to u..
To compare and SAAB and HAL or DRDO is totally rubbish.. SAAB had the technology and the resources required for manufacturing a complete 4+ generation Aricraft

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Agent_47 said:


> Why do IAF buy a costly European assembled plane for a regular role which can be done by our LCA ?
> Your concerns duly noted, if we can build a fourth gen plane from scratch I'm sure we can increase production rate with respect to our needs.


The production plans for Tejas will result in a dip in the Air Force.
If Tejas could be produced in higher numbers, then the dip would not occur.

For HAL, they must judge if the investment to increase the production rate is financially sound.
This is not neccessary the case if it means that the production in existing fabs will run dry sooner.

If IAF needs 120 Tejas, and a production line can produce 10 a year,
It will take 12 years to produce the order with one line.
2 lines: 6 years
3 lines: 4 years
4 lines: 3 years
cost of production lines needs to be amortized over the number of aircraft
produced at that line.

1 production line: amortized over 120 aircraft.
4 production lines: amortized over 30 aircraft.

So planes will be more expensive.



Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Co Development of AMCA ?
> 
> What does SAAB brings in which we don't?
> List 3 things , which we will not get access to without them.



World Class project management.
World Class datalink
World Class Radar



Agent_47 said:


> Making from scratch means designing and developing a plane from a concept. Educate me how Saab is different? US engine,Italian radar, consultation from Lockheed Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> Cost of manufacturing more than Gripen ? Are you high dude?
> 70-80% of the work will be given to SMBs, HAL or any other private entry (second line) will only do final integration and testing. Every foreign parts will be manufactured in india under licence.



SAAB has been designing fighters for 75 years.
Name one radar, engine or ejection seat designed by

Dassault?
Lockheed Martin?
Eurofighter Gmbh?
Boeing?
Dassault selects tech from french companies.
US companies select US tech.
Eurofighter selects European tech.
SAAB selects worldwide.

Really no difference...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Allen Iverson

Agent_47 said:


> Cost of manufacturing more than Gripen ? Are you high dude?
> 70-80% of the work will be given to SMBs, HAL or any other private entry (second line) will only do final integration and testing. Every foreign parts will be manufactured in india under licence.



Here again, Grippen uses an AESA which is far more capable.. If u compare the cost of ELTA EM 2032 than it will be higher because it is Pulse Doppler radar which is far less capable.. Likewise the powerplant which is far less capable than the Gripen uses.. So over all there is no comparison between Grippen of today and LCA of today because they both are a full generation apart.. And cost wise yes Grippen is atleast some 15 Million USD costlier than LCA as on date.. I'm not talking about the privatisation of LCA mfg which is the future, which may or may not happen.. If I compare the cost per piece of the airframes with engine and radar, than Grippen.. it is costlier than

But what I really admire about Grippen is that the philosophies around which the Grippen is built such as
1.Modular construction
2.Ease of maintenance
3.Very little time to service engine
4.Extremely fast sortie rates
5.Take of and landing in short strips
6. Hot refuelling etc..
I'm pretty sure Indian defence organisations has a lot to learn from those philosophies.. As a witness to our Air operations and with a handful of experience how the Fulcrums and Mirages behaved in terms of serviceability and airworthiness so far, I will take a Grippen anyday over a Rafale let alone LCA..


----------



## Agent_47

Allen Iverson said:


> *Propulsion System*
> SAAB Gripen is absolutely designed and developed from Scratch for their needs as did its predecessors SAAB Viggen and SAAB Draken Aircrafts.. Volvo initially started to provide powerplants to SAAB based on Pratt & Whittney RM8 Variants in the early 70s.. They flew the early versions of Gripen with RM12 which is built by Volvo.. Even in the latest models of Gripen or the earlier models of Viggen and Draken Volvo has made enough changes with the powerplants of OEMS as per their requirements to make it as good as a new powerplant.. So regarding Engines, SAAB has far more experience and expertise than HAL and their reason for going with the American derived power plant is of two folds
> 1. Volvo got Best deals on price and critical changes to the existing design as per the requirement of Sweden which was allowed by OEMs like P&W as well as GE and Volvo did all the finetuning's and changes.. They didn't have to invest a huge sum to set up a huge base to manufacture Turbo jet engines from the scratch for such a small country like Sweden..
> 2. NATO standards of Interoperability as per the mandatory requirement..
> So even for argument's sake we cannot compare Indian LCA program and SAAB Gripen Program in terms of Propulsion systems..


Dude, don't make fun of yourself. Even Swedish here won't claim GE404/GE414 as theirs. Copy pasting company history won't make it a swedish engine. I can list atleast 10 modern engines made in HAL with licence from the east and west. But, That won't change fact that all designs are foreign.



Allen Iverson said:


> *Radars*
> We all know that SAAB is one of the pioneers in designing and developing multitude of Ground based, Fighter based and Naval Radars..
> SAAB Erieye 2000 AEW&C which was acquired by Pakistan has forced us to go for the Phalcons with Israel.. During the initial days they were nightmarish for our defence forces until we acquire Phalcons from Israel..
> SAAB Gripen was first equipped with PS-05/A developed by SAAB Ericsson..
> Here also SAAB stands out in terms of radars.. The VIXEN AESA from Selex is again a part of NATO interoperability standards and a stop gap before SAAB could breakthrough their own AESA with GAN modules which is even better than the VIXEN..


Again, Selex is a Leonardo-Finmeccanica subsidiary not Swedish, period. DRDO has tested AESA. does that means its deployed ? No. Saab Erieye is comparable to DRDO AEW&C not Phalcon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Allen Iverson said:


> *Propun System*
> SAAB Gripen is absolutely designed and developed from Scratch for their needs as did its predecessors SAAB Viggen and SAAB Draken Aircrafts.. Volvo initially started to provide powerplants to SAAB based on Pratt & Whittney RM8 Variants in the early 70s.. They flew the early versions of Gripen with RM12 which is built by Volvo.. Even in the latest models of Gripen or the earlier models of Viggen and Draken Volvo has made enough changes with the powerplants of OEMS as per their requirements to make it as good as a new powerplant.. So regarding Engines, SAAB has far more experience and expertise than HAL and their reason for going with the American derived power plant is of two folds
> 1. Volvo got Best deals on price and critical changes to the existing design as per the requirement of Sweden which was allowed by OEMs like P&W as well as GE and Volvo did all the finetuning's and changes.. They didn't have to invest a huge sum to set up a huge base to manufacture Turbo jet engines from the scratch for such a small country like Sweden..
> 2. NATO standards of Interoperability as per the mandatory requirement..
> So even for argument's sake we cannot compare Indian LCA program and SAAB Gripen Program in terms of Propulsion systems..
> *Radars*
> We all know that SAAB is one of the pioneers in designing and developing multitude of Ground based, Fighter based and Naval Radars..
> SAAB Erieye 2000 AEW&C which was acquired by Pakistan has forced us to go for the Phalcons with Israel.. During the initial days they were nightmarish for our defence forces until we acquire Phalcons from Israel..
> SAAB Gripen was first equipped with PS-05/A developed by SAAB Ericsson..
> Here also SAAB stands out in terms of radars.. The VIXEN AESA from Selex is again a part of NATO interoperability standards and a stop gap before SAAB could breakthrough their own AESA with GAN modules which is even better than the VIXEN..
> 
> We can be optimistic about our capabilities but we should not be Dickheaded and go chest thumping about every small achievements we accomplished.. It will only undermine our will to develop better systems.. I leave the rest to u..
> To compare and SAAB and HAL or DRDO is totally rubbish.. SAAB had the technology and the resources required for manufacturing a complete 4+ generation Aricraft



Ok 

Provide me 2 guarantees 

1. Guarantee that India will hold rights over the engine , also to export it, develop it , improve it , without being dependent on a " Third Party ". 

2. Guarantee of full rights over AESA , with out depending on " Third Party ". 

It would still be better if we directly opt for a third party.... it would be cheaper for us , and time savings.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> World Class project management.
> World Class datalink
> World Class Radar



Project management ? 
We as of now have working dealsv with equally capable companies , and if needed we will get consultancy with out needing to buy another type. 

Data Link ? 
Well advantage here maybe. 

Radar ? 

Give me guarantee of Indian Rights over it without a third party dependency. Selex is Italy with whom we don't have best of the relations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Agent_47

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The production plans for Tejas will result in a dip in the Air Force.
> If Tejas could be produced in higher numbers, then the dip would not occur.
> 
> For HAL, they must judge if the investment to increase the production rate is financially sound.
> This is not neccessary the case if it means that the production in existing fabs will run dry sooner.
> 
> If IAF needs 120 Tejas, and a production line can produce 10 a year,
> It will take 12 years to produce the order with one line.
> 2 lines: 6 years
> 3 lines: 4 years
> 4 lines: 3 years
> cost of production lines needs to be amortized over the number of aircraft
> produced at that line.
> 
> 1 production line: amortized over 120 aircraft.
> 4 production lines: amortized over 30 aircraft.
> 
> So planes will be more expensive.


If we are ordering next batch of 200 LCA mk2s for say $9 billion ($45 m x 200). What will be the cost of setting up a new production line ? Rs 2000 cr ? (Last time it was around Rs 1500 cr). That means each LCA will cost additional $1.5 million (Rs 2000/200 = 10cr). Do you call that extensive ? considering $85 million flyaway cost of Gripen E.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB has been designing fighters for 75 years.
> Name one radar, engine or ejection seat designed by
> 
> Dassault?
> Lockheed Martin?
> Eurofighter Gmbh?
> Boeing?
> Dassault selects tech from french companies.
> US companies select US tech.
> Eurofighter selects European tech.
> SAAB selects worldwide.
> 
> Really no difference...


Which is exactly what i was saying to the other poster. (Even-though country based)



A.P. Richelieu said:


> World Class project management.
> World Class datalink
> World Class Radar


Project management -> Give us enough budget,specific requirements etc. Wait and watch for AMCA.
World Class datalink -> Are you sure we can't make one in next 4-5 years?
World Class Radar -> Already committed with Elta for development + UTTAM

You want us to commit $10+ billion for this kind of stuff?
You guys should have started military interactions with us much earlier. Look at Israels, we go step by step. Some paid articles won't help you to make a foot hole here.



Allen Iverson said:


> Here again, Grippen uses an AESA which is far more capable.. If u compare the cost of ELTA EM 2032 than it will be higher because it is Pulse Doppler radar which is far less capable.. Likewise the powerplant which is far less capable than the Gripen uses.. So over all there is no comparison between Grippen of today and LCA of today because they both are a full generation apart.. And cost wise yes Grippen is atleast some 15 Million USD costlier than LCA as on date.. I'm not talking about the privatisation of LCA mfg which is the future, which may or may not happen.. If I compare the cost per piece of the airframes with engine and radar, than Grippen.. it is costlier than


You should update your knowledge, LCA mk1A is equipped with Elta el/m 2052. Gripen E costs around $70-85 million.



Allen Iverson said:


> I'm pretty sure Indian defence organisations has a lot to learn from those philosophies.. As a witness to our Air operations and with a handful of experience how the Fulcrums and Mirages behaved in terms of serviceability and airworthiness so far, I will take a Grippen anyday over a Rafale let alone LCA..


No one care about your fetishes, make arguments how this plane is suitable for the requirements and price.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Allen Iverson

Agent_47 said:


> Dude, don't make fun of yourself. Even Swedish here won't claim GE404/GE414 as theirs. Copy pasting company history won't change the fact that it runs on GE engine. I can list atleast 10 modern engines made in HAL with licence from the east and west. But, That won't change fact that all designs are foreign.


If your intention is to prove that you are well versed in the topic than me, then you don't need to type anything here.. I concede that you are an expert in this subject matter than me.. 
Now responding to your post, I do not see anything funny in my previous posts, as I've mentioned what I feel is right.. 
Can u provide me the company history from where I have copy pasted the above post.. Pls feel free to prove this otherwise you'll looked upon with puny.. (The Company source link or a screen shot of the company page will suffice)..

Where did I claim that GE engines are a property of SAAB..?? I merely said SAAB Grippen is powered by VOLVO RM12 which is a modified GE 404 engine.. But the modifications are trivial in itself and those modifications such as FADEC require very high technological knowhows to carry out and VOLVO is capable of that.. FADEC is designed by SAAB for Grippen fighters in 1996.. Not just that more than 50% components are made in Sweden and designed according to the needs of Swedish Airforce by Sweden in Sweden, I can provide you links if u want.. I'm implying that, SAAB is fully capable of developing an Engine totally in Sweden but they didn't required since they were getting all they wanted with all the freedom to modify the engine as per their requirement.. 

In short SAAB had the Technology but they didn't had the will to create a new engine from scratch because it is costly and time consuming.. Where as the case of HAL is exactly the opposite.. We have the resources but we don't have the Tech.. As simple as that.. Hence partnering with SAAB will provide the best opportunity for HAL as well as India for its future ambitions..
After reading all this if you still compare HAL with SAAB and VOLVO than I have nothing to say on this topic..



Agent_47 said:


> Again, Selex is a Leonardo-Finmeccanica subsidiary not Swedish, period. DRDO has tested AESA. does that means its deployed ? No. Saab Erieye is comparable to DRDO AEW&C not Phalcon.


Again you are Misquoting my post.. when did I say that SELEX is a Swedish company or a SAAB owned company.. You have problem in comprehending my posts..
I said they have enough experience in creating radars and they have already flew their earlier model gripen with PS-05/A Pulse Doppler radar which is manufactured by SAAB.. Now they are going with SELEX made AESA Radar to stay competitive in the business market, where as their their own GAN modules based more efficient AESA is already designed and ready to be produced.. 
I did not say SAAB Eriye is equivalent to Phalcons.. I said SAAB is far experienced in building radars and their Erieye was deployed in Pakistan in more numbers than our phalcons and far earlier than we could deploy our phalcons.. Hence the Erieye gave an edge to them while our phalcons were still getting inducted in those days back in 2007-08..
Pls do not jump to conclusions before reading my posts completely and properly.. It is you who is trying to humiliate yourself.. 
Good day...



Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Ok
> 
> Provide me 2 guarantees
> 
> 1. Guarantee that India will hold rights over the engine , also to export it, develop it , improve it , without being dependent on a " Third Party ".
> 
> 2. Guarantee of full rights over AESA , with out depending on " Third Party ".
> 
> It would still be better if we directly opt for a third party.... it would be cheaper for us , and time savings.


I'm not here pitching for SAAB in Indian Airforce lines, but merely suggesting my point of views.. However, the way SAAB is offering their products for make in India program, it does seems very promising..



Agent_47 said:


> You should update your knowledge, LCA mk1A is equipped with Elta el/m 2052. Gripen E costs around $70-85 million.


Correction to your post.. LCA MK1A is proposed to have ELTA EL/M 2052 (Future Tense).. neither LCA MK1A nor its radar had seen day light and it wont see day light before 2020.. Atleast that's what the HAL folks are telling me... So let us debate on that when it is ready.. you are saying that LCA MK1 is equipped(Present Tense) with ELTA ELM2052.. Pls update your knowledge on tenses and then we'll talk about Aircrafts and its systems..
Good day



Agent_47 said:


> No one care about your fetishes, make arguments how this plane is suitable for the requirements and price.


As I already told, I'm here providing my views.. "Fetish" is a rather rogue way of portraying one's views.. I feel that Gripen should be a partner of DRDO in developing AMCA.. That's it.. It has got experience and expertise and along with our experience and resources we can have a grand success with our AMCA like we had with Brahmos..
That's it... I'm not pitching for procuring existing Gripens, since it will somehow undermine the need for our Tejas.. However SAAB is one such organisation which can share a lot with India and which is also known for developing high quality defence systems..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agent_47

Allen Iverson said:


> Where did I claim that GE engines are a property of SAAB..?? I merely said SAAB Grippen is powered by VOLVO RM12 which is a modified GE 404 engine.. But the modifications are trivial in itself and those modifications such as FADEC require very high technological knowhows to carry out and VOLVO is capable of that.. FADEC is designed by SAAB for Grippen fighters in 1996.. Not just that more than 50% components are made in Sweden and designed according to the needs of Swedish Airforce by Sweden in Sweden, I can provide you links if u want.. I'm implying that, SAAB is fully capable of developing an Engine totally in Sweden but they didn't required since they were getting all they wanted with all the freedom to modify the engine as per their requirement..


You answered to my post asking 'How Saab is different from HAL/ADA?' saying swedish (VOLVO) have more experience with engine than us. Now you are claiming adding FADEC to GE404 is some exceptional achievement.
Hope you know we have developed an engine named Kavari with indigenous FADEC thanks to DARE. We licencee produce hundreds of Adour Mk 871,Mk 811,AL 31FP,RD 33, R29,R25 etc.We make more than 50% inhouse for AL 31/RD33. We may have produced more modern engines in last 10 years than Swedish ever made in last 50 years. And how did without making a modern engine they become more experienced?



Allen Iverson said:


> In short SAAB had the Technology but they didn't had the will to create a new engine from scratch because it is costly and time consuming.. Where as the case of HAL is exactly the opposite.. We have the resources but we don't have the Tech.. As simple as that.. Hence partnering with SAAB will provide the best opportunity for HAL as well as India for its future ambitions..
> After reading all this if you still compare HAL with SAAB and VOLVO than I have nothing to say on this topic..


You do understand our startagic engines are developed by GTRE not HAL rite ?



Allen Iverson said:


> Again you are Misquoting my post.. when did I say that SELEX is a Swedish company or a SAAB owned company.. You have problem in comprehending my posts..
> I said they have enough experience in creating radars and they have already flew their earlier model gripen with PS-05/A Pulse Doppler radar which is manufactured by SAAB.. Now they are going with SELEX made AESA Radar to stay competitive in the business market, where as their their own GAN modules based more efficient AESA is already designed and ready to be produced..


How am i Misquoting ? (again, you were answering to 'How Saab is different from HAL?' post)* it okey for Saab to use other countries Radars but we cannot!?* . This thread is about MII LWF not history of light weight fighters. AESA is must for every future acquisition. As i said earlier DRDO and elta is developing a new AESA radar, just like your future GaN.



Allen Iverson said:


> Correction to your post.. LCA MK1A is proposed to have ELTA EL/M 2052 (Future Tense).. neither LCA MK1A nor its radar had seen day light and it wont see day light before 2020.. Atleast that's what the HAL folks are telling me... So let us debate on that when it is ready.. you are saying that LCA MK1 is equipped(Present Tense) with ELTA ELM2052.. Pls update your knowledge on tenses and then we'll talk about Aircrafts and its systems..
> Good day


Bhayya, This is about future MII LWF. btw LCA mk2A is already ordered, don't matter when the light comes.
*
It is Ok for you to quote features of a non-operational future fighter but we can't?* 



Allen Iverson said:


> I did not say SAAB Eriye is equivalent to Phalcons.. I said SAAB is far experienced in building radars and their Erieye was deployed in Pakistan .


So, our DRDO AEW&CS does not count as experience?!



Allen Iverson said:


> As I already told, I'm here providing my views.. "Fetish" is a rather rogue way of portraying one's views.. I feel that Gripen should be a partner of DRDO in developing AMCA.. That's it.. It has got experience and expertise and along with our experience and resources we can have a grand success with our AMCA like we had with Brahmos..
> That's it... I'm not pitching for procuring existing Gripens, since it will somehow undermine the need for our Tejas.. However SAAB is one such organisation which can share a lot with India and which is also known for developing high quality defence systems..


I apologize for using that word. But you still did not prove how Saab/Swedish is more experienced enough for $10+ billion investment for MII.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Allen Iverson

Agent_47 said:


> You do understand our startagic engines are developed by GTRE not HAL rite ?


GTRE(Gas Turbine Research and Development Establishment) is a part of DRDO, instead of DRDO I typed HAL..



Agent_47 said:


> You answered to my post asking 'How Saab is different from HAL/ADA?' saying swedish (VOLVO) have more experience with engine than us. Now you are claiming adding FADEC to GE404 is some exceptional achievement.
> Hope you know we have developed an engine named Kavari with indigenous FADEC thanks to DARE. We licencee produce hundreds of Adour Mk 871,Mk 811,AL 31FP,RD 33, R29,R25 etc.We make more than 50% inhouse for AL 31/RD33. We may have produced more modern engines in last 10 years than Swedish ever made in last 50 years. And how did without making a modern engine they become more experienced?


Again I'm telling you, Comparing to all those achievements by GTRE or DRDO in terms of Propulsion systems is not right.. What we do is assemble in KD, SKD kits or at the maximum get the parts manufactured locally with specs and Drawings provided by the OEM.. The only indigenous effort was during GTRE-X or Kaveri project, but it is stuck at a very critical phase.. Where as the VOLVO has done far more than that.. VOLVO has developed their own FADEC by early nineties.. DRDO or GTRE had done it after the development of KAVERI.. VOLVO has understood the GE engines and designed their own Y-Ducts in the compressor inlet to have better fuel efficiency than the original GE engines.. They have also developed certain crucial parts as per the requirement of Swedish Airspace to have better reliability and to sustain Bird hits.. Now that is indegenous.. They have the techs required but they didn't needed a completely indegenous product because there was no need for that and the swedes also had no export restrictions in terms of the Engines(Except for those countries under sanctions). Now Compare the situations and tell me if you want to compare the Two in the same league???
@A.P. Richelieu @PARIKRAMA @Taygibay If you guys could add to what I quoted above..??



Agent_47 said:


> Bhayya, This is about future MII LWF. btw LCA mk2A is already ordered, don't matter when the light comes.
> *
> It is Ok for you to quote features of a non-operational future fighter but we can't?*


No.. My reply was when you compared to Grippen, with the current day Specifications to LCA MK1A.. As on date comparison is what I had given there.. Grippen with its Selex Made AESA and LCA with ELTA made Pulse Doppler..



Agent_47 said:


> So, our DRDO AEW&CS does not count as experience?!


No.. U just have to check the SAAB page to see how advanced they are in terms of Avionics and Radars and for how many years and how many countries they have exported their radar systems too.. But if you compare SAAB and BEL or DRDO on the same levels then it is like comparing to apples and oranges..



Agent_47 said:


> I apologize for using that word. But you still did not prove how Saab/Swedish is more experienced enough for $10+ billion investment for MII.


Bofors Howitzers is a SAAB made weapon and we all know how it kicks *** even today, it is an evidence to SAAB's quality.. SAAB had a legacy of Building highly advanced fighter Jets such as Viggen, Grippen etc from scratch for more than 40 years.. They have successfully exported those fighter jets and kept the end users satisfied with the performance and after sales service.. They were the first in the world to successfully create and deploy a canard wing fighter jets in the world.. They have created their own GAN modules based AESA Radar and it is about to enter production.. They have enough experience and expertise in modifying and finetuning GE , P&W engines according to their needs..
They are also in the process of designing a 5th generation fighter jet for international market.. I would say these qualities are enough for a company to venture in MII.. And moreover, it is SAAB which is going to invest Billions.. Not the Indian Govt.. They just need a market to sell if they come up with something awesome..
Just my views..


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Agent_47 said:


> You answered to my post asking 'How Saab is different from HAL/ADA?' saying swedish (VOLVO) have more experience with engine than us. Now you are claiming adding FADEC to GE404 is some exceptional achievement.
> Hope you know we have developed an engine named Kavari with indigenous FADEC thanks to DARE. We licencee produce hundreds of Adour Mk 871,Mk 811,AL 31FP,RD 33, R29,R25 etc.We make more than 50% inhouse for AL 31/RD33. We may have produced more modern engines in last 10 years than Swedish ever made in last 50 years. And how did without making a modern engine they become more experienced?
> 
> 
> You do understand our startagic engines are developed by GTRE not HAL rite ?
> 
> 
> How am i Misquoting ? (again, you were answering to 'How Saab is different from HAL?' post)* it okey for Saab to use other countries Radars but we cannot!?* . This thread is about MII LWF not history of light weight fighters. AESA is must for every future acquisition. As i said earlier DRDO and elta is developing a new AESA radar, just like your future GaN.
> 
> 
> Bhayya, This is about future MII LWF. btw LCA mk2A is already ordered, don't matter when the light comes.
> *
> It is Ok for you to quote features of a non-operational future fighter but we can't?*
> 
> 
> So, our DRDO AEW&CS does not count as experience?!
> 
> 
> I apologize for using that word. But you still did not prove how Saab/Swedish is more experienced enough for $10+ billion investment for MII.



The Kaveri is so far a failure....
With the help of the French, maybe things could be straightened out.


----------



## Allen Iverson

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Kaveri is so far a failure....
> With the help of the French, maybe things could be straightened out.


I won't say Kaveri a failure.. It is just developing 20% lesser thrust required to compare it with GE F 404.. There is redesigning process going on to restructure the Kabini core.. For that the help of consultants such as Safran is sought.. 
kaveri in its current form is generating the enough thrust required for UAVs and other such applications.. It has opened up a vast options of propulsion systems to Indian defence PSUs..


----------



## Taygibay

Allen Iverson said:


> @A.P. Richelieu @PARIKRAMA @Taygibay If you guys could add to what I quoted above..??



Well, let's just mention that the main reason for using a modified foreign engine
was not technical. There just wasn't enough money to build fighter jet engines
from scratch. When you decide on strategic avenues, unless cash is infinitely
abundant, you select techs A- that *must* be national and B- for the rest, those
that are likely to pay back the investment.

Sweden did design jet engines, the Dovern being their Kaveri moment.
But since getting to the level of the majors would cost a fortune the country
did not have without a market for payback, they chose to adapt existing jets.
Nonetheless, the RM series shows an increasing level of adaptation to their
needs which honestly constitute more experience and results in the field than
GTRE / DRDO have logged so far.

Good day AllanI and all, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Taygibay said:


> Sweden did design jet engines, the Dovern being their Kaveri moment.
> But since getting to the level of the majors would cost a fortune the country
> did not have without a market for payback, they chose to adapt existing jets.
> Nonetheless, the RM series shows an increasing level of adaptation to their
> needs which honestly constitute more experience and results in the field than
> GTRE / DRDO have logged so far.
> 
> Good day AllanI and all, Tay.



Interesting, never heard about the Dovern, but apparently after it was rejected
in favour of a Rolls-Royce jet engine for the A-32 Lansen, it was developed
into a gasturbine, which is still in production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hephaestus

*Unmanned F-16s declared IOC*

Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of Air Force Air Combat Command (ACC), late last week declared the QF-16 Full-Scale Aerial Target (FSAT) initially operationally capable. The QF-16 is an unmanned F-16 used, in this program, for providing threat-representative presentation for developmental and operational test and evaluation for weapons systems as mandated by law, Department of Defense documents said of the FSAT program. 

According to the main contractor, Boeing: “The QF-16 Full Scale Aerial Target will provide the next generation of combat training and testing for U.S. warfighters. Retired F-16 aircraft are converted into QF-16 aerial targets for the purpose of testing newly developed weapons and tactics. The QF-16 will replace the existing QF-4 fleet, and provide a higher capability, fourth generation aerial target that is more representative of today’s targets and threats.” 

The decision by ACC certifies 15 QF-16s ready and available for target operations, according to an ACC release. They are assigned to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and flown by the 82nd Aerial Target Squadron under the 53rd Wing. 

In this sense, initial operational capability (IOC) means that the squadron now has 15 aircraft “plus trained pilots and maintainers to provide unmanned QF-16 aerial targets in the Gulf Range from Tyndall AFB," Lt. Col. Matthew Garrison, 82nd Aerial Target Squadron commander at Tyndall, told C4ISRNET in an email. “This also required that we have the hardware, software and technicians to maintain and operate the target control system. There were several intermediate steps along the way including unmanned QF-16 target missions supporting JSF [joint strike fighter] testing that supported the recent F-35A IOC declaration.” 

The new QF-16 fleet replaces the QF-4 fleet that served the same purpose. ACC assured that QF-16 is the introduction of fourth-generation fighter capabilities in the aerial target mission maintaining all capabilities of the baseline F-16 including supersonic flight and 9 G maneuverability. 

Garrison added that “[w]e are already full steam ahead because we are supporting back-to-back QF-16 target missions tomorrow for [ Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile] AMRAAM involving USN F-18s and new software for USAF F-16s.” 

“This leap forward in airframe capabilities, combined with advanced electronic pods, will allow us to properly test and evaluate our 5th generation aircraft and weapons,” he said. 

The QF-16 has been thought of to contribute to the Air Force’s loyal wingmen program, which seeks to pair unmanned fourth-generation fighters with fifth-generation manned platforms. Within this construct, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work has described it as a battle node network in line with the third offset strategy “where you take an F-16, make it totally unmanned — F-16 is a fourth-generation fighter – and pair it with an F-35 – a fifth-generation, what I would call battle network node — and those two operating together,” he said at a Washington Post event. 

This concept can help navigate around anti-access/area denial environments, which aim to extend the range of adversarial forces and capabilities, by serving as a missile truck for fifth-generation fighters that are limited in their payload capability and accompanying them at high rates of speed currently unique vis-à-vis other unmanned platforms. 

“We have not participated in any technology demonstrations with the Loyal Wingman program but have provided them with answers to specific questions when asked,” Garrison said. “Generally these have been centered on our target control system. We also discussed some general lessons learned about maintaining and operating large, unmanned aerial platforms.” 

Just found this. Not that it has to do anything with MII Jets. Please let me know your thoughts.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/articles/unmanned-f-16s-declared-ioc


----------



## Perpendicular

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783208766414151680

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783208766401634304

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taygibay

Hephaestus said:


> Just found this. Not that it has to do anything with MII Jets. Please let me know your thoughts.



QF targets have been around for a long while.
The first drone aerial target came in 1935 in the UK.
America with its superior cash began the QFs in the 60s
with two dozen Starfighters designated QF-104.
They were followed by QF-102, QF-100, QF-106 then
QF-4 made with Phantoms and now Falcons as QF-16.

Not related to MII as they're highly proprietary nor to
UCAVs by the way because QF ACs are often guided by
a WSO in a master aircraft following the drone.

Great day to you, Tay.

P.S. Isn't that Air Chief threading on his DM's prerogatives 
when he says things like :
Whoever gives the best deal, the capability and transfer of
technology will determine which fighter will figure for Make in India​In the end his job is merely to use these jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hephaestus

Taygibay said:


> QF targets have been around for long while.
> The first drone aerial target came in 1935 in the UK.
> America with its superior cash began the QFs in the 60s
> with two dozen Starfighters designated QF-104.
> They were followed by QF-102, QF-100, QF-106 then
> QF-4 made with Phantoms and now Falcons as QF-16.
> 
> Not related to MII as they're highly proprietary nor to
> UCAVs by the way because QF ACs are often guided by
> an WSO in a master aircraft following the drone.
> 
> Great day to you, Tay.
> 
> P.S. Isn't that Air Chief threading on his DM prerogatives
> when he says things like :
> Whoever gives the best deal, the capability and transfer of
> technology will determine which fighter will figure for Make in India​In the end his job is merely to use these jets.



Thank you Tay. Yes I do understand this has got nothing to do with MII.

These are more like target practice for future gen of fighters. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

No, that's it exactly. It comes closer to a dogfight simulation
than most target drones which simulate fighters w/electronics
but don't have the necessary agility for 1-on-1 maneuvers.

800000612001_3742836852001_QF16-EXT-08212014.mp4

Good day, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Perpendicular said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783208766414151680
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783208766401634304




Where did IAF chief actually said this ?

The companies and Media here is trying to turn one thing into another for their gain at IAFs risk. 

The requirement is for Mig21 replacements before 2022, not for a MII Next Generation Fighter Jet after 2025. We are already getting that in Rafale deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## [Bregs]

Swedish major Saab bets big on India with Gripen fighter jets

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 3:

Swedish aerospace and defence giant Saab Group is betting big on the Indian market for its fighter jet Gripen.







The $800-million Saab aeronautics, which has already bagged $5 billion worth of global orders for Gripen, is planning to set up an entire production and assembly line in India to co-produce the jets under the Make in India programme.

“Saab is here to team up with India and be there for the next 100 years. This is not just about setting up an aircraft industry but also about true transfer of technology and sharing of trade secrets,” said Mats Palmberg, Vice President, Industrial Partnerships, Saab Aeronautics.

Gripen had lost out to Rafale in 2011 during a bidding process for medium multi-role combat aircraft. However, the company has upgraded the Gripensince then. Gripen is now being used by the air forces of Hungary, Thailand, South Africa, Brazil and Czech Republic. Talks were revived when Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February this year. The company is hopeful that India will be placing orders to procure Gripen warplanes soon.

The company is planning to sell the Gripen NG model to India, which is their most advanced multi-role fighter.

“Gripen order backlog is at an all time high. We are in one of the best positions now with Gripen, although we have tough competition,” added Richard Smith, Head (Marketing & Sales), Gripen.

According to Smith, financing the procurement of these jets can also be customised as per the clients’ needs.

Under the Make in India programme, Saab has plans to build an aeronautical industry eco-system, including transfer of technology with an aim to maximise India content, extending industrial network and creating a suppliers system.

As part of its long-term plans for Gripen, it has plans for design, production and in-service support. There are also plans to set up a training academy to train pilots in operating the Gripen.

“The work that will be done in India will support our programmes for Gripen globally,” said Palmberg.

He said there will be dedicated Indian Gripen line at Saab’s facility here that will be supported by the Indian industry. Additionally, the company is planning to establish a sub-assembly unit.

The company is also keen to train Indian pilots and engineers in Sweden.

“We can give the Indian Air Force the capabilities they need that will meet the changing requirements,” said Lars Sjoberg, Director, Head of Development, Saab Aeronautics.

_(The writer was in Sweden at the invitation of Saab Group)_


http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...a-with-gripen-fighter-jets/article9180925.ece

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARIKRAMA

@Agent_47 
I am taking it here



Agent_47 said:


> *IAF chief blames UPA for procurement delays, spells out schedule for boosting fighter squadrons*
> 
> Addressing his first press conference since India contracted for 36 Rafale fighters from France, Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, outlined on Tuesday his vision for how crippling deficiencies in fighter aircraft would be tackled.
> 
> Raha blamed the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s preoccupation with procedure for the IAF’s current aircraft shortfalls — it has just 34 fighter squadrons instead of the sanctioned 45. He said: “I think all our procurements have been more or less process driven and not outcome driven. [Now] there is a change of perception and now most of the procurement processes and policies are being amended so that it is (sic) outcome driven.”
> 
> “We have planned up to 2027 and if the inductions had been timely, the IAF’s capabilities, certainly in terms of combat aircraft — as of now it is good, but it would have been better.”
> 
> The IAF has not yet closed the Rafale chapter. With Dassault, the Rafale’s French vendor, believed to be readying a proposal for building 80 more Rafales in India, Raha stated:* “We would like to have more, but the decision will be taken in the near future based on capabilities and the desirability of having [more] fighter aircraft of this class.”*
> 
> Second fighter line
> 
> The air chief indicated that a new Make in India fighter production line could come up soon, based on “unsolicited offers” from Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Saab for building their fighters in India --- respectively the F-16 Block 70, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Gripen E. These offers are conditional on the IAF buying and operating the fighter in question.
> 
> *“This is very much on the table and I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”*
> 
> *Raha said: “This will not be just licensed manufacture. It will be proper transfer of technology. Also, India will become a hub for manufacturing, as well as maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) for other air forces in the region.*
> 
> Jaguar
> 
> The IAF chief also flashed a green light on modifying and upgrading the Jaguar fleet, the IAF’s key fighter for deep penetration strikes. As Business Standard has reported (March 27, 2015 “Facing dwindling numbers, Jaguar upgrade crucial for Indian Air Force”) *at least four of the six Jaguar squadrons (120 aircraft) will be rejuvenated with new Honeywell F-125N engines for $3 billion, a modern Airborne Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar*, indigenous DARIN-3 avionics and will carry the smart CBU-105 “sensor fuzed weapons” that India bought from Textron, USA.
> 
> Raha said: “To exploit the Jaguar for the next 15-20 years, we are upgrading the aircraft with better weapons. I think there has been slow progress in the past but I’m sure this is going to pick up steam, and very soon we’ll see progress.”
> 
> Raha also said upgrade programmes were progressing well in the three Mirage 2000 squadrons (cost: Rs 12,100 crore); and three MiG-29 squadrons (cost Rs 6,400 crore).
> 
> Indo-Russian FGFA
> 
> The tortuous negotiations holding up the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) are resolved, Raha confirmed. *The two sides are believed to have agreed on a $4 billion “R&D Contract” *that could see HAL and Sukhoi co-develop and build up to 250 FGFAs for the IAF.
> 
> Raha said: “[Earlier, the IAF] found gaps in information on transfer of technology; how they (Sukhoi) have achieved these 5th generation technologies, and in visibility of the total cost. So these issues were flagged… and now a lot of clarity has come on these issues. Hopefully things will be decided sooner rather than later on the FGFA.”
> 
> Tejas LCA
> 
> For the first time, the IAF chief spelt out a detailed commitment and roadmap for inducting 120 Tejas fighters into the IAF in a decade.
> 
> Raha said the first squadron, which will have 20 Tejas with “initial operational certification” (IOC), will have four fighter this year, with HAL boosting production to eight fighters annually from next year. “So in another year and a half’s time, we will have a full squadron of LCA’s – the IOC version”, he said.
> 
> *Raha revealed the long-delayed “final operational certification” (FOC) of the Tejas was imminent. “I’m sure in another five-six months FOC would be cleared and production will start as soon as [HAL] finishes producing the IOC version. So we expect that the FOC version [of the Tejas] will be operationalized in an IAF fighter squadron in another three years time.”*
> 
> Meanwhile, the Tejas Mark 1A, with improved radar, weapons, electronic warfare capability and maintainability would fly in three-four years.
> 
> *“We should be able to start production of this aircraft by 2020-21; and in another five-seven years [i.e. by 2025-28], we’ll have 80 Tejas Mark 1A fighters”, said Raha. *
> 
> 
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...oosting-fighter-squadrons-116100400819_1.html
> 
> it will take atleast 2026 to induct all 120 LCAs. Mk2 will remain a fantasy for us.
> @PARIKRAMA



F16/Gripen E Second Line thoughts





https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...8-gripen-any-other.448850/page-3#post-8697315


F16 Block 70




https://defence.pk/threads/indian-airforce-mmrca-lwf-alternate-discussion.448646/#post-8671944

Gripen E 




https://defence.pk/threads/indian-airforce-mmrca-lwf-alternate-discussion.448646/#post-8671944


About LCA 2021-28 timeline, i have said it here Bro






https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.230070/page-384#post-8731038

Look i said about estimated peak in 2021-25 timeline... I have clearly spelt about the turf war and possible consequences.

@MilSpec @Abingdonboy @hellfire @Ankit Kumar 002 @anant_s @SpArK 
Pls go through the interview by Air Chief Raha.. Thanks to @MilSpec for the LWF thread, we now have much better data to at least comprehend..

You see @Agent_47 , HAL is digging its grave.. clearly IAF chief said what i have always suggested that HAL itself will create a situation where a second LWF becomes inevitable. I am again saying they will create a situation where a pvt sector like L&T will finally come up and take a 160 jet order as well and HAL will be left with just 100+ order.

If LWF is a reality then my choices are

LSA Ghost with kaveri and heavy borrowing from Rafale (something vstol said already)
Gripen E/F with possibly using again kaveri engine
F16 Blk 70 (Pls avoid unless we buy directly from USA and get entire 100 jets in 5 years only and no MII)

I said that here just few days back this as below




https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...8-gripen-any-other.448850/page-5#post-8753670

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Agent_47

PARIKRAMA said:


> You see @Agent_47 , HAL is digging its grave.. clearly IAF chief said what i have always suggested that HAL itself will create a situation where a second LWF becomes inevitable. I am again saying they will create a situation where a pvt sector like L&T will finally come up and take a 160 jet order as well and HAL will be left with just 100+ order.
> 
> If LWF is a reality then my choices are
> 
> LSA Ghost with kaveri and heavy borrowing from Rafale (something vstol said already)
> Gripen E/F with possibly using again kaveri engine
> F16 Blk 70 (Pls avoid unless we buy directly from USA and get entire 100 jets in 5 years only and no MII)


There is a clear void of 180-200 jets. F16 and gripen are terrible choices. I would say add second private production line and double the rate (32/yr) by 2021. Ask serious help from Dassault for Mk2 with MII second batch contract. If we could make mk2 production ready by 2024-25, we can complete the requirement within 6-7 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

Agent_47 said:


> There is a clear void of 180-200 jets. F16 and gripen are terrible choices. I would say add second private production line and double the rate (32/yr) by 2021. Ask serious help from Dassault for Mk2 with MII second batch contract. If we could make mk2 production ready by 2024-25, we can complete the requirement within 6-7 years.



The thick heads at HAL are too stupidto realise that .... they are just not willing to consider partnering with firms like L&T to get LCA in to production in a big way

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

I hope this new bird doesnt go in the hands of HAL, but rope in a willing private firm(s).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## zambino

So gripen is coming? That means rafale numbers will be capped at 36+18?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jamy

zambino said:


> So gripen is coming? That means rafale numbers will be capped at 36+18?


No way, More than a decade of effort on evaluation and exhaustive negotiations for a mere 54 jets, will question the wisdom of IAF planners. Rafale will form the back bone of IAF. Will make the "Middle Order" formidable. Like Mr.Dependable Dravid, it will "Defend" our airspace as a Wall, at times it will "Open" the attack, always it will "Keep" the enemy guessing, and "Slog" down the line when needed. Hope Rafale and the Light Weight Fighter co exist in numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sri

From BRF, I read this and makes sense on why there is no second line of MK1 production as HAL is manufacturing more or less everything on its own 





Courtesy Shiv from BRF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stephen Cohen

Jamy said:


> No way, More than a decade of effort on evaluation and exhaustive negotiations for a mere 54 jets, will question the wisdom of IAF planners. Rafale will form the back bone of IAF. Will make the "Middle Order" formidable. Like Mr.Dependable Dravid, it will "Defend" our airspace as a Wall, at times it will "Open" the attack, always it will "Keep" the enemy guessing, and "Slog" down the line when needed. Hope Rafale and the Light Weight Fighter co exist in numbers.



Rafale will be the TIP of the SWORD

It will lead the attack ; A frontal assault on the enemy's AWACS and the escorts 

SPECTRA Plus METEOR will make the enemy defences crumble


----------



## jha

So, we are looking to retain 100 Jaguars and induct Rafales,Gripens,LCA-1A... and 250 FGFA... very solid plan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## #hydra#

Hope they will go for the original plan,ie 126 rafales.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Any new type of fighter jet which will not come by 2021 in IAF service is as good as a crashed Mig21 for us. 

Death to dickheads in HAL and MoD who are screwing up a god sent plan for IAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## halloweene

Allen Iverson said:


> GTRE(Gas Turbine Research and Development Establishment) is a part of DRDO, instead of DRDO I typed HAL..
> 
> 
> Again I'm telling you, Comparing to all those achievements by GTRE or DRDO in terms of Propulsion systems is not right.. What we do is assemble in KD, SKD kits or at the maximum get the parts manufactured locally with specs and Drawings provided by the OEM.. The only indigenous effort was during GTRE-X or Kaveri project, but it is stuck at a very critical phase.. Where as the VOLVO has done far more than that.. VOLVO has developed their own FADEC by early nineties.. DRDO or GTRE had done it after the development of KAVERI.. VOLVO has understood the GE engines and designed their own Y-Ducts in the compressor inlet to have better fuel efficiency than the original GE engines.. They have also developed certain crucial parts as per the requirement of Swedish Airspace to have better reliability and to sustain Bird hits.. Now that is indegenous.. They have the techs required but they didn't needed a completely indegenous product because there was no need for that and the swedes also had no export restrictions in terms of the Engines(Except for those countries under sanctions). Now Compare the situations and tell me if you want to compare the Two in the same league???
> @A.P. Richelieu @PARIKRAMA @Taygibay If you guys could add to what I quoted above..??
> 
> 
> No.. My reply was when you compared to Grippen, with the current day Specifications to LCA MK1A.. As on date comparison is what I had given there.. Grippen with its Selex Made AESA and LCA with ELTA made Pulse Doppler..
> 
> 
> No.. U just have to check the SAAB page to see how advanced they are in terms of Avionics and Radars and for how many years and how many countries they have exported their radar systems too.. But if you compare SAAB and BEL or DRDO on the same levels then it is like comparing to apples and oranges..
> 
> 
> Bofors Howitzers is a SAAB made weapon and we all know how it kicks *** even today, it is an evidence to SAAB's quality.. SAAB had a legacy of Building highly advanced fighter Jets such as Viggen, Grippen etc from scratch for more than 40 years.. They have successfully exported those fighter jets and kept the end users satisfied with the performance and after sales service.. They were the first in the world to successfully create and deploy a canard wing fighter jets in the world.. They have created their own GAN modules based AESA Radar and it is about to enter production.. They have enough experience and expertise in modifying and finetuning GE , P&W engines according to their needs..
> They are also in the process of designing a 5th generation fighter jet for international market.. I would say these qualities are enough for a company to venture in MII.. And moreover, it is SAAB which is going to invest Billions.. Not the Indian Govt.. They just need a market to sell if they come up with something awesome..
> Just my views..



I understand your point of view and i do like SAAB products. However, Viggen was not technically speaking a canard delta plane, but a double delta (nvm, detail). During the same period, Dassault implemented canards on Mirage III S (another detail). SAAB (in fact the intellectual property is owned by Chalmers university) ability to build GaN modules comes from the very same european programs as UMS, QinetiQ, SELEX etc. capabilities (Korrigan and some others (manga, magnus + national programs). One can therefore expect that technology involved will be very similar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Allen Iverson

halloweene said:


> I understand your point of view and i do like SAAB products. However, Viggen was not technically speaking a canard delta plane, but a double delta (nvm, detail). During the same period, Dassault implemented canards on Mirage III S (another detail). SAAB (in fact the intellectual property is owned by Chalmers university) ability to build GaN modules comes from the very same european programs as UMS, QinetiQ, SELEX etc. capabilities (Korrigan and some others (manga, magnus + national programs). One can therefore expect that technology involved will be very similar.


May be.. I did not get into the minute details of which technology owned by or developed by which organisation.. I was speculating the Abilities of SAAB as a technology developer and manufacturer and compared it with a Budding organisation like HAL.. But these details you've mentioned above are new to me..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ashok321

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/busi...g-offers-to-build-super-hornets-in-india.html







*BENGALURU:* Aerospace behemoth Boeing is getting a supply chain and the aerospace ecosystem ready as part of its proposal to the Ministry of defence to establish a modern production facility in the country to roll out advanced F/A-18 Super Hornets and next generation fighters best-suited for the next century, says Pratyush Kumar, president, Boeing India, and vice president of Boeing International.

On Thursday, Pratyush Kumar received the first electrical panel assembly manufactured for F/A-18 Super Hornets by Bengaluru-based SASMOS HET Technologies Limited as part of a multi-million dollar deal with the local small & medium enterprise. “We will not wait for the decision or orders, but are getting the foundation ready and creating the most globally competitive supply chain in India. We have 30-odd direct and 130 indirect suppliers, and are looking at them to source components and systems (for F/A-18 Super Hornets). Our philosophy is ground up, while others work on top down models,” he told to this newspaper. In view of MoD’s decision to scout for another fighter jet beyond the Rafale, Boeing’s proposal to roll out F/A-18 Super Hornets as part of the “Make in India” initiative now figures in government-to-government discussions. “Today’s delivery of the critical electrical panel assembly is a seminal event for us. Most people will tell you we will do this or that, subject to getting orders,” he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## maximuswarrior

Compared to the Rafale? A super deal if you ask me.


----------



## sputnik

compare to LH, Boeing should be preferred.Already TATA Aerospace manufacturing various parts for Boeing Civillian Jets.


----------



## sudhir007

Already 7 to 8 type of A/C we are using better to concentrate on rafale, lca and su30mki after that fgfa and amca

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Rupeshkumar

Are we really ready one more type of aircraft ? It will be complete circus


----------



## sathya

If silent f16 is offered, that would be better than silent f 18..


----------



## GURU DUTT

sathya said:


> If silent f16 is offered, that would be better than silent f 18..


there is no such thing is silent aef sollah or aef athharrah

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

@PARIKRAMA 

More the merrier!!!!

Here comes my F-18!!

@Abingdonboy

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## egodoc222

Rupeshkumar said:


> Are we really ready one more type of aircraft ? It will be complete circus


No it will be a zoo....! If it's not already!


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

It was a test team from Indian Air Force which gave its verdict against F16, F18, Gripen and Mig35. 

And with this a government to government deal is impossible. 

A new competition will be actually started if MoD or IAF are actually looking for another aircraft , and the aircrafts will need to pass the tests , and the companies will need to give a solid and clean deal with Substantial ToT , with Rafale deal as a benchmark. 

All this, it only means even if we choose any another aircraft , the FGFA will likely come in service before them. 

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @R!CK

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sathya

GURU DUTT said:


> there is no such thing is silent aef sollah or aef athharrah


 Without major change teens ha've less chance to win.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

@WAJsal @waz @Oscar please merge the thread with the sticky thread about MII Fighter Jet thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ito

Twin engines are maintenance hogs, already we have so many twin engine machines. I prefer F16s, and they perfectly replace Mig 21s. If not F16s, India should go for Gripens.


----------



## GURU DUTT

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> It was a test team from Indian Air Force which gave its verdict against F16, F18, Gripen and Mig35.
> 
> And with this a government to government deal is impossible.
> 
> A new competition will be actually started if MoD or IAF are actually looking for another aircraft , and the aircrafts will need to pass the tests , and the companies will need to give a solid and clean deal with Substantial ToT , with Rafale deal as a benchmark.
> 
> All this, it only means even if we choose any another aircraft , the FGFA will likely come in service before them.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy @R!CK


there wont me any other fighter than rafale but if .... i say again if india has to oblige USA by buying a US fighter then its latest version of F16 cause it can carry 8.5 tonne of weapons load while still have 550+Km combat radius even at 6-8 Km altitude and can track more than 64 targets at once and engage more than 18 at the same time and has the best 3rd gen GaN based AESA radar and combined internal avionics /EW/ECM /Jammer suite and 2nd gen IRST&HMDS plus all kinds of air to air and air to ground missiles which are best in there class plus getting aef sollah means we will get F35 in future too .... bakki lagge raho


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

maximuswarrior said:


> Compared to the Rafale? A super deal if you ask me.



The aircrafts will first need to qualify the tests, if actually a competition is held. And we will have lot of time to talk a lot about it then. 

But as of now , its dud

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GURU DUTT said:


> there wont me any other fighter than rafale but if .... i say again if india has to oblige USA by buying a US fighter then its latest version of F16 cause it can carry 8.5 tonne of weapons load while still have 550+Km combat radius even at 6-8 Km altitude and can track more than 64 targets at once and engage more than 18 at the same time and has the best 3rd gen GaN based AESA radar and combined internal avionics /EW/ECM /Jammer suite and 2nd gen IRST&HMDS plus all kinds of air to air and air to ground missiles which are best in there class plus getting aef sollah means we will get F35 in future too .... bakki lagge raho



To appease US. 

I say better buy more Tritons, C130-30 J and P8I.And a local line of C17 , even better. 

And it is what actually will happen if need for appeasement comes. 

Else F16 will actually have to fight out an unbiased competition. Because the Europeans are willing to put in more money than LM, and any biased decision for a G2G deal, the government will be literally lynched by Media and Opposition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

sathya said:


> Without major change teens ha've less chance to win.


but they have major changes and israelies have been working secretly with USA and india for quite some time to make a perfect recepie for IAF/india with regards to what we need in india specefic F16 and if it happens it will get the latestnext ne internal IRST and 3rd gen JHMDS and 3rd gen GaN based AESA radar and combined EW+ECM+Jammer+WVR with nest gen digital computor for best in class things like FBW /RSS ect ect for control and all those sensor fused weapons and smart stand off range munations and air to air and air to ground and anty radiation missiles which are second to none both in leathality and price competitiveness


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

ito said:


> Twin engines are maintenance hogs, already we have so many twin engine machines. I prefer F16s, and they perfectly replace Mig 21s. If not F16s, India should go for Gripens.



Actually neither F16, nor Gripen can. Because by 2022-23 the Migs will go , and the first Single engine fighter , if it actually happens will not come before 2025 if its a G2G deal. Else if a fair competition , we will most likely have 2 squadrons of FGFA before we can see the first MII Fighter jet...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> To appease US.
> 
> I say better buy more Tritons, C130-30 J and P8I.And a local line of C17 , even better.
> 
> And it is what actually will happen if need for appeasement comes.
> 
> Else F16 will actually have to fight out an unbiased competition. Because the Europeans are willing to put in more money than LM, and any biased decision for a G2G deal, the government will be literally lynched by Media and Opposition.


well IAF is already waiting to order at leastextra 20+ C-130XJ & 40 chinooks and Navy wants at least 12 more P8I while IA wants at least 36 apacheD and at least 12 chinooks


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GURU DUTT said:


> but they have major changes and israelies have been working secretly with USA and india for quite some time to make a perfect recepie for IAF/india with regards to what we need in india specefic F16 and if it happens it will get the latestnext ne internal IRST and 3rd gen JHMDS and 3rd gen GaN based AESA radar and combined EW+ECM+Jammer+WVR with nest gen digital computor for best in class things like FBW /RSS ect ect for control and all those sensor fused weapons and smart stand off range munations and air to air and air to ground and anty radiation missiles which are second to none both in leathality and price competitiveness



After IAF team disqualified the F16, from then , till as of today , the LM team has not even given a proper briefing of F16 to a IAF representation , and you are saying they are already investing for India ?



GURU DUTT said:


> well IAF i waiting to order at leastextra 20+ C-130XJ & 40 chinooks and Navy wants at least 12 more P8I while IA wants at least 36 apacheD and at least 12 chinooks



The C130 order will stop for 24 aircrafts in IAF inventory. 

And as you say, the above listed and many unlisted which are actually happening are more than enough to appease someone who isn't going to give a TOT on screws to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> After IAF team disqualified the F16, from then , till as of today , the LM team has not even given a proper briefing of F16 to a IAF representation , and you are saying they are already investing for India ?
> 
> 
> 
> The C130 order will stop for 24 aircrafts in IAF inventory.
> 
> And as you say, the above listed and many unlisted which are actually happening are more than enough to appease someone who isn't going to give a TOT on screws to us.


a lot has changed since then thats all i can say now


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GURU DUTT said:


> a lot has changed since then thats all i can say now



List 2 things, for why we should opt another platform over Rafale deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> List 2 things, for why we should opt another platform over Rafale deal.


well its very very confused in there right now nobody can say for sure what is to come but what can you be sure of is that (what i said almost 9 months earlier that we will have fully french built rafale in numbers similar as those of M2K in IAF)at least 36+18 and at least 36 in IN air wing while talks are in final stages for making of 100+ under MII 

as i said before im not sure a yamrican fighter will come .... it might come and it might not come nothing is confirmed next 5 months ngociations will decide it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GURU DUTT said:


> well its very very confused in there right now nobody can say for sure what is to come but w can you be sure of is that (what i said almost 9 months earlier that we will have fully french built rafale in numbers similar as those of M2K in IAF)at least 36+18 and at least 36 in IN air wing while talks are in final stages for making of 100+ under MII
> 
> as i said before im not sure a yamrican fighter will come .... it might come and it might not come nothing is confirmed next 5 months ngociations will decide it



It may or may not. But if IAF needs another fighter, it will come through a unbiased competition , and they will need to qualify. 


Personally I don't see 12 F16s a year from 2025 doing any benefit to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> It may or may not. But if IAF needs another fighter, it will come through a unbiased competition , and they will need to qualify.
> 
> 
> Personally I don't see 12 F16s a year from 2025 doing any benefit to us.


12 F16 from 2025 do not make any great news cause by then we will be having three lines of LCA (2+1) in full steam pumping out at least 40+ LCA per year

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sri

As posted by @PARIKRAMA earlier Prasun Sen post





Frankly I do not see both 'F' fitting into IAF. I expect Grippen will be the single engine fighter that will be signed. meanwhile MK will try to milk as much as possible to see how serious is Grippen
TX

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hindustani78

*Empty Weight* F/A-18E: 32,100 lb (14,552 kg)
*Max Takeoff Weight* 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)
*Thrust* Each engine up to 17,000 lbs
*Carrier Bringback Payload* F/A-18E: 9,900 lb (4,491 kg)
F/A-18F: 9,000 lb (4,082 kg)
*Field Landing Weight* Field Landing Weight
*Speed* Mach 1.8

*Empty Weight* F 35 : 29,098 lb (13,199 kg)
*Max Takeoff Weight* : 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
*Maximum thrust: 43,000 lbf (190 kN) max., 28,000 lbf (125 kN) intermediate
Carrier Payload : 13,000- 15,000 lb ( 5,895 kg )
Speed : Mach 1.6+*




Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.

The U.S. Air Force as well as the* majority of our allied air forces and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) nations *will operate the F-35A, replacing their 3rd and 4th generation aircraft.


The current international partners' planned quantities are as follows: United States, 2,443; United Kingdom, 138; Italy, 90; Netherlands, 37; Turkey, 100; Australia, 100; Norway, 52; Denmark, 30; Canada, 65. Foreign military sales customers' planned quantities are Israel, 33, Japan, 42 and South Korea 40. In total, the total number of F-35s scheduled for production is more than 3,100 Joint coalitions with fleets of fully interoperable F-35s will have the capacity to operate with unimpeded collaboration, while maintaining security and air superiority.


Republic of India is already considered as major non NATO ally of United States of America and on that even Republic of Turkey do have good relations with India . 

So cant we go for F 35 instead of F 16 or F 18 ?


----------



## sathya

Sri said:


> As posted by @PARIKRAMA earlier Prasun Sen post
> View attachment 341462
> 
> Frankly I do not see both 'F' fitting into IAF. I expect Grippen will be the single engine fighter that will be signed. meanwhile MK will try to milk as much as possible to see how serious is Grippen
> TX



Gripen is cheaper than F16 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Boeing offered to set up a plant with 100% ownership. India wont get any knowledge. India has enough knowledge of airframe, spares, even a bit on electronics. Its the engine we are lagging long behind. F18 wont really bring any tech in this present proposal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hindustani78

Since 2002, India has signed more than 20 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases for defense articles and services such as C-17 and C-130J aircraft, TPQ-37 radars, Self-Protection Suites (SPS) for VVIP aircraft, specialized tactical equipment, Harpoon missiles,Sensor-Fuzed Weapons, and carrier flight and test pilot school training. In less than a decade,and starting at zero, we have seen the FMS program grow to a combined total case value of approximately $6 billion.

The C-130Js delivered beginning in February 2011 are the first U.S. military aircraft to have been delivered to India in half a century and have already been successfully employed to provide critical humanitarian assistance following an earthquake in Sikkim in September 2011.As part of that sale, the U.S.Air Force (USAF) trained more than 100 Indian Air Force personnel– including pilots, loadmasters,and maintenance staff. Once the C-17 contract is fulfilled, India will operate the second largest fleet of C-17s in the world. The former USS TRENTON, which was transferred to the Indian Navy in 2007 and christened the INS JALASHWA, has helped the Indian Navy expand its amphibious and expeditionary warfare capabilities.

Lockheed Martin apparently made the presentation to India after authorization by the US Department of Defense (DOD), but Prins pointed out that the F 35 could be sold only after clearance from the US State Department, for which bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Washington would need to be held once India expressed interest.


----------



## Agent_47

sudhir007 said:


> Already 7 to 8 type of A/C we are using better to concentrate on rafale, lca and su30mki after that fgfa and amca


No one is understanding this simple fact. 
Too much verity of aircrafts = Too hard to maintain.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sri

sathya said:


> Gripen is cheaper than F16 ?


No but atleast Grippen is atleast half a generation ahead and costs more or less the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## newindiandefence

Sri said:


> No but atleast Grippen is atleast half a generation ahead and costs more or less the same.


OK let's compare what would be the cost of 36 -FA18,F16,gripen in latest version and Indian specific changes like rafale ....rate should be like rafale deal with weapon trening service Base..??


----------



## Sri

newindiandefence said:


> OK let's compare what would be the cost of 36 -FA18,F16,gripen in latest version and Indian specific changes like rafale ....rate should be like rafale deal with weapon trening service Base..??



It would be quite difficult to get exact figures but we can give some approx e.g.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ssible-deal-for-quotblock-61quot-f-16-395235/
UAE is paying 200 million per plane according to link and without tot or offset ( I guess), 
Also taking flyaway cost of 70 million per plane in 2006 and adjusting inflation using http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=70&year1=2006&year2=2016 comes to around 84 million per plane in 2016
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/FF04 - F-16 Fighting Falcon.html
https://www.cdainstitute.ca/blog/entry/f-35-vs-super-hornet gives unit price adjusted as 155 million but if we consider below link for pricing
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/jet-fighter-costs-a-complex-problem/ gives approx flyaway cost adjusted to be around 89 million$
If we look at Grippen price which was quoted for Sweden to be approx 70 million $, but this may not be the price which we may pay, I am keeping 80 million for calc and also 70 million
http://freerepublic.com/tag/saab/index 

I am assuming india specific changes to cost the same, Infra, weapons, logistics approx





The above figures will be approx cost of 36 fighters similar to India's Rafale deal

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Thermobaric

ashok321 said:


> *BENGALURU:* Aerospace behemoth Boeing is getting a supply chain and the aerospace ecosystem ready as part of its proposal to the Ministry of defence to establish a modern production facility in the country to roll out advanced F/A-18 Super Hornets and next generation fighters best-suited for the next century, says Pratyush Kumar, president, Boeing India, and vice president of Boeing International.
> 
> On Thursday, Pratyush Kumar received the first electrical panel assembly manufactured for F/A-18 Super Hornets by Bengaluru-based SASMOS HET Technologies Limited as part of a multi-million dollar deal with the local small & medium enterprise. “We will not wait for the decision or orders, but are getting the foundation ready and creating the most globally competitive supply chain in India. We have 30-odd direct and 130 indirect suppliers, and are looking at them to source components and systems (for F/A-18 Super Hornets). Our philosophy is ground up, while others work on top down models,” he told to this newspaper. In view of MoD’s decision to scout for another fighter jet beyond the Rafale, Boeing’s proposal to roll out F/A-18 Super Hornets as part of the “Make in India” initiative now figures in government-to-government discussions. “Today’s delivery of the critical electrical panel assembly is a seminal event for us. Most people will tell you we will do this or that, subject to getting orders,” he said.


Not only F-18 but full assembly line for F-16 even in future F-35 but a big question as per Indian claims Tejas is 4.5 gen fighter why they are considering 3.5 or 4th gen jets?


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Thermobit's post: 8786022 said:


> Not only F-18 but full assembly line for F-16 even in future F-35 but a big question as per Indian claims Tejas is 4.5 gen fighter why they are considering 3.5 or 4th gen jets?



Well actually its opposite. You will not see any RFI / RFP issued from our side , nor we have got any official word documented in IAF or MoD that we are looking for a new bird. 

Its just them trying their luck. Which they will at last fail. I guessed them to be smart enough to stop this crap after the Rafale is inked, but...

As for LCA, the ADA/HAL and even MoD have mentioned it has 4+ generation aircraft capable of doing multiple roles in different threat environments, not 4.5.



Sri said:


> It would be quite difficult to get exact figures but we can give some approx e.g.
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ssible-deal-for-quotblock-61quot-f-16-395235/
> UAE is paying 200 million per plane according to link and without tot or offset ( I guess),
> Also taking flyaway cost of 70 million per plane in 2006 and adjusting inflation using http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=70&year1=2006&year2=2016 comes to around 84 million per plane in 2016
> http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/FF04 - F-16 Fighting Falcon.html
> https://www.cdainstitute.ca/blog/entry/f-35-vs-super-hornet gives unit price adjusted as 155 million but if we consider below link for pricing
> http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/jet-fighter-costs-a-complex-problem/ gives approx flyaway cost adjusted to be around 89 million$
> If we look at Grippen price which was quoted for Sweden to be approx 70 million $, but this may not be the price which we may pay, I am keeping 80 million for calc and also 70 million
> http://freerepublic.com/tag/saab/index
> 
> I am assuming india specific changes to cost the same, Infra, weapons, logistics approx
> 
> View attachment 341710
> 
> The above figures will be approx cost of 36 fighters similar to India's Rafale deal



The Swiss parliament when voting for Gripen C/D quoted each aircraft at 105 million USD fly away. And that's 4 years ago. 

I put my all worth which I have on , with a support package , weapons package, training package , infrastructure package, Indian modifications , the E/F will not be more cheaper than 200 million USD per aircraft , and rolling out after 2025, they will be as useless as a crashed Mig 21 for us.

@waz @Oscar @WAJsal @Jango

Please merge this thread with the sticky thread we already have. 

https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...ents-updates-f16-f18-gripen-any-other.448850/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## newindiandefence

Sri thanx nice work ..

If we paying only one billion extra then I thing rafale is best choice..
Provide us best IRST in world
And 10+g load


----------



## Sri

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Well actually its opposite. You will not see any RFI / RFP issued from our side , nor we have got any official word documented in IAF or MoD that we are looking for a new bird.
> @newindiandefence
> Its just them trying their luck. Which they will at last fail. I guessed them to be smart enough to stop this crap after the Rafale is inked, but...
> 
> As for LCA, the ADA/HAL and even MoD have mentioned it has 4+ generation aircraft capable of doing multiple roles in different threat environments, not 4.5.
> 
> 
> 
> The Swiss parliament when voting for Gripen C/D quoted each aircraft at 105 million USD fly away. And that's 4 years ago.
> 
> I put my all worth which I have on , with a support package , weapons package, training package , infrastructure package, Indian modifications , the E/F will not be more cheaper than 200 million USD per aircraft , and rolling out after 2025, they will be as useless as a crashed Mig 21 for us.
> 
> @waz @Oscar @WAJsal @Jango
> 
> Please merge this thread with the sticky thread we already have.
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...ents-updates-f16-f18-gripen-any-other.448850/





newindiandefence said:


> Sri thanx nice work ..
> 
> If we paying only one billion extra then I thing rafale is best choice..
> Provide us best IRST in world
> And 10+g load


I tried to calculate on figures based on Google search . So there will always be lots of deviations. To me gripen looks best on paper, but as you said it's too late.
Also let me know there are any reliable numbers for these planes.

Yes at the time of procurement. But single engined fighter will always be cheaper to operate in its life time.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Well actually its opposite. You will not see any RFI / RFP issued from our side , nor we have got any official word documented in IAF or MoD that we are looking for a new bird.




The MoD specifically stated that there's a chance for another bird. Boeing/F18 is still in this. IAF Chief even said similar lines. Mentioning it's more on the lines of industrial benefits. I wouldnt brush this under the carpet just yet.

*Another fighter jet*

The government had already stated that another fighter aircraft would be selected under the “Make in India” initiative to be manufactured in India with extensive technology transfer.

Mr. Raha said they had received “unsolicited” offers on F-16, F-18 and Gripen aircraft. “It is on the table, nothing is decided as yet,” he said.

Detailing on the idea of having another aircraft production line in India, Mr. Raha said that “it will not be license manufacture”. “It will be proper transfer of technology so that we have good share of the technology that is utilised in this aircraft and also India will become a hub for manufacturing as well as Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO).”

The MRO, he said, should become a hub for other aircraft in the region and also service “other Air Forces which operate the aircraft.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...cal-strikes-says-air-chief/article9184889.ece






6:20


This is a push from the current government for the MII, then really a IAF push.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Water Car Engineer said:


> The MoD specifically stated that there's a chance for another bird. Boeing/F18 is still in this. IAF Chief evendramd similar lines. Mentioning it's more on the lines of industrial benefits. I wouldnt brush this under the carpet just yet.
> 
> *Another fighter jet*
> 
> The government had already stated that another fighter aircraft would be selected under the “Make in India” initiative to be manufactured in India with extensive technology transfer.
> 
> Mr. Raha said they had received “unsolicited” offers on F-16, F-18 and Gripen aircraft. “It is on the table, nothing is decided as yet,” he said.
> 
> Detailing on the idea of having another aircraft production line in India, Mr. Raha said that “it will not be license manufacture”. “It will be proper transfer of technology so that we have good share of the technology that is utilised in this aircraft and also India will become a hub for manufacturing as well as Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO).”
> 
> The MRO, he said, should become a hub for other aircraft in the region and also service “other Air Forces which operate the aircraft.”
> 
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...cal-strikes-says-air-chief/article9184889.ece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6:20
> 
> 
> This is a push from the current government for the MII, then really a IAF push.



Yet there is no concrete plan laid out yet. All that is said is in terms of high number of variables , which are being twisted by the concerned to favour them. 

Even if a proper briefing was given , to a representation of IAF or MoD , laying out the actual plans , I would have been convinced. 

So untill a EFI or RFP is issued for the above , I don't see " Another Aircraft " coming. 

It will be Dassault and a Indian consortium led by HAL manufacturing Rafales, HAL and a private firm doing LCA/Tejas and HAL/UAC doing Flankers. 

Anything " Another " will only come if they can actually solve the Mig21 problem , that is replacements by 2022-23. But what these companies are stating (which as of now is much of false hood and more uncertainty than substance ) , is about Made in India fighter jets from 2025. Which defeats the so called purpose of " replacing Mig21s " itself. 


Lot of drama will unfold and we are headed to a anti climax....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Yet there is no concrete plan laid out yet. All that is said is in terms of high number of variables , which are being twisted by the concerned to favour them.
> 
> Even if a proper briefing was given , to a representation of IAF or MoD , laying out the actual plans , I would have been convinced.
> 
> So untill a EFI or RFP is issued for the above , I don't see " Another Aircraft " coming.
> 
> It will be Dassault and a Indian consortium led by HAL manufacturing Rafales, HAL and a private firm doing LCA/Tejas and HAL/UAC doing Flankers.
> 
> Anything " Another " will only come if they can actually solve the Mig21 problem , that is replacements by 2022-23. But what these companies are stating (which as of now is much of false hood and more uncertainty than substance ) , is about Made in India fighter jets from 2025. Which defeats the so called purpose of " replacing Mig21s " itself.
> 
> 
> Lot of drama will unfold and we are headed to a anti climax....




How do you you know there isnt any concrete plan being laid right now? Boeing was briefed by the MoD himself to look at this as something completely outside MMRCA. I.E. A new opportunity.

Again, if it's drama being created, it's not being created by LM, Boeing initially, but MoD and government itself. Stop brushing this under the carpet.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

GURU DUTT said:


> 12 F16 from 2025 do not make any great news cause by then we will be having three lines of LCA (2+1) in full steam pumping out at least 40+ LCA per year


That is not what the Government / IAF is saying, according to the sticky thread.
80 Tejas Mk1A to be delivered until 2028.



Sri said:


> It would be quite difficult to get exact figures but we can give some approx e.g.
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ssible-deal-for-quotblock-61quot-f-16-395235/
> UAE is paying 200 million per plane according to link and without tot or offset ( I guess),
> Also taking flyaway cost of 70 million per plane in 2006 and adjusting inflation using http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=70&year1=2006&year2=2016 comes to around 84 million per plane in 2016
> http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/FF04 - F-16 Fighting Falcon.html
> https://www.cdainstitute.ca/blog/entry/f-35-vs-super-hornet gives unit price adjusted as 155 million but if we consider below link for pricing
> http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/jet-fighter-costs-a-complex-problem/ gives approx flyaway cost adjusted to be around 89 million$
> If we look at Grippen price which was quoted for Sweden to be approx 70 million $, but this may not be the price which we may pay, I am keeping 80 million for calc and also 70 million
> http://freerepublic.com/tag/saab/index
> 
> I am assuming india specific changes to cost the same, Infra, weapons, logistics approx
> 
> View attachment 341710
> 
> The above figures will be approx cost of 36 fighters similar to India's Rafale deal



Gripen development is sometimes already done (Meteor integration) or can be shared with
other countries.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Water Car Engineer said:


> How do you you know there isnt any concrete plan being laid right now? Boeing was briefed by the MoD himself to look at this as something completely outside MMRCA. I.E. A new opportunity.
> 
> Again, if it's drama being created, it's not being created by LM, Boeing initially, but MoD and government itself. Stop brushing this under the carpet.



Because if there was any , we would have been atleast at a stage where the competition would have been launched. 

Why the competition? Because other than the Eurofighter representation , others failed by IAF test team , and as we know with different procurement in India, untill its something like SSN , it will have to get through competitive trails and bidding. 

Nothing like that till now.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Because if there was any , we would have been atleast at a stage where the competition would have been launched.
> 
> Why the competition? Because other than the Eurofighter representation , others failed by IAF test team , and as we know with different procurement in India, untill its something like SSN , it will have to get through competitive trails and bidding.
> 
> Nothing like that till now.




I dont know how this will proceed, or when. All I know is this is something the MoD and team is looking at carefully, this is just fact, you have his own words. He specifically states Boeing isnt out, specially briefed them it's outside the MMRCA. I would brush this under the carpet too, IF it was only coming from Boeing and LM, but it's not. The root of all this starts from the MoD. IAF Chief and some of the possible contenders were already briefed by the MoD. Background work, planning is probably happening as we speak, it's on time if they'll go with it.


----------



## Sri

A.P. Richelieu said:


> That is not what the Government / IAF is saying, according to the sticky thread.
> 80 Tejas Mk1A to be delivered until 2028.
> 
> 
> 
> Gripen development is sometimes already done (Meteor integration) or can be shared with
> other countries.


Well I understand that the development is more or less done and the first Production delivery will start in 2018/19 , but Indian context of MII its slightly late. @PARIKRAMA had earlier posted dates for possible delivery dates if selected for MII.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-05-19/saab-rolls-out-new-gripen-e-fighter


----------



## Śakra

Sri said:


> As posted by @PARIKRAMA earlier Prasun Sen post
> View attachment 341462
> 
> Frankly I do not see both 'F' fitting into IAF. I expect Grippen will be the single engine fighter that will be signed. meanwhile MK will try to milk as much as possible to see how serious is Grippen
> TX



Why didn't you block out his name? Now everyone knows who he really is.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Water Car Engineer said:


> I dont know how this will proceed, or when. All I know is this is something the MoD and team is looking at carefully, this is just fact, you have his own words. He pecifically states Boeing isnt out, specially briefed them it's outside the MMRCA. I would brush this under the carpet too, IF it was only coming from Boeing and LM, but it's not. The root of all this starts from the MoD. IAF Chief and some of the possible contenders were already briefed by the MoD. Background work, planning is probably happening as we speak, it's on time if they'll go with it.



Well let's see. 

But till there is an official word , on the want of a replacement of Mig21s , from a foreign vendor , its Rafale for me. We are paying a big amount of India Specific upgrades, which only points out that a Mii is sure shot. 

And according to me , if by 2022 we have a Rafale line , and Tejas coming as atleast 1.5 Squadrons a year , we won't need a third fighter which will not come before 2025-26. 

And in present situation , untill we are granted a full ToT on GE414, I don't see any reason why our meager resources will be pointed towards an unnecessary investment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

A.P. Richelieu said:


> That is not what the Government / IAF is saying, according to the sticky thread.
> 80 Tejas Mk1A to be delivered until 2028.
> 
> 
> 
> Gripen development is sometimes already done (Meteor integration) or can be shared with
> other countries.


read it care fully im also saying the same thing but in a diffrent way what do you thing that what will HAL be doing till 2025 as LCA production has already started and will come in full steam on existing line till 2019 so what will happen from 2019-to 2025 ? and by the the second and the thrid (with colobration of a private player) will come into full rpoduction mode aswell and as per requirements at least 8 but maybe even 12-15 full squads of LCA MK1A would be built but there certainly wont be any european fighter other than rafael


----------



## sudhir007

Agent_47 said:


> No one is understanding this simple fact.
> Too much verity of aircrafts = Too hard to maintain.


yes and later it create problem for IAF no country in the world operate that many type of fighter you need only 3 type light medium and heavy so my opinion for current scenario (LCA + Rafale + Mki) and future (LCA + AMCA + FGFA) that it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hindustani78

Thermobaric said:


> Not only F-18 but full assembly line for F-16 even in future F-35 but a big question as per Indian claims Tejas is 4.5 gen fighter why they are considering 3.5 or 4th gen jets?



Lockheed Martin apparently made the presentation to India after authorization by the US Department of Defense (DOD), but Prins pointed out that the F 35 could be sold only after clearance from the US State Department, for which bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Washington would need to be held once India expressed interest.



sudhir007 said:


> yes and later it create problem for IAF no country in the world operate that many type of fighter you need only 3 type light medium and heavy so my opinion for current scenario (LCA + Rafale + Mki) and future (LCA + AMCA + FGFA) that it.



Fighter planes technology is similar in all the fighter planes except some changes .


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

sudhir007 said:


> yes and later it create problem for IAF no country in the world operate that many type of fighter you need only 3 type light medium and heavy so my opinion for current scenario (LCA + Rafale + Mki) and future (LCA + AMCA + FGFA) that it.



Lets see:

A-10
F-15
F-16
F/A-18
F-22
F-35A
F-35C
...


----------



## Kane0610

*
IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters in India Published
Ajai Shukla | Business-standard*

A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India. Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday tofighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity. The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen D. The much-hyped MMRCA tender eventually collapsed, with the IAF last month buying a token 36 Rafale fighters.

Now, the IAF has kicked off a more focused contest that will feature only single-engine fighters. Numerous airpower experts have pointed out that the IAF needs single-engine fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that must be retired in the near future. The Rafale, a medium-heavy, twin-engine fighter, is too expensive for operational tasks that asingle-engine fighter can easily manage. While Boeing, Eurofighter, RAC MiG, Sukhoi and Dassault would technically be able to respond to the latest RFI, none of them can offer a state-of-the-art, medium, single-engine fighter. Therefore, it seems likely that New Delhi would have to choose between Saab’s Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin’s latest F-16 Block 70. As Business Standard reported earlier, both Saab and Lockheed Martin have kicked off high-stakes, high-voltage campaigns to meet the IAF’s needs. Both have already submitted what theIAF chief described on Thursday as “unsolicited bids” for building their fighters in India.

Saab has linked its offer with assistance to the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) development programme, which is being spearheaded by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a unit of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Saab has offered to help ADA in quickly developing the Tejas Mark IA, which the IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, said required four improvements — a better combat radar, more lethal weapons, dedicated electronic warfare capability and better maintainability. He said the upgraded Tejas should fly within three-four years. Saab has also offered to help ADA develop the planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is pushing an offer, made through the Indo-US Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), to shift its F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas to India. A new, more advanced version of the F-16, designated the Block 70, has been offered to entice India. Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter. The IAF is keeping an open mind. On Thursday, Raha stated: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”

**********************************************************************************************************************

Although this has been going on for quite some time now. But the latest news (if true) is a bit surprising. Few questions that I have are:

The article says, we require *single engines aircraft *to replace Mig-21 and mig-27. Now considering the fact that LCA is intended to replace Mig-21, that leaves us with only mig-27. However, is it a wise decision to have another type of aircraft in our inventory, when we already would have around 6 types in next 4 years (MKI, M2K, Rafale, Mig 29, LCA, Jaguar)?

Why go to Moscow for single engine aircraft? UAC currently has no single engine aircraft. 

It seems that it is almost sure that more Rafales would be bought. While they might be bought as replacement for Jaguars and Mig-29s. I feel that given the multi-role capabilities of moder aircrafts such as the Sukhois, Rafales, (to a certain extent even the LCAs), in future do we really have to find a replacement specifically for Mig 27, considering that Mig 27 are used as ground attack aircrafts? Moreover, from 2030 or 2035 by the time jaguars and Mig 29s retire, we would also see AMCAs getting inducted.
I do not wish to get into the numbers game. As I strongly feel that the golden figure of 42 squadrons is something which is not compatible to today's scenario, for the following reasons:

Modern fighters with multirole capabilities, air-to-air refueling, smart maintenance procedures etc. are much capable than the fighters we had in 1950s and 1960s. Which means, 1 modern fighter is equivalent to 2-3 generation 1-2 fighters

With increasing sophistication, modern fighters are becoming much more expensive day by day. So it may not be economically feasible to have so many squadrons

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gessler

Kane0610 said:


> I do not wish to get into the numbers game. As I strongly feel that the golden figure of 42 squadrons is something which is not compatible to today's scenario, for the following reasons:
> 
> Modern fighters with multirole capabilities, air-to-air refueling, smart maintenance procedures etc. are much capable than the fighters we had in 1950s and 1960s. Which means, 1 modern fighter is equivalent to 2-3 generation 1-2 fighters
> 
> With increasing sophistication, modern fighters are becoming much more expensive day by day. So it may not be economically feasible to have so many squadrons



Replacing older fighters with modern ones is not the only job IAF has to do.

They have to build a fleet that is capable AND large enough to tackle our presently perceived adversaries. That is where the squadron-strength requirement comes from.

The force-structure in other countries (mainly Europe) is built on completely different operational requirements. After the collapse of USSR, a lot of European (and even US, in some branches) decided that they can make do with a much smaller fleet of qualitatively superior aircraft. They were structured with maintaining high readiness for limited expeditionary campaigns against ill-equipped Middle-Eastern militaries, not for a pitched battle (where you will be losing aircraft all the time) against a peer opponent.

A defensive war against a massive Soviet assault was a forgotten concept.

Our requirements are totally different. We are contemplating a possible military confrontation with what is soon to be the world's largest economy. And an Islamist loose-cannon nation running around with nukes.

A force-structure where 1 modern aircraft is replacing 2-3 older aircraft will leave us with a fleet so small that a coordinated tactical ballistic/cruise missile attack will wipe out the majority of our air fleet in the opening stages of a war itself. This type of structure is not for us.

We need quality AND quantity....and that's what we're working to get.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Agent_47

*Do we really need a new imported light fighter ?*

Lets start by listing what we know confirmed about future force structure, Let us look things at squadron level.

 14 sq MKI
3 sq Mig 29 + 3 sq M2000 + 3 sq jag D 3 (AMCA will replace these)
3 sq jag D1 (will be replaced by FGFA from 2027 )
6 sq LCA
2 sq Rafale
Total - *34 sq*

Possible confirmed/accepted additions :

 4-5 sq Rafale
Total - *38 sq*

Number of sq to reach sanctioned strength of 42 is *3-4 sq. *

What is the need for new LWF here ? *Doubling the production* of LCA mk1A from 2021-22 can easily fulfill the requirement.

UPA 2 has repeatedly stated requirement of 300+ LCAs for IAF. But after this DM took charge things suddenly changed and he started making statements about importing new light weight fighter. If LCA mk1A will be ready by 2021 and it fulfills every requirement IAF then *What is the need for importing ? What changed?*

Following statements are taken in to account by current and previous IAF chiefs.


"We are looking forward to building up our combat fleet to 42 squadrons by the end of the 14 th plan, by 2027.
Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.
"AMCA, the advanced medium combat aircraft - we still have over 15 years to work on it before the MiG-29 upgraded aircraft retire, before the Mirage 2000 upgraded ones retire, as well as Jaguar upgraded ones retire in another 15 years"
"I cannot give you numbers, but definitely we would like to have the MMRCA type of aircraft, at least six squadrons to my mind"
“We hope to form 14 squadrons of Su-30MKI fighters by 2018. By this time we will have 272 such planes in service”
"One more squadron will be based in Punjab and one will be in Southern Command in Thanjavur. Therefore, we will have 13-14 total squadrons of Sukhoi to add to our strength."

@Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer@Tshering22@Dandpatta @danger007@Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug@Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx-@Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param@Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90@Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp@Crixus @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @The Eagle @PaklovesTurkiye @PARIKRAMA

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## PaklovesTurkiye

Agent_47 said:


> *Do we really need a new imported light fighter ?*
> 
> Lets start by listing what we know confirmed about future force structure, Let us look things at squadron level.
> 
> 14 sq MKI
> 3 sq Mig 29 + 3 sq M2000 + 3 sq jag D 3 (AMCA will replace these)
> 3 sq jag D1 (will be replaced by FGFA from 2027 )
> 6 sq LCA
> 2 sq Rafale
> Total - *34 sq*
> 
> Possible confirmed/accepted additions :
> 
> 4-5 sq Rafale
> Total - *38 sq*
> 
> Number of sq to reach sanctioned strength of 42 is *3-4 sq. *
> 
> What is the need for new LWF here ? *Doubling the production* of LCA mk1A from 2021-22 can easily fulfill the requirement.
> 
> UPA 2 has repeatedly stated requirement of 300+ LCAs for IAF. But after this DM took charge things suddenly changed and he started making statements about importing new light weight fighter. If LCA mk1A will be ready by 2021 and it fulfills every requirement IAF then *What is the need for importing ? What changed?*
> 
> Following statements are taken in to account by current and previous IAF chiefs.
> 
> 
> "We are looking forward to building up our combat fleet to 42 squadrons by the end of the 14 th plan, by 2027.
> Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.
> "AMCA, the advanced medium combat aircraft - we still have over 15 years to work on it before the MiG-29 upgraded aircraft retire, before the Mirage 2000 upgraded ones retire, as well as Jaguar upgraded ones retire in another 15 years"
> "I cannot give you numbers, but definitely we would like to have the MMRCA type of aircraft, at least six squadrons to my mind"
> “We hope to form 14 squadrons of Su-30MKI fighters by 2018. By this time we will have 272 such planes in service”
> "One more squadron will be based in Punjab and one will be in Southern Command in Thanjavur. Therefore, we will have 13-14 total squadrons of Sukhoi to add to our strength."
> 
> @Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer@Tshering22@Dandpatta @danger007@Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug@Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx-@Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param@Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90@Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp@Crixus @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @The Eagle @PaklovesTurkiye @PARIKRAMA



Good luck in advancing your air force...Respect from Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aero

*IAF kic**ks off contest to make single-engine fighters




*

A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India.

Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday to fighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity.




The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen D.

The much-hyped MMRCA tender eventually collapsed, with the IAF last month buying a token 36Rafale fighters. Now, the IAF has kicked off a more focused contest that will feature only single-engine fighters.

Numerous airpower experts have pointed out that the IAF needs single-engine fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that must be retired in the near future. The Rafale, a medium-heavy, twin-engine fighter, is too expensive for operational tasks that a single-engine fighter can easily manage.

While Boeing, Eurofighter, RAC MiG, Sukhoi and Dassault would technically be able to respond to the latest RFI, none of them can offer a state-of-the-art, medium, single-engine fighter. Therefore, it seems likely that New Delhi would have to choose between Saab’s Gripen E and Lockheed Martin’s latest F-16 Block 70.

As Business Standard reported earlier, both Saab and Lockheed Martin have kicked off high-stakes, high-voltage campaigns to meet the IAF’s needs. Both have already submitted what theIAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha described on Thursday as “unsolicited bids” for building their fighters in India.

Saab has linked its offer with assistance to the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) development programme, which is being spearheaded by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a unit of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

Saab has offered to help ADA in quickly developing the Tejas Mark IA, which the IAF chief said required four improvements — a better combat radar, more lethal weapons, dedicated electronic warfare capability and better maintainability. He said the upgraded Tejas should fly within three-four years.

Saab has also offered to help ADA develop the planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is pushing an offer, made through the Indo-US Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), to shift its F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas to India.

A new, more advanced version of the F-16, designated the Block 70, has been offered to entice India.

Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.

The IAF is keeping an open mind. On Thursday, Raha stated: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”


Indian Air Force (IAF) invites international players to make medium, multi-role, single-engine fighter jets in India

IAF also wants significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity

India needs single-engine fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27

Boeing, Eurofighter, RAC MiG, Sukhoi and Dassault may respond but none of them can offer a state-of-the-art, medium, single-engine fighter

Contest likely between Saab’s Gripen E and Lockheed Martin’s latest F-16 Block 70
Last month, IAF bought 36 medium-heavy, twin-engine Rafale fighters
http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ke-single-engine-fighters-116100800638_1.html

### Side Note ###
Boeing, Mig ,Sukhoi, Dassault can respond to tender but none of them have any single engine Fighter Jet to sell so comes down to Gripen & F-16
The contest will involve Gripen - E & F-16 In Block 70+ Aircraft but latter might be choice of Aircraft of IAF due to our requirement of Medium category fighter (MMRCA/Rafale was intended for).
US may be unwilling to provide us full Tot even for this aged platform.
If for Make in India we actually do take this fighter & fill up IAF inventory (Why?) as other countries are moving away from this platform.
i don't think logic of more Rafales will come true (as we all were saying in Rafale thread). If these Rafales go to SFC then F-16 for sure is coming to IAF in large numbers . 

@Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri What's your thought?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

Agent_47 said:


> What is the need for new LWF here ? *Doubling the production* of LCA mk1A from 2021-22 can easily fulfill the requirement.



Couldn't agree more!

Great day to you, mate, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Agent_47 said:


> *Do we really need a new imported light fighter ?*
> 
> Lets start by listing what we know confirmed about future force structure, Let us look things at squadron level.
> 
> 14 sq MKI
> 3 sq Mig 29 + 3 sq M2000 + 3 sq jag D 3 (AMCA will replace these)
> 3 sq jag D1 (will be replaced by FGFA from 2027 )
> 6 sq LCA
> 2 sq Rafale
> Total - *34 sq*
> 
> Possible confirmed/accepted additions :
> 
> 4-5 sq Rafale
> Total - *38 sq*
> 
> Number of sq to reach sanctioned strength of 42 is *3-4 sq. *
> 
> What is the need for new LWF here ? *Doubling the production* of LCA mk1A from 2021-22 can easily fulfill the requirement.
> 
> UPA 2 has repeatedly stated requirement of 300+ LCAs for IAF. But after this DM took charge things suddenly changed and he started making statements about importing new light weight fighter. If LCA mk1A will be ready by 2021 and it fulfills every requirement IAF then *What is the need for importing ? What changed?*
> 
> Following statements are taken in to account by current and previous IAF chiefs.
> 
> 
> "We are looking forward to building up our combat fleet to 42 squadrons by the end of the 14 th plan, by 2027.
> Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.
> "AMCA, the advanced medium combat aircraft - we still have over 15 years to work on it before the MiG-29 upgraded aircraft retire, before the Mirage 2000 upgraded ones retire, as well as Jaguar upgraded ones retire in another 15 years"
> "I cannot give you numbers, but definitely we would like to have the MMRCA type of aircraft, at least six squadrons to my mind"
> “We hope to form 14 squadrons of Su-30MKI fighters by 2018. By this time we will have 272 such planes in service”
> "One more squadron will be based in Punjab and one will be in Southern Command in Thanjavur. Therefore, we will have 13-14 total squadrons of Sukhoi to add to our strength."
> 
> @Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer@Tshering22@Dandpatta @danger007@Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug@Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx-@Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param@Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90@Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp@Crixus @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @The Eagle @PaklovesTurkiye @PARIKRAMA



This is why: it is a brilliant lab prototype, but can't be produced. 


*Tejas- joke or hope? *
*



*

Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/fighter-...mines-the-current-state.441070/#ixzz4MWQuSCS7

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Echo_419

Joe Shearer said:


> This is why: it is a brilliant lab prototype, but can't be produced.
> 
> 
> *Tejas- joke or hope?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.
> 
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/fighter-news-round-up-royal-united-services-institute’s-justin-bronk-examines-the-current-state.441070/#ixzz4MWQuSCS7



Hand over the entire project to private sector

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aero

Agent_47 said:


> *Do we really need a new imported light fighter ?*
> 
> Lets start by listing what we know confirmed about future force structure, Let us look things at squadron level.
> 
> 14 sq MKI
> 3 sq Mig 29 + 3 sq M2000 + 3 sq jag D 3 (AMCA will replace these)
> 3 sq jag D1 (will be replaced by FGFA from 2027 )
> 6 sq LCA
> 2 sq Rafale
> Total - *34 sq*
> 
> Possible confirmed/accepted additions :
> 
> 4-5 sq Rafale
> Total - *38 sq*
> 
> Number of sq to reach sanctioned strength of 42 is *3-4 sq. *
> 
> What is the need for new LWF here ? *Doubling the production* of LCA mk1A from 2021-22 can easily fulfill the requirement.
> 
> UPA 2 has repeatedly stated requirement of 300+ LCAs for IAF. But after this DM took charge things suddenly changed and he started making statements about importing new light weight fighter. If LCA mk1A will be ready by 2021 and it fulfills every requirement IAF then *What is the need for importing ? What changed?*
> 
> Following statements are taken in to account by current and previous IAF chiefs.
> 
> 
> "We are looking forward to building up our combat fleet to 42 squadrons by the end of the 14 th plan, by 2027.
> Each IAF combat squadron has 21 fighter aircraft; 14 squadrons add to 294 Tejas fighters. The 21 comprise 16 frontline, single-seat fighters, two twin-seat trainers and three reserve aircraft to make up losses in a war.
> "AMCA, the advanced medium combat aircraft - we still have over 15 years to work on it before the MiG-29 upgraded aircraft retire, before the Mirage 2000 upgraded ones retire, as well as Jaguar upgraded ones retire in another 15 years"
> "I cannot give you numbers, but definitely we would like to have the MMRCA type of aircraft, at least six squadrons to my mind"
> “We hope to form 14 squadrons of Su-30MKI fighters by 2018. By this time we will have 272 such planes in service”
> "One more squadron will be based in Punjab and one will be in Southern Command in Thanjavur. Therefore, we will have 13-14 total squadrons of Sukhoi to add to our strength."
> 
> @Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer@Tshering22@Dandpatta @danger007@Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug@Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx-@Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param@Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90@Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp@Crixus @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero @The Eagle @PaklovesTurkiye @PARIKRAMA



Actually In-house development is lagging behind our requirements , Bad cooperation between IAF and Local Defence industry is to blame (beside usual suspects) but then again Import is also not a solution to our problem.



Joe Shearer said:


> This is why: it is a brilliant lab prototype, but can't be produced.
> 
> 
> *Tejas- joke or hope?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.
> 
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/fighter-news-round-up-royal-united-services-institute’s-justin-bronk-examines-the-current-state.441070/#ixzz4MWQuSCS7


Import can't be a substitute for indigenous fighter, if we bought gripen licence then what again we have to start developing a fighter of ours sometimes (we can't always keep importing) & next gen fighters will be more difficult than these fourth gen.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Echo_419 said:


> Hand over the entire project to private sector



If there is a slim hope of making this plane in quantities, one needs to ask an uninterested entity - not SAAB, not Boeing, perhaps Dassault, not McDonnell Douglas (the day is not far off when we need to chuck out the failed MiG 29 and get something more carrier-friendly, and that leaves only the Super Bug and the naval Rafale). 

My choice would be BAE Systems; scope of work and steps - productionise the plane, standardise the composite sections and make them easy to produce in bulk, act as supervisors of integrators, appoint at least two integrators in India, strictly keep out HAL, produce 24 to 36 a year. Or just use the know-how for making the next plane, and buy Gripen in numbers.

There are losses and gains on either decision.



Aero said:


> Actually In-house development is lagging behind our requirements , Bad cooperation between IAF and Local Defence industry is to blame but then again Import is also not a solution to our problem.
> 
> 
> Import can't be a substitute for indigenous fighter, if we bought gripen licence then what again we have to start developing a fighter of ours sometimes (we can't always keep importing) & next gen fighters will be more difficult than these fourth gen.



So what do you propose - we gather around the Tejas periodically and mourn the fact that it can't be made? Do you understand that not just for speedy production, but for maintenance as well, standardisation is a must? Do you realise the staggering impact of dealing with a 100+ fighter fleet where each aircraft might be idiosyncratically individual?

We should be doing what the Pakistanis did successfully - make a Model T in bulk. That's all they needed; that's all that we need, below the penumbra of the heavy fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Aero

@Joe Shearer


> So what do you propose - we gather around the Tejas periodically and mourn the fact that it can't be made?



Not exactly, but like during Rafale deal we had a good chance. 
I think for once we should let a foreign company like Dassault/Saab to let develop fighter for ,we pay & get to keep all technical data, & then make in large numbers at our local production facilities.
All know how obtained must be delivered to all local whether public/private companies who can help in next aircraft.
In this we we can satisfy immediate requirement as well as have a good lead time to develop next gen fighter jet.



> Do you understand that not just for speedy production, but for maintenance as well, standardisation is a must?


Yes, i do agree. Standardisation will also help in lowering production costs & as well as maintenance costs.



> Do you realise the staggering impact of dealing with a 100+ fighter fleet where each aircraft might be idiosyncratically individual?


How can you say that? (Elaborate a bit please)



> We should be doing what the Pakistanis did successfully - make a Model T in bulk. That's all they needed; that's all that we need, below the penumbra of the heavy fighters.


Tejas was supposed to be our Model T but i think we need a new one.
Even i don't understand why can't we have a fighter designed for us abroad so we can manufacture at home in all sufficient quantity needed.


----------



## PARIKRAMA

Kane0610 said:


> *IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters in India Published
> Ajai Shukla | Business-standard*
> 
> A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India. Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday tofighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity. The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.
> 
> By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen D. The much-hyped MMRCA tender eventually collapsed, with the IAF last month buying a token 36 Rafale fighters.
> 
> Now, the IAF has kicked off a more focused contest that will feature only single-engine fighters. Numerous airpower experts have pointed out that the IAF needs single-engine fighters to replace the single-engine MiG-21 and MiG-27 fighters that must be retired in the near future. The Rafale, a medium-heavy, twin-engine fighter, is too expensive for operational tasks that asingle-engine fighter can easily manage. While Boeing, Eurofighter, RAC MiG, Sukhoi and Dassault would technically be able to respond to the latest RFI, none of them can offer a state-of-the-art, medium, single-engine fighter. Therefore, it seems likely that New Delhi would have to choose between Saab’s Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin’s latest F-16 Block 70. As Business Standard reported earlier, both Saab and Lockheed Martin have kicked off high-stakes, high-voltage campaigns to meet the IAF’s needs. Both have already submitted what theIAF chief described on Thursday as “unsolicited bids” for building their fighters in India.
> 
> Saab has linked its offer with assistance to the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) development programme, which is being spearheaded by Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), a unit of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Saab has offered to help ADA in quickly developing the Tejas Mark IA, which the IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, said required four improvements — a better combat radar, more lethal weapons, dedicated electronic warfare capability and better maintainability. He said the upgraded Tejas should fly within three-four years. Saab has also offered to help ADA develop the planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is pushing an offer, made through the Indo-US Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), to shift its F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas to India. A new, more advanced version of the F-16, designated the Block 70, has been offered to entice India. Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter. The IAF is keeping an open mind. On Thursday, Raha stated: “I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet.”
> 
> **********************************************************************************************************************
> 
> Although this has been going on for quite some time now. But the latest news (if true) is a bit surprising. Few questions that I have are:
> 
> The article says, we require *single engines aircraft *to replace Mig-21 and mig-27. Now considering the fact that LCA is intended to replace Mig-21, that leaves us with only mig-27. However, is it a wise decision to have another type of aircraft in our inventory, when we already would have around 6 types in next 4 years (MKI, M2K, Rafale, Mig 29, LCA, Jaguar)?
> 
> Why go to Moscow for single engine aircraft? UAC currently has no single engine aircraft.
> 
> It seems that it is almost sure that more Rafales would be bought. While they might be bought as replacement for Jaguars and Mig-29s. I feel that given the multi-role capabilities of moder aircrafts such as the Sukhois, Rafales, (to a certain extent even the LCAs), in future do we really have to find a replacement specifically for Mig 27, considering that Mig 27 are used as ground attack aircrafts? Moreover, from 2030 or 2035 by the time jaguars and Mig 29s retire, we would also see AMCAs getting inducted.
> I do not wish to get into the numbers game. As I strongly feel that the golden figure of 42 squadrons is something which is not compatible to today's scenario, for the following reasons:
> 
> Modern fighters with multirole capabilities, air-to-air refueling, smart maintenance procedures etc. are much capable than the fighters we had in 1950s and 1960s. Which means, 1 modern fighter is equivalent to 2-3 generation 1-2 fighters
> 
> With increasing sophistication, modern fighters are becoming much more expensive day by day. So it may not be economically feasible to have so many squadrons


This is partially an incorrect news now being spun in a big way as part of the marketing campaign.. Recall post Fadnavis visit to Sweden and then a Maharashtra Event in Feb2016. It was covered in PDF by me as well.. Here were the details

Posted in Feb 21, 2016








https://defence.pk/threads/dassault-...ussions-thread-2.230070/page-161#post-8173308

I can assure you shukla is going bonkers with its utter useless and crap shit point of journalism. The LWF fighter choice is now plain as morning daylight sun under clear skies. LCA MK1A itself is now a delayed project which i had said before in the other forum. SO clearly a LWF need comes out. The choices are

LSA
Gripen E/F not Gripen D
F16 Block 70/72 which may be in fact replaced by a new bid of Block 80+ with newer onboard computers or later offered as MLU
LCA Mk2 inhouse

The bid which will win will be the one which either gives us engine tech as part of the package or uses the Safran Kaveri Engine in the fleet with recertification.
The winning LWF also needs to use the weapon systems available from teh common pool and Make In India Weapon Manufacturings from the likes of Rafael and later MBDA. Again the package of Derby, DerbyER, Python 5, Brimstone, Meteor, Spice and other such combinations gives the more comfort zone to Gripen E over F16. But dark horse is the LSA. I can say IAF is not against this idea but their are people against LSA internally in other departments. @vstol jockey knows them and he already identified the major roadblocks who either wants their palms greased and some who genuinely are skeptical due to plan being on paper and nothing in prototype stage to show what LSA is all about.

So basically if you see its a 7 months old news rehashed now..

@Stephen Cohen
The jags whole fleet cant be re engined.. You will finally get some 60-65 Jags only under darin III. OSme of the planes are way too old for replacements as well.. The Mig27s cant be replaced by LWF as well. So the need of Rafale increases much more from such replacement POV as well..

For Mig21 replacement is LCA and its variants. Now since numbers are an issue from HAL productivity part and secondly the inability to deliver the goods inspite of supporting ecosystem being in position to support means there is a natural need being created by HAL itself.

Pls read here what Prasun K Sengupta said




Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To AVI D: What was issued on October 8, 2016 was a RESTRICTED RFI for a single-engined light MRCA. That same RFI was also issued to ADA & ADA will offer the Tejas Mk.2. If a foreign design is selected, that will be the end of the Tejas MRCA's R & D programme.* The Tejas Mk.1A or whatever else be its designation, as long as it makes use of the existing Tejas Mk.1 airframe design, it will be a sub-optimal integrated weapons platform no matter how beautifully it flies & enthrals all the fanboys. That the 'techies' at ADA have completely failed to design a functional & effective weapons platform is no longer in doubt & if a 4.5-generation can't amanate from ADA, then what's the guarantee that a 5th-generation AMCA will be a complete success? No wonder no R & D funding has been released so far for the AMCA. So now, in order to cover-up the DRDO's mother-of-all national embarrassment, i.e. the Tejas LCA R & D project, all kinds of idiotic & therefore indefensible excuses are being offered, such as Saab helping ADA with the Tejas Mk.2 & AMCA, when it is evident that the shareholders of Saab will never agree to any proposal for creating any competitor (like the Tejas Mk.2) to the Gripen NG.* And why should a light MRCA like Tejas Mk.1 be made to drop 1,000lb bombs (if Cmde Balagi's anmswers to Kindergarten-level questions posed by Shekhar Gupta are to be believed)?



I am not endorsing his opinion in any manner but read the points. Its clear as day light the AMCA again will get delayed as i have said earlier due to eco system being not matured enough. So this also leads to Rafale MII number needs further.

Saab is actively talking with Adani and also trying hard to rope Mahindra (who are already doing work for Gripen E project) as i have said earlier. Its way too early for them to be writing all this sponsored articles.


++

PS: Pls do ask Saab trip to Shukla and Aroor.. and many others,, then ask is this yellow journalism or a reality.. if not just read this line
_Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm_
and pray do enlighten me which jet from Russia fits the LWF Single engine? How much ever Shukla and likes try for Gripen or F16, it wont cut ice till strategic partner for each is revealed.. Or they give a deal at par or better than the likes of Dassault.. So sit back and enjoy.. This drama will continue much longer..

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Aero

So you implying more Rafales can come ? (I read some news that No more Rafales DM said)

Gripen E will be viable if we can squeeze all Tot of design.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Aero said:


> @Joe Shearer
> 
> 
> Not exactly, but like during Rafale deal we had a good chance.
> I think for once we should let a foreign company like Dassault/Saab to let develop fighter for ,we pay & get to keep all technical data, & then make in large numbers at our local production facilities.
> All know how obtained must be delivered to all local whether public/private companies who can help in next aircraft.
> In this we we can satisfy immediate requirement as well as have a good lead time to develop next gen fighter jet.



Did you know that because we were a one-stop shop for the IAF, I had the dubious pleasure of translating all - ALL - their aircraft manuals into SGML? That included the MiG 21.

Now - are you ready for this?

The Russians didn't give the IAF any English versions of the critical manuals. They had to be translated from the Russian, validated by test pilots familiar with the plane, and only THEN translated.

Imagine a TOT scenario (the obvious real life examples can't be cited, so this one above was just a sampler); how do you know what you have been given until you start production? And what do you do if it turns out that you can't do the full production job, because of some seemingly minor factor? By withholding money until the first successful run?

You've just seen what happened with the Rafale, and the deals earlier were all deals where the western powers were backing the Pakistanis to the hilt - the Sabre, the Starfighter, for starters - and were starving us of even the basic technology? Do you know that according to the Dept. of Commerce restrictions, we couldn't even import a Mac server without a special clearance? When we were struggling with one (or was it two) specialist design and drawing machines, the Singaporean equivalent had wall-to-wall O2s?

You think they'll really level with us? The amount of technology involved is vast. Unless the vendor wants to, there is no way that the purchaser can be sure that he has got everything he paid for.

Get real, mister.



> Yes, i do agree. Standardisation will also help in lowering production costs & as well as maintenance costs.



It's worse than that. There are some parts and composite panels on the existing pre-production models where the dimensions differ from one model to the next; there are, in short, unique dimensions for each existing aircraft.



> How can you say that? (Elaborate a bit please)



Right.

You are running the support team for a squadron of 18 aircraft in a remote location. Which dimensions of parts will you use, considering that there might be one set of dimensions for each aircraft produced? Which 18 will you ask for, to keep in stock? I'm sorry, but clearly I am not getting through.



> Tejas was supposed to be our Model T but i think we need a new one.
> Even i don't understand why can't we have a fighter designed for us abroad so we can manufacture at home in all sufficient quantity needed.



First, you are right, we need a Model T. It was the MiG 21, and we need replacements. So now we've agreed on everything that we can agree on.

Second, after McDonnell Douglas threw out our people from their design centres, without their own notes, which were withheld, the entire flight control system was re-developed. It is one of the finest going today; a particular general-officer level person thought, after flying the Tejas, that the FCS might even have improved the functioning of his own favourite aircraft, the F 16. You can't do that with a design generated abroad. You can't do any foreign republication of the things that the LCA project generated.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> And according to me , if by 2022 we have a Rafale line , and Tejas coming as atleast 1.5 Squadrons a year , we won't need a third fighter which will not come before 2025-26.
> 
> And in present situation , untill we are granted a full ToT on GE414, I don't see any reason why our meager resources will be pointed towards an unnecessary investment.




The concept of pushing only Rafale and Tejas was what we all had in mind.It makes perfect sense and was rather concrete, until this government and the present MoD himself started to make noise. This is why I said not to just brush this aside, doesnt matter what you or I think, fact is their contemplating something else.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Water Car Engineer said:


> The concept of pushing only Rafale and Tejas was what we all had in mind.It makes perfect sense and was rather concrete, until this government and the present MoD himself started to make noise. This is why I said not to just brush this aside, doesnt matter what you or I think, fact is their contemplating something else.



If they actually want a foreign (single engine ) fighter, do it quick and don't go for a single LCA.This is all I can say.

Because procuring a foreign fighter Jet which will only by 10-15% cheaper than Rafale while delivering less than 50% of what Rafale can, I find this absurd..... on the top of when we are paying billions for modifications for 2 squadrons of Rafale.



Aero said:


> @PARIKRAMA
> So you implying more Rafales can come ? (I read some news that No more Rafales DM said)
> 
> Don't you think Gripen E will be viable if we can squeeze all Tot of design?



If Rafale does not come in MII, still the minimum number will be 4 squadrons. This is pretty confirmed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> If they actually want a foreign (single engine ) fighter, do it quick and don't go for a single LCA.This is all I can say.
> 
> Because procuring a foreign fighter Jet which will only by 10-15% cheaper than Rafale while delivering less than 50% of what Rafale can.




I dont like the idea either. Rafale and Tejas blocks should be the only MII program. It's excessive otherwise, but that's where it's going.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Sometimes I feel even Rahul Gandhi and AK are less useless than HAL. Idiots , screwing our nation.



Water Car Engineer said:


> I dont like the idea either. RafalesinkTejas blocks should be the only MII program. It's excessive otherwise, but that's where it's going.



The production rate of HAL and its unwilling nature to share the production...its going to sink us.

Anyway , I hope the idiots at MoD understand we need to replace Mig21s by 2022-23, not after 2025-26.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## egodoc222

I feel hal doesn't really know how to do business...!! Instead of expanding the company by outsourcing some of the production work to private indutries....this do it all mindset..is hurting India's aerospace sector!!
Some times I feel that all they want is to live off the r&d funds....!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## migflug

By PKS:

The Tejas Mk.2 R & D project is very much alive & thriving & will be an excellent competitor to the Gripen NG. Next-Gen SLR for IA will be 100% indigenous. Additional Rafale orders will follow every 5 years.



I guess we can still hope for tejas mk2.
As parikrama has quoted above: tejas is a sub optimal design which need to be refined and it can only be done by tejas mk2. These ADA /HAL guys are taking us for ride with their ultra ambitious tejas mk1a programme. Earlier they boasted mk1a production to start in 2018 ,now rumors/news are that of 2021.Look at the ioc production rate , its like 1 in a 6 months. 
How to believe them when they haven't delivered tejas foc till now. These guys inspire no confidence.
Not surprised we will go for another light fighter jet. My choice would be Gripen ng

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## anant_s

@PARIKRAMA 
Sorry for the noob question, but is there really an RFI sent for single engined fighter?
even if we keep rafale out of this discussion, i'm confused about N LCA.
Any new Single engine project will effectively be end of road for LCA and surely it cannot survive only on Navy's order.
Second do you realistically see any chances for co-operation of building in india for an order quantity not more than 100-120 pieces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PARIKRAMA

anant_s said:


> @PARIKRAMA
> Sorry for the noob question, but is there really an RFI sent for single engined fighter?
> even if we keep rafale out of this discussion, i'm confused about N LCA.
> Any new Single engine project will effectively be end of road for LCA and surely it cannot survive only on Navy's order.
> Second do you realistically see any chances for co-operation of building in india for an order quantity not more than 100-120 pieces.


Its not a Noob question my good friend... Its in fact a very potent and a considerably deep introspecting question.

Consider just two single points

"RFI" issued to whom - US, Stockholm and Russia - Which Single Engine/reactor based fighter each countries have?
ACM Raha just few days back said what - Unsolicited Offers. And we have covered that to death in Rafale sticky

USA - F16 Block 70 @ $70 Mn + other package prices and F35 @ god knows what price.
Sweden - Saab Gripen - @85-100 Mn or more depending upon other additional stuff
Russia - Yak trainer?

Mr Shukla's article falls flat bcz it mentions first Russia and secondly its testing the water for a LWF plane which might eventually curtail the LCA program. Its no rocket science that LCA program progress is not as per the mandate and nor its meeting DM MP requirement. There is a deep review of LCA program soon and that will be the step post which any such big activity will be done.

The question to simply wonder and understand is

We must have a LWF which replaces Mig 21s and augments our fleet in that role with some more additional multirole capabilities.
Yes we need this LWF segment to be at substantial number.

Now there are 2 aspects of what people might miss out

India wishes to build LWF in India for sure.
There is a program under Rafale offset to revive Kaveri Engine and make it operational by 2021.
Now check back the news reports where LCA Mk1A stands to come out between 2021-28.

Even if you go by the thumb rule of tested engine in untested aircrafts, there is a scope that Safran Kaveri may finally power LCA program and make the LCA program successful as per the original goal of having own engine as well.

So critically if Gripen or F16 allows a similar engine from India than yes its a possibility. Again such a thing is time consuming and also the fact remains its still far away in terms of actually available for IAF. Importantly Safranised Kaveri has to be delivered as well.

For say 90 such jets to be built in MII

for a production rate of 16 per year implies a project of 5.5years and add 2.5 years set up means 8 years+ or say 9 years 
Now in 9 years you want the whole supply chain localized and ecosystem made in India for producing this bird...
So what after9 years.
What about the investments done by SME and MSME folks?
Will these jets have cushion pricing to accommodate such end of product production in India?
What about the credible technology which is being shared for the local MIC?
Where will they use this technology and the skills acquired by participating in this program?
What about the critical things like the engines?

If you seek out the answers, one simple thing that will be there is for MIC's interest as well as giving them a proper return you will like to promise the ecosystem a run of 15 years and say 10 years of tax holidays to facilitate them for taking up this challenge of investment, time and acquiring skills. So again simply a 12.5 year production schedule gives you how many numbers? 12.5*16 = 200 Jets +/- 10 jets 

Thats the kind of number where we can do a proper MKI like deal and better it to bring the conditionalities like say Rafale offset incorporated into it and get the MIC up and running. If we chose any LWF yes we will end up marginalizing the Tejas program for sure.

I have a firm faith whichever bird waits for 2021-22 kind of timeline and uses the Safranised Kaveri Engine in its program will get the first priority. I dont think we are bothered about only LWF rather we are looking at much more beyond just numbers.

Wait for Indo Russian summit, we might see the chance of some more buys off the shelf route .. That might give us the space till 2023 timeline. Of course it wont be a LWF.. Lets wait and see if it goes through or is discussed in what terms of references.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## anant_s

PARIKRAMA said:


> So what after9 years.
> 
> What about the investments done by SME and MSME folks?
> 
> Will these jets have cushion pricing to accommodate such end of product production in India?
> 
> What about the credible technology which is being shared for the local MIC?
> 
> Where will they use this technology and the skills acquired by participating in this program?
> 
> What about the critical things like the engines?





I think that is where roadmap to future lies.
India is not just looking to manufacture some X number of jets based on an imported assembly line, it is trying to create an ecosystem for its future production regime.
You know some years ago, when there were talks of FGFA, AMCA, MRCA, Point Defence LWF being projected in concurrent time scale 2015-2030, it all looked good on paper, but a question begged, How will all that be done with just HAL assembly lines?
This government at least has initiated some steps in finding those answers and while we still have to wait and see, with private partnership and investment, it is impossible to even think of induction program succeeding.
Now when we talk of private investment, we are looking at a timescale of atleast 30-40 years for the business to become viable and country to reap benefits.
we have discussed this in past, but HAL will be hard pressed to manufacture LCA variants and FGFA simultaneously in numbers and to this if we add AMCA as well, it would require massive capacity creation.
Now here with Rafale and second LWF (if it is true), would need to go to private party(s) for parallel induction.
In this context the thought (which some of us endorse), that rafale, in large numbers is the only logical solution, looks more and more logical.
+++
by the way, i wold love to read and learn a bit more on Safran's collaboration on GTRE Kaveri

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taygibay

egodoc222 said:


> Some times I feel that all they want is to live off the r&d funds....!



So many governmental structures all over the world end up like that, mainly
because workers especially if post mobility and or career advancement are
low come to consider their first job to be maintaining the existence of it over
actually producing anything.

But that's all the more reason to point out that


PARIKRAMA said:


> "RFI" issued to whom - US, Stockholm and Russia - Which Single Engine/reactor based fighter each countries have?


 if I was an Indian taxpayer, I'd demand to know if a similar letter was sent to
all private Indian companies allowing them to submit offers based on LCA Mk2
and why the heck not if the answer is negative!

Give HAL their cut as royalties for IP and let them live off that too and grow fatter.

Tsssk, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aero

@Joe Shearer


> The Russians didn't give the IAF any English versions of the critical manuals. They had to be translated from the Russian, validated by test pilots familiar with the plane, and only THEN translated.


Some counties tend to prefer their own language instead of english (unlike ours). Even in bilateral exercises many time Russian officers use interpreter whether ours one speak english themselves.
Now, For the manuals they may not be available in english as SU didn't use that language as their primary or it may be case of ignorance. i am unable to comment because i don't have any data with me for this information.



> Imagine a TOT scenario (the obvious real life examples can't be cited, so this one above was just a sampler); how do you know what you have been given until you start production? And what do you do if it turns out that you can't do the full production job, because of some seemingly minor factor? By withholding money until the first successful run?


That's why we keep Guarantee Money with parties involved in deal.( Leave Sukhoi out of it as it was foolish not to do so)



> You've just seen what happened with the Rafale, and the deals earlier were all deals where the western powers were backing the Pakistanis to the hilt - the Sabre, the Starfighter, for starters - and were starving us of even the basic technology? Do you know that according to the Dept. of Commerce restrictions, we couldn't even import a Mac server without a special clearance? When we were struggling with one (or was it two) specialist design and drawing machines, the Singaporean equivalent had wall-to-wall O2s?


Because they were able to utilize Pakistan against USSR and it was in their interest to keep pakistan. Now after dissolution of SU you can see how much they back pakistan.
India was considered pro-SU country (even after being neutral) that is why restrictions were there.
Now see change in their stance toward India we can get many waivers that other countries can't.



> You think they'll really level with us? The amount of technology involved is vast. Unless the vendor wants to, there is no way that the purchaser can be sure that he has got everything he paid for.


But it is upto buyer to select vendor that can offer the most they want.



> Get real, mister.


I think i am.
We don't know each other but you are still formulating opinion about me thinking not in real conditions .




> It's worse than that. There are some parts and composite panels on the existing pre-production models where the dimensions differ from one model to the next; there are, in short, unique dimensions for each existing aircraft.


Because these are pre-production aircrafts sometimes changes are done to remove any deficiency . Production models will not have same problem (in their batches, we can't expect 1st and last aircraft to be same for entire production run, there will be improvements) (In case if i didn't got your point Name some parts that will be different for every aircraft of same model and purpose)




> You are running the support team for a squadron of 18 aircraft in a remote location. Which dimensions of parts will you use, considering that there might be one set of dimensions for each aircraft produced? Which 18 will you ask for, to keep in stock? I'm sorry, but clearly I am not getting through.


i think you will keep the parts that wears of regularly from all the aircrafts not the special problem ones.
Sorry, i either i didn't get it or you made it look like i have squadron contain 1 F22,1 F-35,1 F-16,1 F18,1 Rafale, 1 Typhoon like configuration.

Serious Note> Let's say i have squadron of Rafale after pre-production run i will be aware what parts of aircraft generally wear out faster, i will keep them & it will be same for all 18. For special problem you can't be sure you will have spare even in inventory as Air Bases like in case of explosion onboard many components may get damaged you can't keep everything close by..



> First, you are right, we need a Model T. It was the MiG 21, and we need replacements. So now we've agreed on everything that we can agree on.






> Second, after McDonnell Douglas threw out our people from their design centres, without their own notes, which were withheld, the entire flight control system was re-developed. It is one of the finest going today; a particular general-officer level person thought, after flying the Tejas, that the FCS might even have improved the functioning of his own favourite aircraft, the F 16. You can't do that with a design generated abroad. You can't do any foreign republication of the things that the LCA project generated.


Well but it took its time, if we want an aircraft in speedy manner to fill up our numbers , some compromise will be there.
You took my answer other way around i was talking about taking other company design teams to help us to speed up development in return they get cash (I know not going to work for everything).
We were talking about something like JFT to fill our numbers but now you say they will not give us much, we need to be clear what we actually want. In South Korea, T-50is designed by almost Lockheed martin but now RKAF can fill in numbers and local design can continue.

Thanks for your time, Good day


----------



## Aero

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> If Rafale does not come in MII, still the minimum number will be 4 squadrons. This is pretty confirmed.


Actually many are speculating for 36+18 option of rafales and then more purchase for 100+ jets that's why i asked @PARIKRAMA about it but he seems to be very busy at the moment.

Anyway i think in coming months a lot of things will get clear about what is coming or what is not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PARIKRAMA

@Aero
It's a correct assessment to wait for some more time to see the clear picture.

In general Indian Pvt sector don't invest if they don't have a clarity on paper as well as clear picture of assured biz for good amount of years.

If it's NO MII then Rafale will reach 5 squadrons or 80 jets in 36+18+36 only for IAF.

And then its over.

As of now ground work and what the progress is being seen is a Rafale MII only scenario.

So yes much more will be revealed in coming months.

A small hint in numbers will come up when you get the formal news out that only 63-65 jags are available for Darin 3 upgrade implying another 60 odd jets are required for DPSA roles that too in a very short span of time.

All such things will be revealed in public domain in coming time.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hellfire

Aero said:


> How can you say that? (Elaborate a bit please)
> .



HAL Dhruv Mk 1 to 4 ... a real pain in arse


----------



## Aero

hellfire said:


> HAL Dhruv Mk 1 to 4 ... a real pain in arse


Bro in pre-production run this will happen but once we start to produce like FOC/in-service configuration aircraft/heli/whatever how will you apply individuality. (provided Aircraft are for same roles and configuration)

Not applicable if you build one for Air-Superiority and another for Ground attack.


----------



## Hellfire

Aero said:


> Bro in pre-production run this will happen but once we start to produce like FOC configuration aircraft/heli/whatever hoy will you apply individuality.(provided Aircraft are for same roles and configuration)




When you are the user in high altitude, such a line does not hold. The issue comes in spares supply.


----------



## Aero

hellfire said:


> The issue comes in spares supply.


See post here as in similar @ Joe Shearer said about spares in *giving a general example* to me.
As i said to him you can keep inventory for spares that you are sure going to be needed soon but you can't keep inventory for everything some unexpected problems can occur anytime but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to deal with expected problems/repairs.


*Side Note*>> If you can spare some time i want an answer. (No intention to offend you in anyway but a detailed answer will be welcomed instead of one liners)
I have been getting this Individuality concept now. Now let's take Rafale , If we apply this so we can say all 36 aircraft will be different (to some possible extent) from each other. In this way all Rafales or any other aircraft is individually different from other aircraft of its type.

You people really saying this or something else i am not getting.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Aero said:


> See post here as in similar @Joe Shearer said about spares in *giving a general example* to me.
> As i said to him you can keep inventory for spares that you are sure going to be needed soon but you can't keep inventory for everything some unexpected problems can occur anytime but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to deal with expected problems/repairs.
> 
> 
> *Side Note*>> If you can spare some time i want an answer. (No intention to offend you in anyway but a detailed answer will be welcomed instead of one liners)
> I have been getting this Individuality concept now. Now let's take Rafale , If we apply this so we can say all 36 aircraft will be different (to some possible extent) from each other. In this way all Rafales or any other aircraft is individually different from other aircraft of its type.
> 
> Do you guys really saying this or something else i am not getting.



I think you are not getting it. 

You cannot have spares or inventory for a situation where every aircraft - every single aircraft - has a slightly different dimension to several parts.

Perhaps the problem is not with us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agent_47

PARIKRAMA said:


> So critically if Gripen or F16 allows a similar engine from India than yes its a possibility. Again such a thing is time consuming and also the fact remains its still far away in terms of actually available for IAF. Importantly Safranised Kaveri has to be delivered as well.


These fighters with Kaveri is a false assumption. F-16 is a 21 ton MTOW aircraft which requires 120kn+ thrust engine to fulfill its flight envelope. Which Kaveri is not. It will take 3-4 years to improve and certify kaveri. Now add 2-3 years just to integrate it to Gripen. If we can fly LCA mk1A with kaveri by 2021 why are we even considering these options?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

hellfire said:


> When you are the user in high altitude, such a line does not hold. The issue comes in spares supply.



He's thick. No point.


----------



## Hellfire

Aero said:


> See post here as in similar @ Joe Shearer said about spares in *giving a general example* to me.
> As i said to him you can keep inventory for spares that you are sure going to be needed soon but you can't keep inventory for everything some unexpected problems can occur anytime but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to deal with expected problems/repairs.
> 
> 
> *Side Note*>> If you can spare some time i want an answer. (No intention to offend you in anyway but a detailed answer will be welcomed instead of one liners)
> I have been getting this Individuality concept now. Now let's take Rafale , If we apply this so we can say all 36 aircraft will be different (to some possible extent) from each other. In this way all Rafales or any other aircraft is individually different from other aircraft of its type.
> 
> You people really saying this or something else i am not getting.




Logistics.

Most of armed forces officers also pay scant attention to logistics. What in civil is called 'supply chain' and 'inventory'.

No war is won without working out your logistics to as best as you can. Can't give exact examples, but too many spares is a hell on your inventory and supply chain.

In short, we may have spares of one aircraft here but the aircraft goes there, how do you shift spares??

Its a nightmare in war when your trains, aircrafts and vehicles are all running around helter skelter

@Aero
Am on tab. Any specific thing you did not get from logistics view point, ask. Will clarify in general terms. No comments on LCA or any other platform

But think how will you shift different specs and different spares in a dynamic situation in war where assests shift faster than we can say faster



Joe Shearer said:


> He's thick. No point.



Nope sir. He is learning. You are interacting for the first time I guess. Patience .....

@salarsikander read up here

And one more thread. Tagging there too

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PARIKRAMA

@Agent_47 
F16 will not get a re engine option.. SO US fighters are much placed down the list. If they come it will be purely a political decision for geo strategic angle only.

As said in the other forum, its basically either LSA, LCA Mk2 or Gripen E which has the option of using a safranised Kaveri. What would be interesting will be the fact what kind of numbers comes out when compared to GE derivative engine used in Gripen versus say a Safranised Kaveri..

But all that is at least 4-5 years away.. so till then its just pure wait nothing else.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Aero

hellfire said:


> Logistics.
> 
> Most of armed forces officers also pay scant attention to logistics. What in civil is called 'supply chain' and 'inventory'.
> 
> No war is won without working out your logistics to as best as you can. Can't give exact examples, but too many spares is a hell on your inventory and supply chain.
> 
> In short, we may have spares of one aircraft here but the aircraft goes there, how do you shift spares??
> 
> Its a nightmare in war when your trains, aircrafts and vehicles are all running around helter skelter
> 
> @Aero
> Am on tab. Any specific thing you did not get from logistics view point, ask. Will clarify in general terms. No comments on LCA or any other platform
> 
> But think how will you shift different specs and different spares in a dynamic situation in war where assests shift faster than we can say faster
> 
> 
> 
> Nope sir. He is learning. You are interacting for the first time I guess. Patience .....


Thank You, I got it now.
Keeping Aircraft ready with proper supply and wherever it will go will be quite resource taxing.
I was confusing with spares and thinking in totally different direction. In war time (Also in peace time) i think what i was proposing will not an ideal solution as will tend to burden logistics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agent_47

PARIKRAMA said:


> @Agent_47
> F16 will not get a re engine option.. SO US fighters are much placed down the list. If they come it will be purely a political decision for geo strategic angle only.
> 
> As said in the other forum, its basically either LSA, LCA Mk2 or Gripen E which has the option of using a safranised Kaveri. What would be interesting will be the fact what kind of numbers comes out when compared to GE derivative engine used in Gripen versus say a Safranised Kaveri..
> 
> But all that is at least 4-5 years away.. so till then its just pure wait nothing else.


If LSA is confirmed in this no one can beat it. Let us wait till dec. Wounder what will this shukla and co do then!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SpArK

Agent_47 said:


> If LSA is confirmed in this no one can beat it. Let us wait till dec. Wounder what will this shukla and co do then!



What LSA?


----------



## Agent_47

SpArK said:


> What LSA?


Check our past forum, IDF.


----------



## migflug

Agent_47 said:


> These fighters with Kaveri is a false assumption. F-16 is a 21 ton MTOW aircraft which requires 120kn+ thrust engine to fulfill its flight envelope. Which Kaveri is not. It will take 3-4 years to improve and certify kaveri. Now add 2-3 years just to integrate it to Gripen. If we can fly LCA mk1A with kaveri by 2021 why are we even considering these options?



Lca mk1a with kaveri Not even tejas has got FOC AND TEJAS MK1a is a daydream. They are talking about 1tonne weight reduction , which i feel is next to impossible. Earlier they(HAL/ADA) said tejas would fly by 2018 now its delayed till 2021.Coming to kaveri , we dont know how much tech snemca will share in kaveri, most likely it will have m-88 core which will again take many years for the engine to validate.
so tejas mk1a with kaveri is a distant future.


----------



## Agent_47

migflug said:


> Lca mk1a with kaveri Not even tejas has got FOC AND TEJAS MK1a is a daydream. They are talking about 1tonne weight reduction , which i feel is next to impossible. Earlier they(HAL/ADA) said tejas would fly by 2018 now its delayed till 2021.Coming to kaveri , we dont know how much tech snemca will share in kaveri, most likely it will have m-88 core which will again take many years for the engine to validate.
> so tejas mk1a with kaveri is a distant future.


This new proposal has nothing to do with M88. Let us wait 3-4 months till we have a clear picture.


----------



## salarsikander

There is this constant vicious cycle of killing the LCA program from IAF. Tejas is meant to replace the all those single engined cafts that IAF has. If India goes for another foreign fighter in this category, it will kill TEJAS and will become another mig-21' program that Ruusa offered back in cold war days. I seriously hope and pray that GOI puts some sense into foreign ka maal vala mafia in IAF

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sergi

I appreciate the Tage but plz Feds don't drag me in this F-16/18/35 BS. I am more than sure that they are not coming in our colours so just don't


SpArK said:


> What LSA?


Supposed to be "Light Stealth Aircraft " according to some dude of Indian def site. Dude talk about harvesting LCA gains and ToT to produce that in 2 years  well good luck to him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Echo_419

salarsikander said:


> There is this constant vicious cycle of killing the LCA program from IAF. Tejas is meant to replace the all those single engined cafts that IAF has. If India goes for another foreign fighter in this category, it will kill TEJAS and will become another mig-21' program that Ruusa offered back in cold war days. I seriously hope and pray that GOI puts some sense into foreign ka maal vala mafia in IAF



Nice to see kisi mein akal hai yaha pe


----------



## sathya

@PARIKRAMA

What engine will LSA use initially till safranised kaveri gets ready.. 

M88? 
Have dassault agreed to it.? 
Even if they agree, how many years before LSA gets engine?


----------



## Agent_47

sathya said:


> @PARIKRAMA
> 
> What engine will LSA use initially till safranised kaveri gets ready..
> 
> M88?
> Have dassault agreed to it.?
> Even if they agree, how many years before LSA gets engine?


Prototypes will fly with EJ230 engine.


----------



## Athen

Wa


Agent_47 said:


> Prototypes will fly with EJ230 engine.


Wait.... What? LSA isn't even confirmed, and your talking about another engine?? Come on what is real and what isn't... I am losing my mind!! 
@PARIKRAMA little help sir??


----------



## PARIKRAMA

PARIKRAMA said:


> *it has agreed to help India with the Light Combat Aircraft MK 2 and AMCA.*
> 
> *French company Snecma (Safran)( a Dassault partner along with Thales) has proposed to invest Euro one billion in the Kaveri Gas Turbine Engine to be fitted in the LCA MK1A. .*


https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.230070/page-402#post-8793857

You will see LWF also having a similar need of sporting Safranised Kaveri.

This will essentially create more roadblocks and expect a deeper level of cooperation from the Saab and LM folks.. Either they give us a better deal in terms of technology to our MIC and price or else its a smart way of stone walling them... We know F16 can be used with Safranised Kaveri.. It needs to be seen if Gripen E can be re engined with this or not and what time it will take.

More or less, its all hinting towards either LSA Ghost or it will be a LCA Mk2 with heavy borrowing from Dassault expertise...

@MilSpec Your thread 3rd option - Case III in LWF thread

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilSpec

PARIKRAMA said:


> https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.230070/page-402#post-8793857
> 
> You will see LWF also having a similar need of sporting Safranised Kaveri.
> 
> This will essentially create more roadblocks and expect a deeper level of cooperation from the Saab and LM folks.. Either they give us a better deal in terms of technology to our MIC and price or else its a smart way of stone walling them... We know F16 can be used with Safranised Kaveri.. It needs to be seen if Gripen E can be re engined with this or not and what time it will take.
> 
> More or less, its all hinting towards either LSA Ghost or it will be a LCA Mk2 with heavy borrowing from Dassault expertise...
> 
> @MilSpec Your thread 3rd option - Case III in LWF thread


for 10 years MMRCA, Languished, the economy has changed substantially. Upper end of our calculations will be a reality soon. I did not want to divulge too much, but just be patient and watch. @hellfire

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

PARIKRAMA said:


> https://defence.pk/threads/dassault...ussions-thread-2.230070/page-402#post-8793857
> 
> You will see LWF also having a similar need of sporting Safranised Kaveri.
> 
> This will essentially create more roadblocks and expect a deeper level of cooperation from the Saab and LM folks.. Either they give us a better deal in terms of technology to our MIC and price or else its a smart way of stone walling them... We know F16 can be used with Safranised Kaveri.. It needs to be seen if Gripen E can be re engined with this or not and what time it will take.
> 
> More or less, its all hinting towards either LSA Ghost or it will be a LCA Mk2 with heavy borrowing from Dassault expertise...
> 
> @MilSpec Your thread 3rd option - Case III in LWF thread



It is the other way around:
Can India design the next generation Kaveri so it is plug-in compatible with the F414 used by Gripen?
If LCAs plans to use the F414 initially, that would make a lot of sense.


----------



## monitor

* Buying India's new light fighter. Not another MMRCA fiasco, please *






*By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 11th Oct 16*

After the sorry compromise that was the Rafale fighter acquisition, the Indian Air Force (IAF) last week went back to the start line, initiating the purchase of a light fighter to replace the MiG-21s, MiG-23s and MiG-27s that once formed the bulk of its fleet, and still constitute one-third of it. Since Indian defence planners (assuming the breed actually exists) seldom learn from others’ mistakes, they must at least learn from their failed project to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). Ironically, that too had started out 15 years ago as a programme to buy lots of light-to-medium fighters to replace the MiGs. The effort --- which would-be vendors obsequiously lauded as “the world’s most professionally run fighter acquisition programme” --- crashed in flames last year, with the decision to buy 36 Rafales. Inexplicably, the IAF has ended up with a small number of exorbitantly expensive fighters that would be criminally wasted on the combat roles the MiG fleet has played.

Even so, fleet shortages in the IAF are so dire --- 33-34 operational fighter squadrons, against the 45 needed to handle a collusive threat from China and Pakistan --- that we must welcome the Rafale buy, even though it has cost Euro 7.87 billion. True, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Nashik delivers 12-13 Sukhoi-30MKIs each year; and its Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) production line in Bengaluru is slowly ramping up production. Yet, with the remaining 11 MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons retiring soon, the shortfall will remain. And since the Rafales will only start being delivered after three years, there is no room for delay or misjudgement.

It would be remembered that the air force began the MMRCA process on the right note, before the defence ministry put it into a downward dive from which it never recovered. In 2000-01, the IAF --- pleased with the Mirage 2000 after its accurate bombing of Pakistani mountain-top positions during the 1999 Kargil conflict --- proposed buying the Mirage 2000 production line from Dassault, which was closing it down to build the new Rafale. The plan was to transfer the line to HAL, which would build the well-regarded Mirage 2000-9, an export version of the French Air Force’s Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2. That was clearly the sensible thing to do. The IAF was familiar with the Mirage 2000; and had the training, maintenance and repair infrastructure, and had already developed Indian vendors for several sub-systems. Had the Mirage 2000 been chosen, the IAF would have had a highly capable, light, cheap fighter without complicating fleet logistics.

But that was not to be. Defence Minister George Fernandes, rattled by the Tehelka sting, decided (backed by the National Democratic Alliance cabinet) that single-vendor procurement from Dassault might invite further charges of corruption. So Fernandes played it safe by sending out a global tender to multiple vendors. The IAF, its pragmatism replaced by the starry-eyed prospect of flying the world’s best (and most expensive!) fighters, framed expansive requirements that brought six fighters into contention. The rest is depressing history.

The lessons from the MMRCA are clear. First, forswear bureaucratic and political caution in the national interest and quietly identify the best choice for India based on a matrix of performance, life-cycle cost, technology transfer and the strategic relationship with the vendor country --- rather than trying to identify, like in the past, the cheapest fighter that meets the IAF’s performance requirements. Politically motivated charges of corruption are inevitable, regardless of the integrity of the process; but larger political rewards lie in pushing through, in full public view, a badly needed acquisition that fills a gaping capability void. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has the confidence of a personally honest man, has already signalled that he can think boldly. Speaking on Doordarshan on April 13, 2015, soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in Paris that India would buy 36 Rafales, Mr Parrikar stated: “It is wrong to do an MMRCA type deal using an RfP (competitive tender) model. You cannot compare different types of aircraft like the F/A-18, Eurofighter and Rafale. All three have different strengths and capabilities. All three are probably good enough planes… These important decisions need to be taken at government-to-government levels.”

Sadly, Mr Parrikar has disregarded his own advice while launching the light fighter acquisition. Like with the MMRCA, the letter of inquiry has been sent to numerous aerospace manufacturers, even those who do not have a single-engine, medium fighter to offer. When asked why, officials explained off-the-record that it was so that no vendor could later complain it was left out. This play-it-safe attitude is hardly suggestive of a purposive, focused, unapologetic procurement process to come.

In fact, only two firms need be approached: American behemoth, Lockheed Martin, and Swedish defence firm, Saab; both of whom have quality single-engine fighters to “Make in India”. The former has already pitched with the defence ministry to build a new Block 70 variant of its F-16 Super Viper. Saab, too, has offered to build the new Gripen E, which is scheduled to make its first flight this year. 

While not much separates the two offers, Lockheed Martin clearly scores on one count, while Saab wins on other counts. Building the F-16 in India would strengthen the burgeoning US-India defence partnership, which is already creating skilled jobs in India. Choosing the Gripen, on the other hand, would bring in Swedish technologies in areas like the “airborne electronically scanned array” radar, which US export control regulations safeguard jealously. The Swedish dependency on any Indian partnership would allow New Delhi far greater leverage in bargaining for high technology than India could ever wield in Washington. Further, the Gripen E can be modified into an aircraft carrier borne fighter --- an option the F-16 does not have.

The final determinant must be: which relationship would impart greater impetus to indigenous fighter programmes like the Tejas and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft; and co-development programmes like the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft. In making his choice, Mr Parrikar should bear in mind that a quick, decisive verdict would save three years of ministry file-pushing and fill in operational gaps that are unacceptable, given the tensions in South Asia.


----------



## PARIKRAMA

Shukla ji is writing daily now on this..
I wonder how much public opinion he wants to build? or may be write write and write so that gospel becomes the truth?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Grevion

monitor said:


> In fact, only two firms need be approached: American behemoth, Lockheed Martin, and Swedish defence firm, Saab; both of whom have quality single-engine fighters to “Make in India”. The former has already pitched with the defence ministry to build a new Block 70 variant of its F-16 Super Viper. Saab, too, has offered to build the new Gripen E, which is scheduled to make its first flight this year.


Shukla ji strikes again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Echo_419

PARIKRAMA said:


> Shukla ji is writing daily now on this..
> I wonder how much public opinion he wants to build? or may be write write and write so that gospel becomes the truth?



Evil reporter is trying to use the Goebbels law

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## migflug

*India Kicks Off New Search for MiG-21 Replacement*
The Indian Ministry of Defense has issued a Request for Information (RFI) to global aircraft manufacturers.






By Franz-Stefan Gady
October 12, 2016


The Indian Ministry of Defense (MOD) has recently issued a Request for Information (RFI) to global aircraft manufacturers alerting international suppliers that there will be a new competition for the building of a new single-engine fighter aircraft under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” initiative.

The RFI will be followed by a detailed Request for Proposal (RFP) inviting aircraft makers to submit proposals including detailed technology transfer plans, historically one of the most difficult aspects of any defense deal in India.

The Indian Air Force is in need of approximately 300 new light combat aircraft.

According to Indian Air Force (IAF) chief Arup Raha, India has already received “unsolicited offers” from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Saab to build the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, and Saab Gripen E fighter jet in India.

“*This is very much on the table and I’m sure whoever gives the best deal [will win]. All the aircraft are very capable, so it will depend upon who provides the best transfer of technology; and, of course, the price tag. It’s on the table; nothing is decided as yet*,” Raha told the _Business Standard_.

“*This will not be just licensed manufacture. It will be proper transfer of technology. Also, India will become a hub for manufacturing, as well as maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) for other air forces in the region*,” he added.

As I explained previously:

_U.S. defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin[next to other aircraft makers], along with their F-16 and F-18 aircraft, were outbid in 2011 under the now-scrapped $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project by French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation, with India opting for Dassault Aviation’s Rafale fighter instead in January 2012. However, the MMRCA project was cancelled after years of difficult negotiations in July 2015._

Instead, India and French aircraft manufacturer Dassault Aviation signed an agreement valued at 7.87 billion euros for the sale of 36 off-the-shelf Dassault Rafale twin-engine aircraft in September.

Saab has been involved in talks with Indian state-run aircraft maker Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to collaborate on the upgraded version of the indigenously developed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), dubbed the Tejas Mark-IA.

“*We should be able to start production of this aircraft by 2020-21; and in another five-seven years [i.e. by 2025-28], we’ll have 80 Tejas Mark 1A fighters,” according to Raha.*

The IAF plans to induct a total of 20 Tejas Mark-I aircraft by early 2018, but the program has been hampered by repeated delays and the MoD’s recent RFI makes it clear that the IAF will not solely rely on the Tejas LCA to replace its aging fleet of MIG-21 fighter jets.

The first Tejas squadron will consist of the aircraft’s less advanced Mark-I variant with “initial operational certification (IOC),” according to Raha. *“So in another year and a half’s time, we will have a full squadron of LCA’s – the IOC version,*” he said.

Raha also said that the “final operational certification” (FOC) of the Tejas was looming. “*I’m sure in another five-six months FOC would be cleared and production will start as soon as [HAL] finishes producing the IOC version. So we expect that the FOC version [of the Tejas] will be operationalized in an IAF fighter squadron in another three years time.”*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

Can anyone actually produce a RFI link here , so that we can see what has actually been conveyed. Because I haven't found it yet, and so I am taking this RFI news as false.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## migflug

migflug said:


> This will not be just licensed manufacture. It will be proper transfer of technology. Also, India will become a hub for manufacturing, as well as maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) for other air forces in the region



He is clearly talking about f 16. Although IAF wants gripen ,f 16 is ahead in the race due to geo political resons + lower price.This deal is mostly about MII and to develop inhouse aerospace industry (private) +engine + need to replace migs as quickly as possible(since it will take 10 to 12 years for hal to produce 120 fighters).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

migflug said:


> He is clearly talking about f 16. Although IAF wants gripen ,f 16 is ahead in the race due to geo political resons + lower price.This deal is mostly about MII and to develop inhouse aerospace industry (private) +engine + need to replace migs as quickly as possible(since it will take 10 to 12 years for hal to produce 120 fighters).



120 F16s by 2033 , if I am optimistic.

The time when last of the f16 operators will be rushing to replace a " Flying Coffin " of 2030.


----------



## migflug

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> 120 F16s by 2033 , if I am optimistic.
> 
> The time when last of the f16 operators will be rushing to replace a " Flying Coffin " of 2030.


It took 40 years for LM to produce 4500 f 16 , that's about 100+ per year. They are claiming to move entire production line for us. So no way its gonna take 17 years to produce 120 planes for biggest defence giant in the world. if every thing go well and production start in 2020 we can hope for 2026- 2030.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

migflug said:


> It took 40 years for LM to produce 4500 f 16 , that's about 100+ per year. They are claiming to move entire production line for us. So no way its gonna take 17 years to produce 120 planes for biggest defence giant in the world. if every thing go well and production start in 2020 we can hope for 2026- 2030.



Let me try explain my PoV. 

If I am optimistic , I expect the official competition to start before next FY. Then I expect the tests ( crucial since in MMRCA only 2 qualified ) to take 1 and 1/2 year. By 2019, the preferred bidder would be selected and negotiations would sTart.

By another 6-12 months I expect the negotiations over ToT, price, rights, guarantees to be over. 

And by 2021 start the contract and 15% payments made. 

It should take 24-30 months to setup infrastructure and , 3-6 months for first aircraft to roll out. 

That's 2025-26 FY till now. 

And if I take 6, 12, 24 aircrafts the rate of production in initial 3 years, its not before 2030 that all airframes will be delivered. 

The important part we are missing here is , replacements are needed from 2017-22 , the time we will be taking Mig21s out.

@PARIKRAMA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GoodKnight

PARIKRAMA said:


> Shukla ji is writing daily now on this..
> I wonder how much public opinion he wants to build? or may be write write and write so that gospel becomes the truth?



Yes, Ajay Shukla is the only one in the world with an agenda. 

Nobody else has any agenda. boo hoo.


----------



## migflug

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Let me try explain my PoV.
> 
> If I am optimistic , I expect the official competition to start before next FY. Then I expect the tests ( crucial since in MMRCA only 2 qualified ) to take 1 and 1/2 year. By 2019, the preferred bidder would be selected and negotiations would sTart.
> 
> By another 6-12 months I expect the negotiations over ToT, price, rights, guarantees to be over.
> 
> And by 2021 start the contract and 15% payments made.
> 
> It should take 24-30 months to setup infrastructure and , 3-6 months for first aircraft to roll out.
> 
> That's 2025-26 FY till now.
> 
> And if I take 6, 12, 24 aircrafts the rate of production in initial 3 years, its not before 2030 that all airframes will be delivered.
> 
> The important part we are missing here is , replacements are needed from 2017-22 , the time we will be taking Mig21s out.
> 
> @PARIKRAMA



It's completely a pet project for Modi's MII . It has nothing to do with tender/negotiations. Just like rafale, this will be g2g deal which need to happen before 2019.It is a complete geo political call and the deal will most probably go to LM(99%). As parikkar has said before , there will be another production line and the decision will be taken towards the end of the year.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihvfWfy9TPAhXCro8KHaxHBVgQFggfMAA&url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-to-select-one-or-more-fighter-aircraft-to-be-built-by-private-sector/article8248084.ece&usg=AFQjCNHPVREuWXCx919hYxbd1HamyDo6yw&sig2=sHvHkcZlCc7MVaxz1KLm4Q
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3gZjGy9TPAhVLpo8KHdG9A9oQFghIMAc&url=http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/02/private-sector-to-make-fighter-jets-for.html&usg=AFQjCNEJJE4nsijc9ldP4tKrwbTLFgoczw&sig2=h3Jf5jay0w7WiuVVvsAyRQ

so i would guess, decision will most likely be made by 2017 or 2018 +1.5 year for negotiation + 3 year to set up infrastructure, thats 20-22. This thing is going to take much less time than MMRCA. As we have seen ,it took 1.5 year from announcement to signing of rafale, so if the aircraft is selected by next year ,it will be signed by 2018/2019.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

migflug said:


> It's completely a pet project for Modi's MII . It has nothing to do with tender/negotiations. Just like rafale, this will be g2g deal which need to happen before 2019.It is a complete geo political call and the deal will most probably go to LM(99%). As parikkar has said before , there will be another production line and the decision will be taken towards the end of the year.
> https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihvfWfy9TPAhXCro8KHaxHBVgQFggfMAA&url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-to-select-one-or-more-fighter-aircraft-to-be-built-by-private-sector/article8248084.ece&usg=AFQjCNHPVREuWXCx919hYxbd1HamyDo6yw&sig2=sHvHkcZlCc7MVaxz1KLm4Q
> https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3gZjGy9TPAhVLpo8KHdG9A9oQFghIMAc&url=http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/02/private-sector-to-make-fighter-jets-for.html&usg=AFQjCNEJJE4nsijc9ldP4tKrwbTLFgoczw&sig2=h3Jf5jay0w7WiuVVvsAyRQ
> 
> so i would guess, decision will most likely be made by 2017 or 2018 +1.5 year for negotiation + 3 year to set up infrastructure, thats 20-22. This thing is going to take much less time than MMRCA. As we have seen ,it took 1.5 year from announcement to signing of rafale, so if the aircraft is selected by next year ,it will be signed by 2018/2019.



Good if it happens. 

But aren't you contradicting your own post where you quoted a article which talked about a " Competition " 

Just saying Navy modernisation is too a pet project.... however where is P75I, more Akulas, start of work on SSN project , naval helicopters ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GoodKnight

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Good if it happens.
> 
> But aren't you contradicting your own post where you quoted a article which talked about a " Competition "
> 
> Just saying Navy modernisation is too a pet project.... however where is P75I, more Akulas, start of work on SSN project , naval helicopters ?



There are no 'pet projects'. ALL projects are in National Interest. 

A competition will bring the best offer to the table, and the one with the best MII and price will win.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GoodKnight said:


> There are no 'pet projects'. ALL projects are in National Interest.
> 
> A competition will bring the best offer to the table, and the one with th MII and price will win.



Well then its my timeline , which is a highly optimistic one will prevail. 

And the Irony. 

The greatest irony is we are ( as said by media portals ) going to start a competition to replace Mig21s. Which need a replacement starting 2017-22 , not 10 years later.. 

The replacements of Mig21 will eventually be Su30, LCA and Rafales.


----------



## migflug

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Good if it happens.
> 
> But aren't you contradicting your own post where you quoted a article which talked about a " Competition "
> 
> Just saying Navy modernisation is too a pet project.... however where is P75I, more Akulas, start of work on SSN project , naval helicopters ?



Competition between gripen ng and f 16 block 70. I dont see any other options there.Both were already evaluated during MMRCA, so it wont be tested again. All will depend upon the package these two offers(which they already have as per parikrama). So i don't see any competition here. Its going to be a geo-political call. Also gripen NG is not available now, so as i said before f 16 gonna win hands down


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

migflug said:


> Competition between gripen ng and f 16 block 70. I dont see any other options there.Both were already evaluated during MMRCA, so it wont be tested again. All will depend upon the package these two offers(which they already have as per parikrama). So i don't see any competition here. Its going to be a geo-political call. Also gripen NG is not available now, so as i said before f 16 gonna win hands down



Both have been tested => Yes 
Did they pass the test ?

Even after being more capable( than what needs were there) , questions about capability were lobbed at Rafale , what do you think , a fighter aircraft , which was declared " failed In tests " by a IAF team will be inducted before a test where they qualify ?


----------



## GoodKnight

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Well then its my timeline , which is a highly optimistic one will prevail.
> 
> And the Irony.
> 
> The greatest irony is we are ( as said by media portals ) going to start a competition to replace Mig21s. Which need a replacement starting 2017-22 , not 10 years later..
> 
> The replacements of Mig21 will eventually be Su30, LCA and Rafales.



This is just going to be an evaluation of their MII offers and price point. 

The idea is to mass produce a low cost aircraft in India that can successfully replace the Mig 21 and help grow our squadron strength to 45.



Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Both have been tested => Yes
> Did they pass the test ?
> 
> Even after being more capable( than what needs were there) , questions about capability were lobbed at Rafale , what do you think , a fighter aircraft , which was declared " failed In tests " by a IAF team will be inducted before a test where they qualify ?



There is no pass or fail. Only different capabilities and the responsibility of developing tactics that will overcome their weakness and use their strengths.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GoodKnight said:


> This is just going to be an evaluation of their MII offers and price point.
> 
> The idea is to mass produce a low cost aircraft ibiasma that can successfully replace the Mig 21 and help grow our squadron strength to 45.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no pass or fail. Only different capabilities and the responsibility of developing tactics that will overcome their weakness and use their strengths.




On passing or failing. 

The MMRCA was too to replace aging Migs, and were to be multirole , and requirements were meant by IAF accordingly , and tests were conducted without bias. And again we are talking about the same, but this time you say the same requirements are not needed ? 

So yes, passing or failing does matter . 

Low cost ? 
I won't comment anything on these being low cost , other than what the Swiss parliament said about Gripen C/D while voting and what UAE paid LM for 25 F16s.


----------



## GoodKnight

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> On passing or failing.
> 
> The MMRCA was too to replace aging Migs, and were to be multirole , and requirements were meant by IAF accordingly , and tests were conducted without bias. And again we are talking about the same, but this time you say the same requirements are not needed ?
> 
> So yes, passing or failing does matter .
> 
> Low cost ?
> I won't comment anything on these being low cost , other than what the Swiss parliament said about Gripen C/D while voting and what UAE paid LM for 25 F16s.



The MMRCA was an ill conceived and unprofessional requirement mapping. But it did help us evaluate pretty much all aircraft's in the word and learn from it. 

This new requirement is more clear and specific, with a defined road map and political support. 

Since we already have the aircraft performance from the MMRCA tests, no further technical evaluation will be required. So there is no pass or failing. 

I do not want to waste time in useless speculation about the cost. Let the MII offers come in and let the L1 be decided on merits.


----------



## migflug

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Both have been tested => Yes
> Did they pass the test ?
> 
> Even after being more capable( than what needs were there) , questions about capability were lobbed at Rafale , what do you think , a fighter aircraft , which was declared " failed In tests " by a IAF team will be inducted before a test where they qualify ?



Its not about quality but quantity. There is a need to replace 14 sq of mig 21/27 with *cheap *planes under MII. Most importantly its about creating aerospace ecosystem + jobs under MII + engines tech (from usa if f 16 is selected) + geo-political decision.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

GoodKnight said:


> The MMRCA was an ill conceived and unprofessional requirement mapping. But it did help us evaluate pretty much all aircraft's in the word and learn from it.
> 
> This new requirement is more clear and specific, with a defined road map and political support.
> 
> Since we already have the aircraft performance from the MMRCA tests, no further technical evaluation will be required. So there is no pass or failing.
> 
> I do not want to waste time in useless speculation about the cost. Let the MII offers come in and let the L1 be decided on merits.



Well the MoD thinks otherwise. 

And other deals presently happening/happened also support me. Be it SR SAM, or Howitzer, a new RFI means, retesting , and its even more oblivious when a system has failed in earlier trials. 

Do you expect Indian Army to not to conduct retests for the rifles in new tenders because they have already at some point tested them all ? 

No. 


And on the cost , as I said. I didn't speculate , only put out what has happened. 

And yes , we should wait for their offer , even before claiming them " Cheap ". 

Because twice the cost of a MKI is certainly not cheap.



migflug said:


> Its not about quality but quantity. There is a need to replace 14 sq of mig 21/27 with *cheap *planes under MII. Most importantly its about creating aerospace ecosystem + jobs under MII + engines tech (from usa if f 16 is selected) + geo-political decision.



Indian army too needs many things urgently , but will they or MOD go directly for a new rifle like Galil or HK417? 

As for replacements , well all the 14 squadrons will be gone by 2022, and we need replacements by then . Not a decade later.


----------



## migflug

Ankit Kumar 002 said:


> Well the MoD thinks otherwise.
> 
> And other deals presently happening/happened also support me. Be it SR SAM, or Howitzer, a new RFI means, retesting , and its even more oblivious when a system has failed in earlier trials.
> 
> Do you expect Indian Army to not to conduct retests for the rifles in new tenders because they have already at some point tested them all ?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> And on the cost , as I said. I didn't speculate , only put out what has happened.
> 
> And yes , we should wait for their offer , even before claiming them " Cheap ".
> 
> Because twice the cost of a MKI is certainly not cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Indian army too needs many things urgently , but will they or MOD go directly for a new rifle like Galil or HK417?
> 
> As for replacements , well all the 14 squadrons will be gone by 2022, and we need replacements by then . Not a decade later.



we don't have any option to replace them in near future(only if we can buy additional su 30mki, about which iaf is not interested).Tejas can't be ramp up immediately as said by arup raha himself(will come by 2025-28).So all mig will be replaced only by late 20's. I thought tejas mk2 would be game changer , but the inefficient HAL/ADA can't even make tejas in time(foc) let alone tejas mk1a or mk2. And the production of HAL is so slow that we can't imagine tejas to be replacing migs any time soon. This tender is also about developing private competitor to HAL which can't do anything except screwdrivergiri.


----------



## Ankit Kumar 002

migflug said:


> we don't have any option to replace them in near future(only if we can buy additional su 30mki, about which iaf is not interested).Tejas can't be ramp up immediately as said by arup raha himself(will come by 2025-28).So all mig will be replaced only by late 20's. I thought tejas mk2 would be game changer , but the inefficient HAL/ADA can't even make tejas in time(foc) let alone tejas mk1a or mk2. And the production of HAL is so slow that we can't imagine tejas to be replacing migs any time soon. This tender is also about developing private competitor to HAL which can't do anything except screwdrivergiri.



Options are there. 

1. Addition Su30 MKI. And apart from HAL decorating production rate. No problem. 
2. LCA , again HAL. 
3. Second hand Mirage 2000s bought and upgraded.
4. Few Mig29SMT. ~45.


----------



## halloweene

Just a question, why being obsessed with that sanctioned 45 sqds numbers? The important data is "operational contract" aka number and types of missions/cost/availability etc. More important than sheer number of planes no?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## eldamar

halloweene said:


> Just a question, why being obsessed with that sanctioned 45 sqds numbers? The important data is "operational contract" aka number and types of missions/cost/availability etc. More important than sheer number of planes no?



to catch with her neighbours


----------



## proud indian94

Sweden's SAAB sweetens deal for gripen jet.


In an aggressive push to capture a share in India’s fighter aircraft market, Swedish aerospace major SAAB has offered its latest radar technology as part of the Gripen fighter package along with significant technology transfer in addition to design consultancy for developing the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk-1A which the Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to induct in large numbers.

The move comes even as India is looking to select a single engine fighter aircraft to be built in India in large numbers under the ‘Make in India’ initiative.


Explaining the developments in Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Lars Tossman, vice-president & Head of Communications of SAAB said that they were the first company to develop an AESA radar with Gallium Nitride which, he said, significantly enhances its efficiency and performance over the current AESA radars.

“We will be willing to share this and transfer the technology to India,” he told a group of visiting Indian journalists. India is looking to select a single engine fighter aircraft to be built in large numbers in India with extensive technology transfer for which the SAAB had offered its latest Gripen E fighter. “Our Transfer of Technology [ToT] is more than just transfer of assembly work aiming for an indigenous system of systems integration capability to create indigenous capabilities,” said Mats Palmberg, heading the SAAB Gripen program for India. Mr. Palmberg said that with AESA radar, stealth was not as important as it was earlier.

*Strategic partnership*
The company officials said that SAAB was looking for a strategic partner for the Gripen program in the long-term and India and Sweden have good relations without political compulsions.

Officials said Gripen was the first fighter to be integrated with the Meteor, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile. India is procuring the Meteor, considered a game changer with its range of 150 km, as part of the Rafale package concluded with France recently.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., which is manufacturing the LCA, is looking for foreign design assistance on the LCA Mk-1A to make specific improvements sought by the IAF which include an AESA radar, mid-air refuelling and improved electronic warfare suite which need design change in addition to other minor improvements.

The SAAB officials said that both the LCA and the Gripen are of similar class and also share the same General Electric engine citing commonality in maintenance and operation. “We have submitted proposals to India on LCA,” Mr. Tossman said.

In addition the SAAB officials offered help in the development of the next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) being designed by Aeronautical Design Agency (ADA).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sathya

Suddenly its raining AESA ... That too GaN AESA ... Israel, French & now Sweeden ..

If Usa didn't block Israel to export AESA in the past, we could be having Gripen C/D with Israel AESA ..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Immortan.Joe

sathya said:


> Suddenly its raining AESA ... That too GaN AESA ... Israel, French & now Sweeden ..
> 
> If Usa didn't block Israel to export AESA in the past, we could be having Gripen C/D with Israel AESA ..




This means that our own AESA program is progressing well. Going by the history ,we were offered only that technology by west which we have either mastered or were about to master.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sathya

Immortan.Joe said:


> This means that our own AESA program is progressing well. Going by the history ,we were offered only that technology by west which we have either mastered or were about to master.



Exactly, now we are out of platforms for own AESA. ...

Lca , jaguars- Israel 
Rafale RBE French 
Pak fa , super Sukhoi - Russian 

All that left is Mig29..


----------



## Sri

sathya said:


> Exactly, now we are out of platforms for own AESA. ...
> 
> Lca , jaguars- Israel
> Rafale RBE French
> Pak fa , super Sukhoi - Russian
> 
> All that left is Mig29..



Prasun's comment on this situation on aesa, looks like IAF is trying too many

To PARTHIB: If you want only AESA-MMRs of Israeli & Russian origin, then by all means do try convincing the French to install & integrate non-French AESA-MMRs on the Rafale & find out for yourself what the asking price in monetary terms is for such work. While Russia’s Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP) is the OEM for both the NO-36 Byelka & the AESA-MMR version of the NO-11M/RLSU-30MK, Phazatron JSC is the OEM for the Zhuk-AE FGA-35 AESA-MMR that will go on the MiG-29Ks during their mid-life upgrades. The EL/M-2052 will go on the Jaguar IS/DARIN-3 & Tejas Mk.2, while the RBE-2 will go on the Rafale. Thus, 5 different types of AESA-MMRs from 4 different foreign OEMs will enter service, with each of them requiring their own purpose-built MRO facilities—a cost-prohibitive exercise never before attempted by anyone else. Even in Europe & North America, the OEMs for AESA-MMRs are all based in those continents & this in turn greatly reduces product-support costs & hence acquiring multiple types of AESA-MMRs for airborne platforms there becomes affordable. 

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2016/06/thats-airpower-for-you-2.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## GURU DUTT

the final tally for IAF by 2025 is

rafale 36+18 for IAF and 18+18 of IN

63 Upgraded Mig29

52 Upgraded M2K

126 Upgraded to D-3 Jaguars

126 Uggraded Bisons

20(MK1)+80+40 (MK1A) LCA Tejas

90-126 "on order" F-16 Blk70/72

in short F-16 IAF me aave h aave


----------



## Grevion

GURU DUTT said:


> the final tally for IAF by 2025 is
> 
> rafale 36+18 for IAF and 18+18 of IN
> 
> 63 Upgraded Mig29
> 
> 52 Upgraded M2K
> 
> 126 Upgraded to D-3 Jaguars
> 
> 126 Uggraded Bisons
> 
> 20(MK1)+80+40 (MK1A) LCA Tejas
> 
> 90-126 "on order" F-16 Blk70/72
> 
> in short F-16 IAF me aave h aave


Just one question guruji, what is the upgraded bisons??
You are still hopeful about the f-16 block 70s i see.


----------



## GURU DUTT

litefire said:


> Just one question guruji, what is the upgraded bisons??
> You are still hopeful about the f-16 block 70s i see.


well upgraded bisons are coming or are roumered to be the first to be having with desi version of GaA based AESA radar and new gen combined and comcat desi avionicks suite  

as for aef sollahs well they are comming and no matter how much theatrics SAAB does it has no chance3 against might of americans and new DM & PM both hate it deu to games it played in delaying MRCA deal


----------



## Skull and Bones

sathya said:


> Exactly, now we are out of platforms for own AESA. ...
> 
> Lca , jaguars- Israel
> Rafale RBE French
> Pak fa , super Sukhoi - Russian
> 
> All that left is Mig29..



Jaguars will not be equipped with AESA, there is no apparent advantage of it. Mig-29 might be a candidate for domestic AESA radars.


----------



## Grevion

GURU DUTT said:


> well upgraded bisons are coming or are roumered to be the first to be having with desi version of GaA based AESA radar and new gen combined and comcat desi avionicks suite


You mean upgrading the current fleet of bisons.
No no no no. We are retiring these vintage era interceptors and they will not be getting the upgrades you are saying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sathya

GURU DUTT said:


> well upgraded bisons are coming or are roumered to be the first to be having with desi version of GaA based AESA radar and new gen combined and comcat desi avionicks suite
> 
> as for aef sollahs well they are comming and no matter how much theatrics SAAB does it has no chance3 against might of americans and new DM & PM both hate it deu to games it played in delaying MRCA deal



AESA in mig21 ?
Space for radar & coolant

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

sathya said:


> AESA in mig21 ?
> Space for radar & coolant


well when they can have AESA based seeker heads in air to air missiles then why not Mig21 just for a study /R&D sake ?


----------



## sathya

GURU DUTT said:


> well when they can have AESA based seeker heads in air to air missiles then why not Mig21 just for a study /R&D sake ?



Yeah if they can miniaturise to that level..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

sathya said:


> Yeah if they can miniaturise to that level..


remmeber in 2000 we use to buy 18mb media card and now buy 32 GB cards of same dimenssions but 1/4th the price


----------



## sathya

GURU DUTT said:


> remmeber in 2000 we use to buy 18mb media card and now buy 32 GB cards of same dimenssions but 1/4th the price





Give me an Indian company which makes pen drive totally in India .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

sathya said:


> Give me an Indian company which makes pen drive totally in India .


they dont as far as i know but there are at least 4 in south india who are setting up infra to manufacture the complete infra to produce complete comuptere spares at cheap rates and world class quality

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sathya

GURU DUTT said:


> they dont as far as i know but there are at least 4 in south india who are setting up infra to manufacture the complete infra to produce complete comuptere spares at cheap rates and world class quality



All that make in India is facing made in China products ..

Companies don't even blink before they substitute Chinese components for more profit or to stay competitive in pricing..

My place known for textiles.. You will get cheap garments ,
Yet Chinese textiles have made in their wAy .. Yes it's textiles.

Some of the civil engineering segment industries have closed down, because some companies are making low quality cheaper products,
Neither Public is educated about quality difference, nor traders reveal it for their margins.. Finally quality companies are facing big hurdle before they succeed..
If they cannot sustain, they close down.

Government is not bothered about anything.


----------



## salarsikander

Wouldn't that create a logistical nightmare ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agent_47

salarsikander said:


> Wouldn't that create a logistical nightmare ??


True, 8 type of aircrafts by 2027. Dream come true for Imported Air Force (IAF)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## salarsikander

Agent_47 said:


> True, 8 type of aircrafts by 2027. Dream come true for Imported Air Force (IAF)


Honestly i was genuinely saddened by this new of LWF, this will kill the TEJAS program


----------



## GURU DUTT

salarsikander said:


> Honestly i was genuinely saddened by this new of LWF, this will kill the TEJAS program


why rather you should be happy as now you would have one maybe two opponents not to worry about i mean PAF has one or two less opponents to worry about if your predictions about so called LWF of IAF are right 

any way let me make it clear IAF is facing two front threat from west and east and needs a deadly mix of at least 40 squads of 4- 4.5 & 4.5+ th gen gen fighters toll 5th gen come along in this theater from 2025 onwards 

and 272 Mki 

63 Mig29+45Mig29K

52 M2K V5

126 Jags &126 bisons 

and future 

36+18 rafale and 90 made in india under MII 

and 40 MK1 and 80 MK1A + 40NLCA

cant fullfill that order so we need one more fighter platform and here comes a potential buy and TOT manufature in india of 126 F16 Blk 70/72 

which USA is ready to transfer entire overhaul and manufacturing and mantinence rigs with complete manufacturing line with tooling and all kinds of quilty control aids and training infra and all this without any so called strings attached (thats one of the reason why we did that asset sharing pact with US)

rest you can speculate yourself


----------



## salarsikander

GURU DUTT said:


> which USA is ready to transfer entire overhaul and manufacturing and mantinence rigs with complete manufacturing line with tooling and all kinds of quilty control aids and training infra and all this without any so called strings attached


@PARIKRAMA jas already share what will LM offer you in terms of TOT, so I will not in go in circles

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

salarsikander said:


> @PARIKRAMA jas already share what will LM offer you in terms of TOT, so I will not in go in circles


share it again with me looks like i missed it some how thanks in advance


----------



## salarsikander

GURU DUTT said:


> share it again with me looks like i missed it some how thanks in advance


@PARIKRAMA sorry to bother you bro, Could please share the LM TOT offers post that you had so much in detailed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Barmaley

Why not to design a new single engine 5th generation fighter instead?

There is literally zero sense to buy a new build 4th generation fighters after 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Echo_419

Barmaley said:


> Why not to design a new single engine 5th generation fighter instead?
> 
> There is literally zero sense to buy a new build 4th generation fighters after 2020.



These are just rumors


----------



## Agent_47

salarsikander said:


> Honestly i was genuinely saddened by this new of LWF, this will kill the TEJAS program


Who isn't ? Where was this requirement during last government ? Current shortage can be easily fulfilled by doubling LCA production line.

@GURU DUTT Detailed here - https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...-gripen-any-other.448850/page-11#post-8788834

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Avyator

Why the heck are we getting a second LWF when we have Tejas? This is beyond stupid, we already have a "khichdi" of so many aircraft types, why add one more? 

Only way buying F-16 makes sense is if we buy it to nullify PAF's F-16s, they'd probably need a new frontline fighter after that (not a good idea to have your enemy operating an even more advanced version of your very best aircraft).


----------



## newindiandefence

I agree with u sir .

Not need for any 4 the gen fighter except we got very low price list like 90 (5squadron) f16 or gripen or mig35 with in 5 billions.

Other wise we should dewlap our own tejas . 

And use our resorces on faith sixth gen tech +stealth ucav .


----------



## B2B

This can only be a dangling candy for some.


----------



## newindiandefence

Egypt purches 50 mig 35 in 2 billions . Russians are not so costly


----------



## migflug

*Lockheed Martin first to respond to invitation to build single-engine fighter in India*



_Saab to signal acceptance by month-end; Boeing is still undecided_

*By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 19th Oct 16
*

*On Monday, US defence giant Lockheed Martin became the first international vendor to respond to an Indian Air Force (IAF) letter*, soliciting interest in building a single-engine, medium fighter aircraft in India, with full transfer of technology.

“We sent our acceptance [to the IAF] earlier this week”, Lockheed Martin’s Randy Howard, who markets the F-16 worldwide, told Business Standard. 

Meanwhile, Swedish defence corporation, Saab, which was sent a similar invitation, is learnt to be finalising its acceptance. “We will definitely say ‘yes’; most likely by the end of this month”, says a Saab official.

As Business Standard reported (October 8, “_IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters in India_”) the IAF sent out letters last week to top global aerospace vendors, inviting them to build a single-engine fighter in India. 

Defence ministry sources confirm The Boeing Company has also been approached. Unlike Lockheed Martin and Saab, which are actively marketing single-engine fighters --- the F-16 Block 70 and the Gripen E respectively --- Boeing has no single-engine fighter to offer. Instead, it has been offering its twin-engine F/A-18 E/F.

Nor does Eurofighter, the European consortium that builds the twin-engine Typhoon, whose member firms also reportedly received the IAF inquiry.

The contours of the “single-engine fighter” contest are therefore emerging --- Lockheed Martin and Saab seem poised to be the only contenders. As this newspaper reported (August 16, “_Gripen, F-16, compete in MMRCA re-run_”), both companies had earlier submitted what IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, described as “unsolicited offers” for building single-engine fighters in India.

Now, with Lockheed Martin having responded positively to the IAF’s inquiry, Saab’s acceptance, when received, will formally kick off a multi-vendor acquisition process.

The F-16 is amongst the older fighters still in frontline service, but Lockheed Martin describes to Business Standard an attractive offer that would make India the F-16 global hub, galvanizing aerospace component fabrication in the country.

The offer involves transferring the world’s only F-16 production line from Forth Worth, Texas, to India. Thereafter, every F-16 built, and a large share of the spare parts and sub-systems for every F-16 flying across the globe would come from India.


“*Our offer is not for just building a hundred F-16s in India; or even another hundred F-16s for the export market. The real value would come from the tens of thousands of spare parts, components, sub-systems and systems that would sustain the 3,200-plus F-16s still flying in the US, and in 24 other countries*”, says Howard.

Intriguingly, that could mean spares and expendables for Pakistan’s F-16 fleet would be sourced largely from India. Lockheed Martin points out that bringing the production line to India would be “a strategic opportunity”.

*In truth, India would have little control over the F-16 components it builds for the global F-16 fleet, including Pakistan’s. Governed by a “global F-16 sustainment programme”, the components would go into a chain of US-controlled warehouses across the globe, from where user air forces would draw their requirements*.

In discussions with Lockheed Martin officials, it is evident that they are concerned by the negativity in India caused by Pakistan’s long association with the F-16. Yet the company is banking on an attractive business case to tamp down Indian reservations.

For Lockheed Martin, shifting the F-16 line to India would be a double benefit. With the F-16 ending its prodigious production run (of 4,588 F-16s ordered over the years, just 15 remain to be delivered), Lockheed Martin now wants to build the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Forth Worth.

Yet, an F-16 line is essential, since the US Air Force (USAF) plans to operate its late-model F-16s (Block 40 and Block 50 versions) for another 30 years, till 2045. Transferring the production line to India would assure Washington that its F-16s would be reliably sustained.

*Howard argues that F-16 production is not yet closed. Bahrain and other West Asian countries are negotiating purchases and there are potential buyers in former Soviet countries in NATO, Indonesia and Columbia. He holds out the possibility of building these orders in India.*

It remains unclear how much weightage cost would have in selecting a light fighter for the IAF. Lockheed Martin is confident of offering the cheapest fighter in its class, having more than amortised its production line while building over 4,500 fighters.

“Transferring the line to India will make the F-16 even cheaper. And that will bring in even more export orders”, predicts Howard, optimistically.

There is little clarity, however, on whether Washington or New Delhi would have the casting vote on foreign sales of F-16s built in India. It seems likely that both governments would have to concur on third-party, export sales.

Lockheed Martin strongly rejects the notion that the F-16, first built in the 1970s, is obsolescent. Howard points to the Block 70’s battle-proven Northrop Grumman APG-83 airborne electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, a key fighter combat system. That leverages technologies developed for the F-35’s fifth-generation AESA radar.

“Nothing in the world compares with the experience in AESA radars that Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman bring to the table”, argues Howard.

To be sure, the F-16 Block 70 is a versatile combat platform. It flies faster, climbs quicker and carries more armament than most fighters in its class. *The “conformal fuel tanks” in late-version F-16s allow long-range operations. With two additional 370-gallon drop tanks and predominantly air-to-air armament, the F-16 has a combat radius of 1,500 kilometres --- comparable to the much bigger Rafale.

With the heavier air-to-ground weaponry that the F-16 carries for strike missions, the radius of action is still an impressive 700 kilometres.*

Alongside an aggressive marketing pitch to the IAF, Lockheed Martin is also moving ahead strongly with developing vendors in India, and a supply chain that would feed into an Indian F-16 line. On November 7 and 8, a vendors’ conference is planned in Bengaluru.


*Tomorrow, Part II: Sweden’s Saab presents powerful technology transfer incentives with Gripen E*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TylerDurden07

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2016/10/saab-links-gripen-bid-with-tejas.html?m=1


----------



## N3oN

*Saab links Gripen bid with Tejas to counter F-16 production numbers
*


The contest to supply the Indian Air Force (IAF) a single-engine, medium fighter is currently playing out as a two-horse race. US giant, Lockheed Martin, is the Goliath looking to slay the David that is Swedish firm, Saab.
Lockheed Martin, which has offered to shift its F-16production line to India, is the world’s biggest defence firm, with $46.1 billion in sales last year and an order backlog of almost $100 billion. Saab, which has offered its latest fighter, the Gripen E, appears a relative minnow, with $3 billion in sales last year, and an order book of $12.9 billion.
Yet, Saab is an extraordinarily accomplished minnow. Visitors to the Swedish Air Force Museum near Saab’s aerospace facility at Linkoping, two hours by train from Stockholm, encounter an aerospace tradition that has, since 1926, kept pace with the world’s best.
The museum displays the J-29 “Flying Barrel”, the first “swept-wing” fighter after World War II; the Draken, Europe’s first supersonic fighter, which pioneered the “double delta wing”, and the Viggen, the first mainstream fighter to feature the canard – now common in high-performance fighters. India came close to buying the Viggen but Washington, which provided the engines, blocked the sale in 1978. The IAF bought the Anglo-French Jaguar instead, which still remains in service.
As Saab’s marketing team never tires of telling Indians, this excellence in defence production stemmed from Sweden’s traditional strategic independence – similar to India’s. After remaining neutral through World War II, Sweden declined to join NATO in 1949, choosing to cater for its own defence against Russia.
Responsible for its own defence, Sweden leveraged an existing scientific and engineering culture to develop an advanced aerospace and defence industry. In the late 1950s, the Swedish Air Force was the world’s fourth largest, fielding over 1,000 frontline aircraft.
Anticipating that a Soviet invasion would quickly render its airfields unusable, the Swedish Air Force insisted on light, versatile fighters that could operate from short stretches of highway, refuelling and rearming in minutes before re-joining battle.
This is the tradition that shapes the JAS-39 Gripen E, Saab’s latest and most advanced fighter that is expected to make its first flight by end-2016. Unlike Dassault’s Rafale, which endured tortuous years of wait before Egypt became its first export customer, the Gripen E has been selected by Brazil even before its first flight. In winning the Brazil tender, the Gripen E beat the Rafale, and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
In sheer aerodynamic performance, the Gripen E will probably be a match for the F-16 Block 70. While the former has still to fly, its predecessor, the Gripen D, was extensively evaluated by theIAF – mainly to its satisfaction – as part of the 2007 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender. The Gripen E, incorporating a new General Electric F-414 engine; is larger, heavier and more powerful than the Gripen D, which had an older F-404 power plant.
Even the avionics are comparable. The F-16’s Northrop Grumman APG-83 airborne electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is a proven, highly effective combat system. But theGripen E could score with more sophisticated data networks that bring together inputs from multiple sensors – such as airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), satellites and a fighter’s own AESA radar – fusing data to present a comprehensive picture of the air battle in a cockpit arrangement that is amongst the world’s most pilot-friendly.
With combat performance similar, the choice between the F-16 and Gripen E could boil down, as IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said last month, to two factors – procurement and operating cost, and technology transfer.
In procurement cost, Lockheed Martin would score by transferring a fully amortised assembly line from Forth Worth, Texas to India. Further, by creating a vendor and sub-vendor eco-system in India to sustain a global inventory of 3,200 F-16s, spares and maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) would be cheaper.

http://idrw.org/saab-links-gripen-bid-with-tejas-to-counter-f-16-production-numbers/


----------



## migflug

*Saab links Gripen bid with Tejas programme, to counter F-16 production numbers*






*By Ajai Shukla
Linkoping, Sweden
Business Standard, 21st Oct 16*

The contest to supply the Indian Air Force (IAF) a single-engine, medium fighter is currently playing out as a two-horse race. US giant, Lockheed Martin, is the Goliath looking to slay the David that is Swedish firm, Saab.

Lockheed Martin, which has offered to shift its F-16 production line to India, is the world’s biggest defence firm, with US $46.1 billion dollars in sales last year and an order backlog of almost $100 billion. Saab, which has offered its latest fighter, the Gripen E, appears a relative minnow, with $3 billion in sales last year, and an order book of $12.9 billion.

Yet, Saab is an extraordinarily accomplished minnow. Visitors to the Swedish Air Force Museum near Saab’s aerospace facility at Linkoping, two hours by train from Stockholm, encounter an aerospace tradition that has, since 1926, kept pace with the world’s best.

The museum displays the J-29 “Flying Barrel”, the first “swept-wing” fighter after World War II; the Draken, Europe’s first supersonic fighter, which pioneered the “double delta wing”, and the Viggen, the first mainstream fighter to feature the canard --- now common in high-performance fighters. India came close to buying the Viggen but Washington, which provided the engines, blocked the sale in 1978. The IAF bought the Anglo-French Jaguar instead, which still remains in service.

As Saab’s marketing team never tires of telling Indians, this excellence in defence production stemmed from Sweden’s traditional strategic independence --- similar to India’s. After remaining neutral through World War II, Sweden declined to join NATO in 1949, choosing to cater for its own defence against Russia.

Responsible for its own defence, Sweden leveraged an existing scientific and engineering culture to develop an advanced aerospace and defence industry. In the late 1950s, the Swedish Air Force was the world’s fourth largest, fielding over 1,000 frontline aircraft.

Anticipating that a Soviet invasion would quickly render its airfields unusable, the Swedish Air Force insisted on light, versatile fighters that could operate from short stretches of highway, refuelling and rearming in minutes before re-joining battle.

This is the tradition that shapes the JAS-39 Gripen E, Saab’s latest and most advanced fighter that is expected to make its first flight by end-2016. Unlike Dassault’s Rafale, which endured tortuous years of wait before Egypt became its first export customer, the Gripen E has been selected by Brazil even before its first flight. In winning the Brazil tender, the Gripen E beat the Rafale, and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

In sheer aerodynamic performance, the Gripen E will probably be a match for the F-16 Block 70. While the former has still to fly, its predecessor, the Gripen D, was extensively evaluated by the IAF --- mainly to its satisfaction --- as part of the 2007 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) tender. The Gripen E, incorporating a new General Electric F-414 engine; is larger, heavier and more powerful than the Gripen D, which had an older F-404 power plant.

*Even the avionics are comparable. The F-16’s Northrop Grumman APG-83 airborne electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is a proven, highly effective combat system. But the Gripen E could score with more sophisticated data networks that bring together inputs from multiple sensors --- such as airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), satellites and a fighter’s own AESA radar --- fusing data to present a comprehensive picture of the air battle in a cockpit arrangement that is amongst the world’s most pilot-friendly.*

With combat performance similar, the choice between the F-16 and Gripen E could boil down, as IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha said last month, to two factors --- procurement and operating cost, and technology transfer.

In procurement cost, Lockheed Martin would score by transferring a fully amortised assembly line from Forth Worth, Texas to India. Further, by creating a vendor and sub-vendor eco-system in India to sustain a global inventory of 3,200 F-16s, spares and maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) would be cheaper. Aviation analysts like IHS Jane’s 360 assess the Gripen’s “operating cost per hour” to be lower than any comparable fighter, but that advantage would be nullified by the scale of the F-16 production business.

Currently, there are less than a hundred Gripen E on order: 60 by Sweden, and 36 by Brazil. But Saab hopes more will follow, and there could also be interest in an aircraft carrier version of the fighter --- the Sea Gripen.

Saab’s strategy, therefore, hinges on a technology-based deal that Lockheed Martin simply cannot offer because of US export control laws.* Linking its offer with the development of the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Saab has offered to help the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) fast-track the Tejas Mark 1A. The four improvements required to the current Tejas — better combat radar, more lethal weapons, dedicated electronic warfare capability and better maintainability --- are well within Saab’s capabilities. Sweetening the deal, Saab has offered to partner ADA in developing India’s planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).*

New Delhi’s choices, therefore, are: on the one hand, the F-16’s lower price and the opportunity to become an industrial supplier to a 3,200-strong global F-16 fleet. On the other hand, Saab’s technology partnership, unencumbered by a restrictive export control regime, which could smoothen the induction of the LCA and AMCA.

Theoretically Washington could veto the Gripen bid, just as it had the Viggen. The Gripen E flies with US engines and other aircraft systems. Yet, that is highly unlikely, given the closeness of US-India relations, and Washington’s frequent declarations that it would like to see India’s military built up into a more powerful regional force.

Finally, Saab offers a less controversial route to a contract that could encounter political attack. In the Indian psyche, the F-16 remains strongly linked with Pakistan. Washington cleared a tranche of F-16 Block 50/52 in the last one year --- a procurement that was eventually blocked by the US Congress, through the denial of funding. The appetite of the government to buck this trend remains uncertain.

@PARIKRAMA All your words are coming true


----------



## ranadd

Let me get this straight.

2052 radar already in development with Israel
Uttam AESA is in Proto stage
Tejas already have BVR capability. Not to mention the Rafale offset linked to this.
ECW suite already developed by DARE.
Maintainability is already present by virtue of this being a Indian product.

What can Gripen bring to this?

For Kaveri project again, Rafale offset.

Reactions: Like Like:
 2


----------



## GURU DUTT

No F16 Blk 70/72 will still be selected for IAF


----------



## TylerDurden07

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/exclusive-why-pakistan-may-stop-getting-f-16-fighters-from-us-1477353
DELHI: 
*HIGHLIGHTS*

Lockheed Martin has offered to builld F-16 fighters in India
Pak won't be able to acquire India-built F-16s
India has recently bought 36 Rafale jets from France for 58,000 crores

If India were to acquire the US-designed F-16 fighter it would effectively mean that the Pakistan Air Force will not be able to acquire the latest variant of the jet that it has operated for 33 years.

That's because Lockheed Martin has proposed to the Indian government that it is willing to transfer its entire F-16 manufacturing line from Fort Worth in the US to India as part of the government's Make in India policy. In doing so, Lockheed would also aim to transfer the production of structural components of the F-16 from production facilities in Greece, Israel and Turkey in a phased approach. If new-build F-16s are eventually constructed in India, there would be no question of them being exported to Pakistan. NDTV has also learnt that Lockheed Martin would not be in a position to set up a production facility for the supply of just a handful of new-build F-16s to Pakistan.


Earlier this week, Lockheed Martin officially responded to an Indian government letter asking whether they would be able to provide the Indian Air Force with a high performance, single engine, multi-role fighter. Lockheed, which had also submitted an unsolicited bid earlier this year, has always stated that its F-16 should be the fighter of choice for the IAF despite it being the main fighter operated by its adversary, the Pakistan Air Force. 

Senior executives of Lockheed Martin have indicated to NDTV that the transfer of the F-16 production line to India would mean that India and the US will have an altogether new strategic relationship since India would become the world's largest supply base for the 3,200 F-16s being operated by 24 countries around the world. Pakistan would be unwilling to acquire a made-in-India F-16 Block 70, the latest variant of the jet being proposed for India. India would, obviously, not be willing to supply its primary adversary with a fighter jet. 
Ads by ZINC



























That said, Pakistan could, hypothetically, acquire components of its existing F-16 fighters from India if the production line were transferred here though Lockheed Martin executives point out that these spares would be stocked at company facilities outside India which would meet the requirement of any country.







Inputs from the F-16 radars and other sensors would be processed and presented through multi-function displays in the cockpit and a helmet-mounted sight worn by the pilot.

Importantly, the variant of the jet that Lockheed is offering India is far more advanced than that operated by Pakistan since it would include technology used in the latest US Air Force fighters, the F-22 and the F-35. According to Randall L. Howard, who looks after F-16 Business Development for Lockheed Martin, "leveraging the technology that we've designed and integrated on F-22 and F-35, we are reintegrating those technologies back into the F-16. We're putting state of the art mission computers, data management systems, a one Gigabyte ethernet data system and a new centre pedestal display" onto the F-16 Block 70. In simple terms this means that the F-16, if acquired by the Indian Air Force, would have unparalleled data-fusion whereby inputs from its radars and other sensors would be processed and presented to the pilot in a cogent, easy-to-understand format on multi-function displays in the cockpit and a helmet-mounted sight worn by the pilot. The pilot would be able to simultaneously detect dozens of targets and threats in the air, on the ground and out at sea depending on the terrain. 
But Lockheed Martin knows that winning a multi-billion dollar contract in India will not be easy. Swedish firm Gripen International is also responding to the Defence Ministry's letter by offering its state-of-the-art Gripen-E fighter which has recently been acquired by Brazil. Gripen’s parent company SAAB has offered to work with Hindustan Aeronautics to develop a new variant of India's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and also transfer technology for India to develop its next indigenous fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), which has a stealth design. The Gripen is also, fundamentally, a newer design than the F-16, having entered service for the first time in the late nineties as opposed to the F-16, which was developed in the seventies. 

Ironically, both the F-16 and the Gripen had been rejected by the Air Force when it shortlisted the more capable French Dassault Rafale fighter as part of its Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft tender. That tender, however, fell through, and India ultimately had to acquire just 36 Rafale fighters in an off-the-shelf purchase from France in a deal worth approximately 58,000 crores though its initial requirement was for at least 126 jets. The F-16 and the Gripen are now back in contention because the government has decided to operate different categories of fighter aircraft - the Sukhoi-30 (a heavy fighter), the Rafale (a medium weight fighter), the F-16 or Gripen (a light to medium weight fighter) and the indigenous Tejas (a light weight fighter).


----------



## denel

http://www.indiatvnews.com/business...y-shift-its-manufacturing-unit-from-us-353376

how credible is this news?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jha

Its an offer from their side. No confirmation from India. Yet to decide.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

denel said:


> http://www.indiatvnews.com/business...y-shift-its-manufacturing-unit-from-us-353376
> 
> how credible is this news?



The deal is an advance stage. The probability of the deal going through is over 80%.


----------



## AMCA

GreenFalcon said:


> Its as credible as the SirJiKal strikes....



How are you so sure its F-16's India is going for?


----------



## [Bregs]

*IAF's plan to replace ailing MiG with 'Make in India' combat aircraft heading for trouble*

*



*​
NEW DELHI: An Indian Air Forceplan to replace its MiG fighter fleet with a 'Made in India' combat aircraft is heading for trouble. As of now the choice is between two aircraft from Sweden and the US, both of which failed a comprehensive technical evaluation process in 2010. Plus, there are grumbles that other countries which have fighter jets were not called at all.

ET spoke to senior officials for this report. They did not want to be identified. An IAF spokesperson told ET he could not comment on the issue.

IAF's communication to the US and Sweden earlier this month said the force was looking for a modern, proven single-engine fighter aircraft in operational service. IAF didn't offer any details of minimum performance levels, asking only for a "4th generation fighter" — a broad qualification that also fits India's long-under-development light combat aircraft (LCA).

Industry experts, who spoke off record, said IAF's approach so far can get the force into a single vendor situation and, therefore, a recipe for slowdown in decision-making.

A single vendor situation often leads to questions over fairness in the selection process. The aim is to make a choice from a multiple vendor situation.

People familiar with the situation said since IAF's communication asked for fighters in operational service, there was little logic in restricting it to Sweden (which has Saab-manufactured Gripen) and the US (which offers Lockheed Martin's F-16).

This, said experts, is even more surprising given that Gripen and F-16 didn't make the cut after IAF held an evaluation exercise in 2010. France'sMirage 2000, no longer in production but in service, could have also met IAF's broad criteria.

Plus, before a 'Make in India' plan for fighter aircraft can start, the defence ministry will have to move ahead on its Strategic Partnership (SP) model, which will provide guidelines for private sector companies participating in major military manufacturing programmes.

Among other questions the SP model is yet to address are the issues on long-term agreements with private sector companies and the role of public sector defence units.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-heading-for-trouble/articleshow/54992034.cms

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

[Bregs] said:


> *IAF's plan to replace ailing MiG with 'Make in India' combat aircraft heading for trouble*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *​
> NEW DELHI: An Indian Air Forceplan to replace its MiG fighter fleet with a 'Made in India' combat aircraft is heading for trouble. As of now the choice is between two aircraft from Sweden and the US, both of which failed a comprehensive technical evaluation process in 2010. Plus, there are grumbles that other countries which have fighter jets were not called at all.
> 
> ET spoke to senior officials for this report. They did not want to be identified. An IAF spokesperson told ET he could not comment on the issue.
> 
> IAF's communication to the US and Sweden earlier this month said the force was looking for a modern, proven single-engine fighter aircraft in operational service. IAF didn't offer any details of minimum performance levels, asking only for a "4th generation fighter" — a broad qualification that also fits India's long-under-development light combat aircraft (LCA).
> 
> Industry experts, who spoke off record, said IAF's approach so far can get the force into a single vendor situation and, therefore, a recipe for slowdown in decision-making.
> 
> A single vendor situation often leads to questions over fairness in the selection process. The aim is to make a choice from a multiple vendor situation.
> 
> People familiar with the situation said since IAF's communication asked for fighters in operational service, there was little logic in restricting it to Sweden (which has Saab-manufactured Gripen) and the US (which offers Lockheed Martin's F-16).
> 
> This, said experts, is even more surprising given that Gripen and F-16 didn't make the cut after IAF held an evaluation exercise in 2010. France'sMirage 2000, no longer in production but in service, could have also met IAF's broad criteria.
> 
> Plus, before a 'Make in India' plan for fighter aircraft can start, the defence ministry will have to move ahead on its Strategic Partnership (SP) model, which will provide guidelines for private sector companies participating in major military manufacturing programmes.
> 
> Among other questions the SP model is yet to address are the issues on long-term agreements with private sector companies and the role of public sector defence units.
> 
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-heading-for-trouble/articleshow/54992034.cms


Sorji 100 baton ki 1 baat F16s are coming for "imported air force" or "chiria ghar air force"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Incog_nito

How much sure we should be about HAL/India making:
F-16s
F-18s
Grippens

And how many in numbers we should expect them?


----------



## Echo_419

GURU DUTT said:


> Sorji 100 baton ki 1 baat F16s are coming for "imported air force" or "chiria ghar air force"




I hope Parrikar doesn't make this mistake

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TylerDurden07

Mannu is not a good def journo . i trust Ajai ,vishnu ,vivek more


----------



## dadeechi

migflug said:


> It took 40 years for LM to produce 4500 f 16 , that's about 100+ per year. They are claiming to move entire production line for us. So no way its gonna take 17 years to produce 120 planes for biggest defence giant in the world. if every thing go well and production start in 2020 we can hope for 2026- 2030.



Production for F-16s in India would start earlier than 2020. The main delay is from India. LM is slated to start F-35 production full steam in 2019. Expect F-16 Indian line in 2018.



salarsikander said:


> Wouldn't that create a logistical nightmare ??



Logistics nightmare is an unfounded concern.

IAF has procured and maintained the following in the recent past

SU-30MKI - 300
MIG-29 - 70
Mirage 2K - 40
MIG-21 - 250
Jaguar - 145
MIG -27 - 120

Now by 2025, IAF would have

Super Sukhois - 300
RAFALEs -126
F-16s -200

MIG-29 & Mirage 2K would be getting ready for retirement by 2030 and India would start procuring FGFA and Gripen (LCA Tejas MK2) from 2024



Echo_419 said:


> These are just rumors



These are not rumors. We will see a F-16 Indian line by 2018.



Oxair Online said:


> How much sure we should be about HAL/India making:
> F-16s
> F-18s
> Grippens
> 
> And how many in numbers we should expect them?



200+ F-16s
No F-18s
Gripen would be a JV to replace LCA MK2.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Skull and Bones

Oxair Online said:


> How much sure we should be about HAL/India making:
> F-16s
> F-18s
> Grippens
> 
> And how many in numbers we should expect them?



No more responsibilities will be given to HAL, the recent deal for the offset between Dassault and Reliance is a clear indication for that. Because of HAL, the Rafale deal was backtracked and delayed for over 2 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hephaestus

dadeechi said:


> Production for F-16s in India would start earlier than 2020. The main delay is from India. LM is slated to start F-35 production full steam in 2019. Expect F-16 Indian line in 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics nightmare is an unfounded concern.
> 
> IAF has procured and maintained the following in the recent past
> 
> SU-30MKI - 300
> MIG-29 - 70
> Mirage 2K - 40
> MIG-21 - 250
> Jaguar - 145
> MIG -27 - 120
> 
> Now by 2025, IAF would have
> 
> Super Sukhois - 300
> RAFALEs -126
> F-16s -200
> 
> MIG-29 & Mirage 2K would be getting ready for retirement by 2030 and India would start procuring FGFA and Gripen (LCA Tejas MK2) from 2024
> 
> 
> 
> These are not rumors. We will see a F-16 Indian line by 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> 200+ F-16s
> No F-18s
> Gripen would be a JV to replace LCA MK2.


So, why this farce. 
Just select F-16. And announce a tripartite JV between SAAB, HAL & A private firm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

Hephaestus said:


> So, why this farce.
> Just select F-16. And announce a tripartite JV between SAAB, HAL & A private firm.



Only competition ensures that you get the right deal (price and ToT). Remember India got Safran deal for Kaveri as the result of competition from other MMRCA vendors.

A year ago, when I broke this news of India procuring all three fighters - RAFALEs, F16s and Gripen., people could not believe.

People said that there is an outside chance of F-18s making it and F-16s have no chance.

F-16 would provide the immediate numbers that IAF requires at a very rapid pace.

Gripen would bring in the Manufacturing Tech (primarily quality) that is hampering the Tejas program. This would take time and would be available only after 2024. By 2024 India would also be moving to 5th gen fighters with it's FGFA. Hence it make sense to include the 5th generation features into the program.

Indian needs a matured Engine and Fighter manufacturing base from Indian private industry players for AMCA to succeed.

Tejas has played it's role and it is time to take it to the 5th gen level in the next 8 years.


----------



## Hephaestus

dadeechi said:


> A year ago, when I broke this news of India procuring all three fighters - RAFALEs, F16s and Gripen., people could not believe.


I didn't either. 

So, accordingly what will the IAF fleet look like around circa 2025. I'm a little confused now.



dadeechi said:


> Gripen would bring in the Manufacturing Tech (primarily quality) that is hampering the Tejas program. This would take time and would be available only after 2024.


How will this work out. Is SAAB going to tinker Tejas & mk1a or mk2 be gripens badged as Tejas? Personally I think this is a not such a bad idea.


----------



## Skull and Bones

Where does it put Rafale MII?


----------



## dadeechi

Skull and Bones said:


> Where does it put Rafale MII?





Hephaestus said:


> I didn't either.
> 
> So, accordingly what will the IAF fleet look like around circa 2025. I'm a little confused now.
> 
> 
> How will this work out. Is SAAB going to tinker Tejas & mk1a or mk2 be gripens badged as Tejas? Personally I think this is a not such a bad idea.



RAFALE MII would still happen.

By 2025, IAF would have

Super Sukhois - 300
RAFALEs -126
F-16s -200

MIG-29 & Mirage 2K would be getting ready for retirement by 2030 and India would start procuring FGFA and Gripen (LCA Tejas MK2) from 2024

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-india-fighter-jet-musings-news-developments-updates-f16-f18-gripen-any-other.448850/page-19#ixzz4Ns3MGTmt

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hephaestus

dadeechi said:


> Super Sukhois - 300


What is the proposed timeline for the upgrade. What kind of upgrades are we looking at?



dadeechi said:


> RAFALEs -126



Thank heavens. I seriously hope they don't stop at 54.



dadeechi said:


> MIG-29


How does that affect or alter IN requirements. What kind of fighters are we going for our carriers post 2030. I would like the Rafale-N. But, then we are bound to please a few great powers. So, it could be the f-35c also.



dadeechi said:


> F-16s -200


Would this automatically mean that we will acquire the F-35 in future as well.

Sorry, for so many questions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

Hephaestus said:


> What is the proposed timeline for the upgrade. What kind of upgrades are we looking at?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank heavens. I seriously hope they don't stop at 54.
> 
> 
> How does that affect or alter IN requirements. What kind of fighters are we going for our carriers post 2030. I would like the Rafale-N. But, then we are bound to please a few great powers. So, it could be the f-35c also.
> 
> 
> Would this automatically mean that we will acquire the F-35 in future as well.
> 
> Sorry, for so many questions.




SU-30s would eventually be replaced by FGFA.

No major structural changes are being planned. Focus is on

1) Improving reliability and serviceability of the current AL-31FP engines by upgrading them to AL-41FIS engines sported on SU-35s

2) Replace N011M BARS PESA radar with N036 Byelka AESA to be sported on PAK-FA

3) Upgrade avionics


The MIG-29 that I was alluding to are the IAF's MiG-29UPGs not the MIG-29Ks being used by Indian navy. Both F-35Cs and RAFALE-N are an option depending on the aircraft carrier.

Yes LM is pitching for F-35s as follow on to F-16 Order. This may depend on the deal that would be offered and the state of FGFA program. This is a decision that needs to be made a decade from now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PlugnPlay

Hephaestus said:


> Thank heavens. I seriously hope they don't stop at 54.



For now they have stopped at *36.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Echo_419

dadeechi said:


> Production for F-16s in India would start earlier than 2020. The main delay is from India. LM is slated to start F-35 production full steam in 2019. Expect F-16 Indian line in 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics nightmare is an unfounded concern.
> 
> IAF has procured and maintained the following in the recent past
> 
> SU-30MKI - 300
> MIG-29 - 70
> Mirage 2K - 40
> MIG-21 - 250
> Jaguar - 145
> MIG -27 - 120
> 
> Now by 2025, IAF would have
> 
> Super Sukhois - 300
> RAFALEs -126
> F-16s -200
> 
> MIG-29 & Mirage 2K would be getting ready for retirement by 2030 and India would start procuring FGFA and Gripen (LCA Tejas MK2) from 2024
> 
> 
> 
> These are not rumors. We will see a F-16 Indian line by 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> 200+ F-16s
> No F-18s
> Gripen would be a JV to replace LCA MK2.



If this true then we are doomed & Parkiar is an idiot


----------



## PlugnPlay

Echo_419 said:


> If this true then we are doomed & Parkiar is an idiot



i heard he got into IIT by "quota" and passed exams by copying.


----------



## Echo_419

PlugnPlay said:


> i heard he got into IIT by "quota" and passed exams by copying.



He is not pushing indigenous products hard enough


----------



## dadeechi

Echo_419 said:


> He is not pushing indigenous products hard enough



DM tried his best and pushed IAF to accept MK1. It is HAL which is not pulling up the socks and delivering the goods.



PlugnPlay said:


> For now they have stopped at *36.*



True but RAFALEs do not replace MIG-21, Jagaurs. F-16s would be replacing them.

The RAFALE MII deal would pick up speed after F-16 & Super Sukhoi deals are done.

India needs to prioritize the financing.


----------



## PlugnPlay

Echo_419 said:


> He is not pushing indigenous products hard enough



That is not his job. His job is to push India and the entire Indian Defence establishment.


----------



## Echo_419

PlugnPlay said:


> That is not his job. His job is to push India and the entire Indian Defence establishment.



Do you want to retain the tag of the world's largest "arms importer"?


----------



## PlugnPlay

Echo_419 said:


> Do you want to retain the tag of the world's largest "arms importer"?



Its not in my hands or parrikar's hand. The LCA suffered uninspired leadership during the UPA time and that is 10 years lost that cannot be claimed back. 

Wishful thinking is not reality. 

Without the FOC, its too late for India to buy more Tejas to replace the Mig 21. The only alternative is foreign MII till the LCA program is brought back to track again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Echo_419

PlugnPlay said:


> Its not in my hands or parrikar's hand. The LCA suffered uninspired leadership during the UPA time and that is 10 years lost that cannot be claimed back.
> 
> Wishful thinking is not reality.
> 
> Without the FOC, its too late for India to buy more Tejas to replace the Mig 21. The only alternative is foreign MII till the LCA program is brought back to track again.



HAL is a govt company, what is stopping him to force HAL to accelerate the production by outsourcing it to Pvt players


----------



## PlugnPlay

Echo_419 said:


> HAL is a govt company, what is stopping him to force HAL to accelerate the production by outsourcing it to Pvt players



1. Lack of Incentive due to low customer interest. 
2. Lack of FOC clearance by Design agency

If its so great, why don't the private player jump in and promise to produce it for IAF ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

Skull and Bones said:


> No more responsibilities will be given to HAL, the recent deal for the offset between Dassault and Reliance is a clear indication for that. Because of HAL, the Rafale deal was backtracked and delayed for over 2 years.


Reliance what they are doing?



dadeechi said:


> Production for F-16s in India would start earlier than 2020. The main delay is from India. LM is slated to start F-35 production full steam in 2019. Expect F-16 Indian line in 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics nightmare is an unfounded concern.
> 
> IAF has procured and maintained the following in the recent past
> 
> SU-30MKI - 300
> MIG-29 - 70
> Mirage 2K - 40
> MIG-21 - 250
> Jaguar - 145
> MIG -27 - 120
> 
> Now by 2025, IAF would have
> 
> Super Sukhois - 300
> RAFALEs -126
> F-16s -200
> 
> MIG-29 & Mirage 2K would be getting ready for retirement by 2030 and India would start procuring FGFA and Gripen (LCA Tejas MK2) from 2024
> 
> 
> 
> These are not rumors. We will see a F-16 Indian line by 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> 200+ F-16s
> No F-18s
> Gripen would be a JV to replace LCA MK2.



So no more LCA program? 200+ F-16s sounds good to me but I am sure F-18s will be there as INs new carrier might have catapult launch systems in it. May be Americans might impress IAF with F-15SE capability too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skull and Bones

Oxair Online said:


> Reliance what they are doing?



They will be responsible for the offset deal for maintenance of Rafales along with Dassault. Eventually Reliance will take over the responsibility of manufacturing/assembling/maintenance Rafales. 

FYI, Reliance is also getting the contract for S-400 missiles manufacturing in India.



Oxair Online said:


> So no more LCA program? 200+ F-16s sounds good to me but I am sure F-18s will be there as INs new carrier might have catapult launch systems in it. May be Americans might impress IAF with F-15SE capability too.



There will be LCA, but not as a frontline fighter, but as a frontline interceptor, and light multirole.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dadeechi

Oxair Online said:


> So no more LCA program? 200+ F-16s sounds good to me but I am sure F-18s will be there as INs new carrier might have catapult launch systems in it. May be Americans might impress IAF with F-15SE capability too.



It would be F-35Cs, RAFALE-N and MIG-29Ks for Indian Navy.

No F-18s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Incog_nito

I also have a doubt that IAF might not go for F-16s and May choose some other fighter like Grippen.

Then it will be a clear chance for PAF to get their remaining 12 F-16s and also to order 32 new Block-52s.

I am sure PAF is working on getting 45 Jordanian F-16s and these 45+16 previously inducted machines might go through V-upgrade program in Turkey.


----------



## dadeechi

Agent_47 said:


> Get a grip dude, 200 F-16s! That too by 2024?
> Stop living in parallel universe and when making assumptions quote official sources.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/dassault-rafale-tender-news-discussions-thread-2.230070/page-407#ixzz4O3QOAfWr

Well LM's Texas plant had a peak production of one F-16 fighter per day.

The last F-16s would rollout of the LM's TX plant in OCT-2017 and the LM's TX plant plans to focus on F-35 production starting 2019.

The TX production line would be moved to India in 2018. That gives 6 years to produce 200 fighters which is easily achievable for LM.


----------



## Hephaestus

Has @PARIKRAMA left the forum?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dadeechi

Hephaestus said:


> Has @PARIKRAMA left the forum?



He has been named and shamed...Check this link

https://defence.pk/threads/has-pdf-become-dumping-ground-for-indian-trash.456254/page-5#post-8820041


----------



## Hephaestus

dadeechi said:


> He has been named and shamed...Check this link
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/has-pdf-become-dumping-ground-for-indian-trash.456254/page-5#post-8820041


 WTF happened. Ironically, I was banned at that time. I read through the thread. Didn't quite catch the purport?
Care to explain?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

Hephaestus said:


> WTF happened. Ironically, I was banned at that time. I read through the thread. Didn't quite catch the purport?
> Care to explain?



I do not know the full story as I am on PDF only and not on any other forum.

Apparently many Pakistani members here on PDF were unhappy about they not being allowed to counter the Indian narrative on Indian forums and wanted to restrict the Indian narrative here on PDF to ensure PDF supports Pakistani narrative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hephaestus

dadeechi said:


> I do not know the full story as I am on PDF only and not on any other forum.
> 
> Apparently many Pakistani members here on PDF were unhappy about they not being allowed to counter the Indian narrative on Indian forums and wanted to restrict the Indian narrative here on PDF to ensure PDF supports Pakistani narrative.


oh ok. i'm not on any other forum as well. will try to get into those. thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

Hephaestus said:


> oh ok. i'm not on any other forum as well. will try to get into those. thanks



One of the accusation was that @PARIKRAMA and some other Indian members had requested Indians on the Indian forums to join PDF to hijack PDF. Hence the Pakistani members here argued that Indian members need to be restricted on PDF to prevent Indians from hijacking PDF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hephaestus

dadeechi said:


> One of the accusation was that @PARIKRAMA and some other Indian members had requested Indians on the Indian forums to join PDF to hijack PDF. Hence the Pakistani members here argued that Indian members need to be restricted on PDF to prevent Indians from hijacking PDF.


That's kinda lame. @PARIKRAMA was a senior member. I find this charge absolutely ludicrous. But, then again. PDF's loss. DefenceFI & AMF's gain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PlugnPlay

dadeechi said:


> He has been named and shamed...Check this link
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/has-pdf-become-dumping-ground-for-indian-trash.456254/page-5#post-8820041



The irony is SWEEETTTT  

@PARIKRAMA used to be in the fore front of snitching on fellow Indians to pakistani moderators and seeking a Ban on members. He actually used to take pride in being a snitch. 

I cannot thank you enough for pointing me to that thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## migflug

*It may be a while before Govt’s plan to build fighter jets in India takes off*
NAYANIMA BASU











Local manufacturing hinges on proposal to make the country an export hub

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 25: 


The government’s plan to manufacture single-engine fighters in the country is likely to face delays even though the Defence Ministry has notified request for information (RFI) from three firms to participate in the programme under the ‘Make in India’ initiative.

*US aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Sweden’s SAAB have approached the government as a response to the RFI with their “unsolicited proposals” that have apparently failed to “impress” the Defence Ministry, a senior official told BusinessLine.*

This is because, even though these companies have enumerated their plans to manufacture these jets under the ‘Make in India’ programme,* the Ministry is keen on plans to transform India into an export hub for these jets, the official said.*

Once the RFI is issued, the government floats Request for Proposals (RFPs) to shortlist the competing firms, according to norms._ However, the government is learnt to be taking one step at a time in selecting the firm that will finally be chosen to manufacture the fighter jets here._

“*The RFP will take time to be issued. A lot of factors need to be ascertained here apart from Make in India, logistics and infrastructure. The issue here is that once the armed forces buy these, what thereafter? Hence, export is a big factor, and indigenisation will play a crucial part in it,*” the official said.

_Boeing has already offered to manufacture their F/A-18 Super Hornet here with full transfer of technology (ToT) to their Indian joint venture partners. Lockheed Martin has gone a step ahead and said it will develop a warplane F-16 Block 70 exclusively for the Indian market_. The US government is also aggressively pushing for these two under the US-India Defence Trade and Technology Initiative.

On the other side, S_wedish SAAB has said it will build an entire industrial ecosystem in India under ‘Make in India’ for the Gripen E. Talks on selling the Gripen E were held during the visit of Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven to India in February._

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha had earlier said that the proposals from these three firms had been received by the government but nothing had been decided. “An early decision on indigenous ‘Make in India’ fighter aircraft project will greatly enhance our operational capability in the near term,” he had said during the Air Force Day earlier this month.

The Defence Ministry plans to replace the ageing MiG-21s with these fighter jets. Last month, India had finalised a $8.7-billion deal to procure 36 French Rafale warplanes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abc123xyx

cost cost cost...
both f16 70 block and the gripen E going to cost 100_110ml$....

almost same as the rafale which cost us 105 m$.
so on cost front itself both f16 & gripen are not going to make in india...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

O.P.D said:


> cost cost cost...
> both f16 70 block and the gripen E going to cost 100_110ml$....
> 
> almost same as the rafale which cost us 105 m$.
> so on cost front itself both f16 & gripen are not going to make in india...



F-16 deal is a political deal while SAAB deal is to get ToT for Tejas which LM & Dassault are unwilling to share and partner with

Hence India is planning to procure all of them - RAFALEs, F-16s & Gripens



PlugnPlay said:


> The irony is SWEEETTTT
> 
> @PARIKRAMA used to be in the fore front of snitching on fellow Indians to pakistani moderators and seeking a Ban on members. He actually used to take pride in being a snitch.
> 
> I cannot thank you enough for pointing me to that thread.




I know you are referring to the below thread but I think @PARIKRAMA was doing Raj dharma.

https://defence.pk/threads/india-us...duled-to-help-deal.446209/page-4#post-8628819

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abc123xyx

migflug said:


> “*The RFP will take time to be issued. A lot of factors need to be ascertained here apart from Make in India, logistics and infrastructure. The issue here is that once the armed forces buy these, what thereafter? Hence, export is a big factor, and indigenisation will play a crucial part in it,*” the official said.


no nato country going to buy f16 any more.
only the mig35 makes sence which we can export to the third world .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TimePass

dadeechi said:


> I know you are referring to the below thread but I think @PARIKRAMA was doing Raj dharma.
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/india-us...duled-to-help-deal.446209/page-4#post-8628819



Have you seen the movie Laagan ? tell me who is the 'Raja' here. The clown wearing the head gear or the actual white guy who holds real power ? No fancy head gear or even a fancy title. A solider boy who makes the 'raja' dance to his tunes. 






Raj dharma is for Raja's not slaves who think they are Raja's. Those are called Snitches.

Parikrama just got a reality check and by the looks of it, he just could not handle the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sathya

TimePass said:


> Have you seen the movie Laagan ? tell me who is the 'Raja' here. The clown wearing the head gear or the actual white guy who holds real power ? No fancy head gear or even a fancy title. A solider boy who makes the 'raja' dance to his tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raj dharma is for Raja's not slaves who think they are Raja's. Those are called Snitches.
> 
> Parikrama just got a reality check and by the looks of it, he just could not handle the reality.




Dude , 

There are instances where members themselves offered to delete their duplicate accounts which were created without knowing the rules.

Once I was banned for some silly reason for a month.. In2008,
I opened a new account in the same name.. 
My first ban got revoked in few days, but then my old account got deleted because of two accounts.



PlugnPlay said:


> The irony is SWEEETTTT
> 
> @PARIKRAMA used to be in the fore front of snitching on fellow Indians to pakistani moderators and seeking a Ban on members. He actually used to take pride in being a snitch.
> 
> I cannot thank you enough for pointing me to that thread.




You want to report something.. Whom will you. Report ?
Parikrama cannot himself ban or delete some ones account.
Even if he has to help you , he has to " snitch " you.


----------



## TimePass

sathya said:


> Dude ,
> 
> There are instances where members themselves offered to delete their duplicate accounts which were created without knowing the rules.
> 
> Once I was banned for some silly reason for a month.. In2008,
> I opened a new account in the same name..
> My first ban got revoked in few days, but then my old account got deleted because of two accounts.
> 
> You want to report something.. Whom will you. Report ?
> Parikrama cannot himself ban or delete some ones account.
> Even if he has to help you , he has to " snitch " you.



Are you for real ? 

You help someone IF and WHEN THEY ASK for help. 

But when you rat on other Indians, you are a SNITCH. There is no two ways about it and there is no way one can spin it by claiming 'raj dharma' or 'helping hand' or 'bleeding heart'. 

The very fact that you would even attempt to spin something like this is pathetic.


----------



## Indiran Chandiran

TimePass said:


> Are you for real ?
> 
> You help someone IF and WHEN THEY ASK for help.
> 
> But when you rat on other Indians, you are a SNITCH. There is no two ways about it and there is no way one can spin it by claiming 'raj dharma' or 'helping hand' or 'bleeding heart'.
> 
> The very fact that you would even attempt to spin something like this is pathetic.



I think you are taking this portal way too seriously .It's just a platform to interact , share, learn & debate.Granted , there are a lot of things wrong here with the way it's run to the partisanship displayed , etc.But let's not forget that this platform is run by citizens of a nation inimical to us.For those who aren't comfortable , they can always exercise their exit option .

Let's see things for what they are & not give undue importance to it.

Having said that , if @PARIKRAMA has decided to withdraw himself from PDF , it's this forum's loss.I've personally always read what he wrote with great interest & benefited from it .My interactions with him were always cordial & he came across as a genial , affable chap.I don't think anyone would disagree with my reading of him .Wish him all the best & hope to run into him on other portals .After all , PDF isn't the only portal in the business you know.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Ali Zadi

For what it matters @PARIKRAMA was a fountain of information specially concerning the Rafale case, his loss does not mean that this information is lost but simple that it will now take time to trickle down and in effect make our discussions less prompt and quick.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dadeechi

TimePass said:


> Have you seen the movie Laagan ? tell me who is the 'Raja' here. The clown wearing the head gear or the actual white guy who holds real power ? No fancy head gear or even a fancy title. A solider boy who makes the 'raja' dance to his tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raj dharma is for Raja's not slaves who think they are Raja's. Those are called Snitches.
> 
> Parikrama just got a reality check and by the looks of it, he just could not handle the reality.




Well you are correct that @PARIKRAMA may not be the Raja but he held a title on this forum which may have come with some rights and responsibilities. That is the reason why used the word Raj Dharma.

Even in you picture, the white guy is not the Raja. The Raja (or Rani) is the Queen. If we talk about conspiracy theories The Raja could be illuminates or the Bankers or even Aliens. But there are rights & responsibilities at each level.

The princes of princely states accepted the title under British hence took the responsibility of collecting taxes on behalf of the British while they retained the right to continue to rule their subjects.


----------



## dadeechi

*India could shell out $12 billion for new fighter jets*
by Rishi Iyengar @CNNMoneyInvest October 26, 2016: 4:14 AM ET




Lockheed Martin has offered to move global manufacturing for its F-16 jet to India
*India needs new fighter jets, and the world's leading manufacturers are lining up to provide them.*
The South Asian nation's government has sent letters to several companies regarding a new fleet of military aircraft, to be jointly produced with local firms. A potential deal, according to experts, could be worth up to $12 billion.

"India is looking at paying $65 to $80 million per aircraft for 150 aircraft," says Ben Moores, a defense and aviation analyst at IHS Jane's. The country faces an elevated sticker price for the fighters because government rules require most of the manufacturing to take place in India.


The requirement, which is part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "Make in India" initiative, is believed to have been a roadblock in India's most recent military aircraft deal with France.

That deal, which originally called for French company Dassault to supply the Indian air force with 126 Rafale fighters, underwent lengthy negotiations due to disputes over the local production clause.

Under the final terms of the sale agreed by India and France last month, India will only get 36 jets.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/25/investing/india-fighter-jets-lockheed-saab/


----------



## abc123xyx

they want a advance fighter.
they want to make it in india.
they want it to export.
they want it to be cheap.
*
arrey bhai ye fighter aircraft hai koi celario nahi hai !!*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TimePass

Indiran Chandiran said:


> I think you are taking this portal way too seriously .It's just a platform to interact , share, learn & debate.Granted , there are a lot of things wrong here with the way it's run to the partisanship displayed , etc.But let's not forget that this platform is run by citizens of a nation inimical to us.For those who aren't comfortable , they can always exercise their exit option .
> 
> Let's see things for what they are & not give undue importance to it.
> 
> Having said that , if @PARIKRAMA has decided to withdraw himself from PDF , it's this forum's loss.I've personally always read what he wrote with great interest & benefited from it .My interactions with him were always cordial & he came across as a genial , affable chap.I don't think anyone would disagree with my reading of him .Wish him all the best & hope to run into him on other portals .After all , PDF isn't the only portal in the business you know.



This portal is one with established links with ISI. (this was long ago proved in BR)

So no, I do not take this portal seriously. But I do take its propaganda seriously. 

I welcome any action that weaken this forum and make it irrelevant. So if a Snitch who was also a good informer withdraws from PDF then I celebrate it.



dadeechi said:


> Well you are correct that @PARIKRAMA may not be the Raja but he held a title on this forum which may have come with some rights and responsibilities. That is the reason why used the word Raj Dharma.
> 
> Even in you picture, the white guy is not the Raja. The Raja (or Rani) is the Queen. If we talk about conspiracy theories The Raja could be illuminates or the Bankers or even Aliens. But there are rights & responsibilities at each level.
> 
> The princes of princely states accepted the title under British hence took the responsibility of collecting taxes on behalf of the British while they retained the right to continue to rule their subjects.



LOL...That white british guy was no 'conspiracy', its HISTORY. 

Do you know how Snitches are made in jail ? they are given privileges so that they can make personal profit in exchange for betraying fellow prisoners to the people with real power. 


Why else would the Snitches do what they do ? They always do it for power, fame, money or recognition. 

These low life always choose personal profit or gain over any Real empowerment of their fellow brothers. 

That 'Raja' in the picture worked as a oppressor for the british so that he could personally enjoy the privileges of being a snitch. 


SO if you are going to wax eloquence on the 'roles and responsibility' of a Snitch, .......this is my response...........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sathya

TimePass said:


> This portal is one with established links with ISI. (this was long ago proved in BR)
> 
> So no, I do not take this portal seriously. But I do take its propaganda seriously.
> 
> I welcome any action that weaken this forum and make it irrelevant. So if a Snitch who was also a good informer withdraws from PDF then I celebrate it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...That white british guy was no 'conspiracy', its HISTORY.
> 
> Do you know how Snitches are made in jail ? they are given privileges so that they can make personal profit in exchange for betraying fellow prisoners to the people with real power.
> 
> 
> Why else would the Snitches do what they do ? They always do it for power, fame, money or recognition.
> 
> These low life always choose personal profit or gain over any Real empowerment of their fellow brothers.
> 
> That 'Raja' in the picture worked as a oppressor for the british so that he could personally enjoy the privileges of being a snitch.
> 
> 
> SO if you are going to wax eloquence on the 'roles and responsibility' of a Snitch, .......this is my response...........



Well he is going to share information in other forum, where everyone can read.
I wish someone grant you a moderator title for some time and let's see how you go about it.


----------



## TimePass

sathya said:


> Well he is going to share information in other forum, where everyone can read.
> I wish someone grant you a moderator title for some time and let's see how you go about it.



Its laughable to think that I would ever accept such a role in pdf.


----------



## hembo

There goes this nice thread down the drain.. without snitches... and inclusion few newbie morons..

That's why we need snitches rather then morons...


----------



## TimePass

hembo said:


> There goes this nice thread down the drain.. without snitches... and inclusion few newbie morons..
> 
> That's why we need snitches rather then morons...



Good luck with that.


----------



## jha

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/791670299909431296

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

O.P.D said:


> they want a advance fighter.
> they want to make it in india.
> they want it to export.
> they want it to be cheap.
> *
> arrey bhai ye fighter aircraft hai koi celario nahi hai !!*


the best way is to end the engeneering of the Tejas, with a SAFRAN modified Kaveri.
The only main component non indian made in a foresable future will be the radar : Take an israeli one.

in this case : 
advance fighter : hummm..... i say a rustic one, but it's a quality for a low end fighter.
make in India : OK
export licence: OK
cheap : OK

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Agent_47

BON PLAN said:


> the best way is to end the engeneering of the Tejas, with a SAFRAN modified Kaveri.
> The only main component non indian made in a foresable future will be the radar : Take an israeli one.
> 
> in this case :
> advance fighter : hummm..... i say a rustic one, but it's a quality for a low end fighter.
> make in India : OK
> export licence: OK
> cheap : OK


If there is some AESA tech sharing agreed from Thales. Then its safe to assume Indian radar on later versions of LCA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dadeechi

*Cross Posting*:


BJP did the following to facilitate the F-16 deal

1) Agree to sign CISMOA & BECA agreements

2) Changed DPP to allow 100% FDI under MII

3) Cancel MMRCA RFP to allow F-16s to make a comeback 

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/with-wink-and-a-handshake-india-russia-agrees-to-double-brahmos-range-on-existing-inventory.458260/page-2#ixzz4ONbiym9c


----------



## TimePass

dadeechi said:


> *Cross Posting*:
> 
> 
> BJP did the following to facilitate the F-16 deal
> 
> 1) Agree to sign CISMOA & BECA agreements
> 
> 2) Changed DPP to allow 100% FDI under MII
> 
> 3) Cancel MMRCA RFP to allow F-16s to make a comeback
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/with-wink-and-a-handshake-india-russia-agrees-to-double-brahmos-range-on-existing-inventory.458260/page-2#ixzz4ONbiym9c



In ten years the J31 will by flying with pakistan. And J20 with China. 

So it does not make sense for India to buy Non stealth aircrafts in large numbers anymore. 

We will already have Su 30MKI,upgraded Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Mig 29, LCA and Rafale. What is the point of purchasing more non stealth aircraft's ? 


AMCA is the need of the hour. Not F16 or Grippen E.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Insane

Posting after a long long time.. But I read the forum everyday.

Just one question - Where is PARIKRAMA ?? Did he leave the forum or was he banned ?


----------



## dadeechi

TimePass said:


> In ten years the J31 will by flying with pakistan. And J20 with China.
> 
> So it does not make sense for India to buy Non stealth aircrafts in large numbers anymore.
> 
> We will already have Su 30MKI,upgraded Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Mig 29, LCA and Rafale. What is the point of purchasing more non stealth aircraft's ?
> 
> 
> AMCA is the need of the hour. Not F16 or Grippen E.



Unfortunately, AMCA would not see the light until 2035-2040.

India would need ToT from RAFALE, FGFA & Gripen deals before AMCA could kick start.


----------



## abc123xyx

dadeechi said:


> Unfortunately, AMCA would not see the light until 2035-2040.
> 
> India would need ToT from RAFALE, FGFA & Gripen deals before AMCA could kick start.



all india need is a engine for AMCA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

O.P.D said:


> all india need is a engine for AMCA.



AESA, Avionics, Manufacturing tech...

India needs to transition from PSUs to Private MICs before AMCA takeoff.

BJP government has a sound plan for that.


----------



## newindiandefence

TimePass said:


> In ten years the J31 will by flying with pakistan. And J20 with China.
> 
> So it does not make sense for India to buy Non stealth aircrafts in large numbers anymore.
> 
> We will already have Su 30MKI,upgraded Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Mig 29, LCA and Rafale. What is the point of purchasing more non stealth aircraft's ?
> 
> 
> AMCA is the need of the hour. Not F16 or Grippen E.


 Actually India wanted to buy 126 rafale and cost could be around 25-27 billion $
. but DM mp divided the cost .

If we go for rafale we get 126 rafale 

Now 
9 billion for 36 rafale
7 billion for 270 super sukhoi 
13 billion for other 200 jets .

So by this we will get 500 4.5+ gen fighter in SAME COST. 

And other projects fgfa/amca will run in there line also they will be not efected by this purchase .


----------



## TimePass

newindiandefence said:


> Actually India wanted to buy 126 rafale and cost could be around 25-27 billion $
> . but DM mp divided the cost .
> 
> If we go for rafale we get 126 rafale
> 
> Now
> 9 billion for 36 rafale
> 7 billion for 270 super sukhoi
> 13 billion for other 200 jets .
> 
> So by this we will get 500 4.5+ gen fighter in SAME COST.
> 
> And other projects fgfa/amca will run in there line also they will be not efected by this purchase .



MMRCA negotiation broke down because the French wanted to share screwdriver technology and pretend that is "offset". THAT is why we are limiting the buy to 36 Rafale. 

So what we want is not as relevant as what is available. 

Reality is its cheaper and more practical to spend 1-10 Billion in India and put the AMCA on Fast Track rather than expect any serious MII from F-16. 

The short fall should be made up by Tejas / LCA mk1A - Mk2. 

Grippen -E engine is from the US so it cannot provide MII even if it wants to. Best is to make them partners in the AMCA program.


----------



## Ryuzaki

O.P.D said:


> all india need is a engine for AMCA.



No,India also needs an evironment for aerospace engineering where Tier2 and Tier-3 suppliers would supply to an integrator(HAL and LM) and thus speed up the assemling of planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indiran Chandiran

A bit off topic but not irrelevant to this thread.Even after @PARIKRAMA & @Abingdonboy among many other users out here have through their various sources & postd quite convincingly proved why this MII between GoI & GoF DA - Reliance Rafale deal will not be restricted to 36 or even 54 A/c , we still see posts asking for curtailment of the Rafale to a mere 36 A/c citing lack of funds & the high price tag , arguing for a diversion of funds to the AMCA programme .

Issues - Assuming that the AMCA programme is for a 5 th gen fighter A/c , have we identified what are the core technologies that we need to develop in mission mode in house or seek collaborations for in order to render this programme a time bound & a successful one & how far have we reached ?

And if we haven't , why haven't we ?

Answer - There aren't any on going programmes .As of now the AMCA is still on the drawing board in the conceptual stage.There aren't any proposals to go in for wind tunnel tests too for validation of design.

The various core technologies to be developed have been identified & work hasn't progressed beyond that .All this isn't for want of funds but due to a lack of depth / maturity in our technological prowess of our various state , semi state & quasi state R&D organisations apart from project mismanagement so evident in the Tejas programme .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## R&D

Indiran Chandiran said:


> A bit off topic but not irrelevant to this thread.Even after @PARIKRAMA & @Abingdonboy among many other users out here have through their various sources & postd quite convincingly proved why this MII between GoI & GoF DA - Reliance Rafale deal will not be restricted to 36 or even 54 A/c , we still see posts asking for curtailment of the Rafale to a mere 36 A/c citing lack of funds & the high price tag , arguing for a diversion of funds to the AMCA programme .
> 
> Issues - Assuming that the AMCA programme is for a 5 th gen fighter A/c , have we identified what are the core technologies that we need to develop in mission mode in house or seek collaborations for in order to render this programme a time bound & a successful one & how far have we reached ?
> 
> And if we haven't , why haven't we ?
> 
> Answer - There aren't any on going programmes .As of now the AMCA is still on the drawing board in the conceptual stage.There aren't any proposals to go in for wind tunnel tests too for validation of design.
> 
> The various core technologies to be developed have been identified & work hasn't progressed beyond that .All this isn't for want of funds but due to a lack of depth / maturity in our technological prowess of our various state , semi state & quasi state R&D organisations apart from project mismanagement so evident in the Tejas programme .



That is probably because many posters are not naive enough to believe rumours posted in pdf about a Rafale bonanza, especially when all evidence point to the contrary. 

Not all core tech for the AMCA has to be developed. LCA and Arjun program has taught us that its much better to import certain tech. and then develop them in India at a later stage and replace the foreign tech with desi maal. 

No doubt AMCA is in cold storage, but it needs to be put on a fast track if we really want to have a sustainable program and institutionalise domestic R&D. 

More than project mismanagement, what is lacking is faith in the developers and a willingness to stick our necks out and pump in the funds without fear of failure. 

Make the funds available and see the magic happen. From Local R&D to project management. Nothing exists in vacuum. First step is to increase oxygen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

TimePass said:


> In ten years the J31 will by flying with pakistan. And J20 with China.
> 
> So it does not make sense for India to buy Non stealth aircrafts in large numbers anymore.
> 
> We will already have Su 30MKI,upgraded Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Mig 29, LCA and Rafale. What is the point of purchasing more non stealth aircraft's ?
> 
> 
> AMCA is the need of the hour. Not F16 or Grippen E.


In ten years the mainstay of pakistan will be JF17, not J31.



Insane said:


> Posting after a long long time.. But I read the forum everyday.
> 
> Just one question - Where is PARIKRAMA ?? Did he leave the forum or was he banned ?


Not banned. He is now one of the main guy of indiandefense.com



newindiandefence said:


> Actually India wanted to buy 126 rafale and cost could be around 25-27 billion $
> . but DM mp divided the cost .
> 
> If we go for rafale we get 126 rafale
> 
> Now
> 9 billion for 36 rafale
> 7 billion for 270 super sukhoi
> 13 billion for other 200 jets .
> 
> So by this we will get 500 4.5+ gen fighter in SAME COST.
> 
> And other projects fgfa/amca will run in there line also they will be not efected by this purchase .


too simple my friend.
In the 9 billion of the rafale deal you pay ALL the fixed costs (two air base accomodation, integration of new meapons, new helmet....). All new Rafale will cost you 95 USD million.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indiran Chandiran

R&D said:


> That is probably because many posters are not naive enough to believe rumours posted in pdf about a Rafale bonanza, especially when all evidence point to the contrary.
> 
> Not all core tech for the AMCA has to be developed. LCA and Arjun program has taught us that its much better to import certain tech. and then develop them in India at a later stage and replace the foreign tech with desi maal.
> 
> No doubt AMCA is in cold storage, but it needs to be put on a fast track if we really want to have a sustainable program and institutionalise domestic R&D.
> 
> More than project mismanagement, what is lacking is faith in the developers and a willingness to stick our necks out and pump in the funds without fear of failure.
> 
> Make the funds available and see the magic happen. From Local R&D to project management. Nothing exists in vacuum. First step is to increase oxygen.




I didn't complete my previous post.I t got interrupted due to some pressing urgency post which I lost my train of thought.

Point by point answer - The road map as it seems to lay out suggests that in the interim post the signing of the Rafale deal for 36 A/c in a flyaway condition , attention seems to have shifted to the MRCA / LCA for obvious reasons .The LCA in its current form has no takers.It's expected to take anyway between 5-10 years to develop a version acceptable to the IAF.

In the immediate term , the IAF stands to mothball some 300 A/c beginning next year - a process involving MiG 21 , MiG 27 , primarily but also some Jaguar which can't be upgraded under the DARIN - III Upgrades.The deficit is expected to be made good by the MII involving either the F-16 or F-18 or SAAB Gripen in tandem with A/c christened the LCA - Mk1a the compromise brokered between the MoD between IAF & the ADA / HAL - R& D & manufacturer combine .

This is where people seem to be conflating issues pertaining to the MMRCA & the LCA suggesting that the teens or SAAB are effectively replacements for the MII Rafale .
Now we can either wait for time to answer yours & my queries or debate this issue till the cows come home .What we have are two distinct camps - one which holds your line of argument & the second which would adopt the stand I've taken .

The analogy offered by you citing the R & D work involving the Arjun or LCA doesn't hold good as 5 th Gen Stealth technologies are state of the art secrets , not items bought off the shelf. All you have to do is refer to the whole PAKFA / FGFA imbroglio to know why in spite of contributing 50% of the developmental cost & agreeing to a reduced workload , HAL / MoD / IAF still haven't been made privy to the detailed engineering work in various fields being carried out which has resulted in the final IGA between GoR & GoI being in the cold storage for all these years . 


Project AMCA will run full steam ahead post the R & D for LCA - Mk -2 which should be concluded around 2022 - 23 timeline .Till then you will see JV's between Indian R & D outfits & foreign entities for core technologies so crucial in developing 5 th Gen Fighter A/c .

When I referred to project mismanagement , I don't hold ADA / DRDO to be solely responsible for the mess , the user department has been aloof & the MoD which should be been the process owner cum lead reviewer of the various indigenous projects seems to have abdicated it's responsibilities.

Availibility of funds seems to be a percentage issue .It's an issue & not an issue at the same time .I don't think it's the reason why work isn't progressing .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## R&D

Indiran Chandiran said:


> I didn't complete my previous post.I t got interrupted due to some pressing urgency post which I lost my train of thought.
> 
> Point by point answer - The road map as it seems to lay out suggests that in the interim post the signing of the Rafale deal for 36 A/c in a flyaway condition , attention seems to have shifted to the MRCA / LCA for obvious reasons .The LCA in its current form has no takers.It's expected to take anyway between 5-10 years to develop a version acceptable to the IAF.
> 
> In the immediate term , the IAF stands to mothball some 300 A/c beginning next year - a process involving MiG 21 , MiG 27 , primarily but also some Jaguar which can't be upgraded under the DARIN - III Upgrades.The deficit is expected to be made good by the MII involving either the F-16 or F-18 or SAAB Gripen in tandem with A/c christened the LCA - Mk1a the compromise brokered between the MoD between IAF & the ADA / HAL - R& D & manufacturer combine .
> 
> This is where people seem to be conflating issues pertaining to the MMRCA & the LCA suggesting that the teens or SAAB are effectively replacements for the MII Rafale .
> Now we can either wait for time to answer yours & my queries or debate this issue till the cows come home .What we have are two distinct camps - one which holds your line of argument & the second which would adopt the stand I've taken .
> 
> The analogy offered by you citing the R & D work involving the Arjun or LCA doesn't hold good as 5 th Gen Stealth technologies are state of the art secrets , not items bought off the shelf. All you have to do is refer to the whole PAKFA / FGFA imbroglio to know why in spite of contributing 50% of the developmental cost & agreeing to a reduced workload , HAL / MoD / IAF still haven't been made privy to the detailed engineering work in various fields being carried out which has resulted in the final IGA between GoR & GoI being in the cold storage for all these years .
> 
> 
> Project AMCA will run full steam ahead post the R & D for LCA - Mk -2 which should be concluded around 2022 - 23 timeline .Till then you will see JV's between Indian R & D outfits & foreign entities for core technologies so crucial in developing 5 th Gen Fighter A/c .
> 
> When I referred to project mismanagement , I don't hold ADA / DRDO to be solely responsible for the mess , the user department has been aloof & the MoD which should be been the process owner cum lead reviewer of the various indigenous projects seems to have abdicated it's responsibilities.
> 
> Availibility of funds seems to be a percentage issue .It's an issue & not an issue at the same time .I don't think it's the reason why work isn't progressing .



*Problem 1.) *IAF stands to mothball some 300 A/c beginning next year - a process involving MiG 21 , MiG 27 , primarily but also some Jaguar which can't be upgraded 

*Solution = *Use LCA to fill up the numbers. Purchase More Rafale to make up for gap in Quality. Find balance.



*Problem 2.) * 5 th Gen Stealth technologies are state of the art secrets , not items bought off the shelf. 

*Solution = *That is where Offset for Rafale comes in. Use the offset to acquire more tech for 5th Gen stealth tech. Like stealth pain, Active cancellation, hardened landing gear for AC operations, EMC/EMI shielding , sensor fusion etc. 



*Problem 3.) *AKFA / FGFA imbroglio to know why in spite of contributing 50% of the developmental cost & agreeing to a reduced workload , HAL / MoD / IAF still haven't been made privy to the detailed engineering work in various fields being carried out

*Reality = *1.) we have paid squat. Only the initial 250 million $ which was spent on Indian scientist and mapping PAKFA requirement and maybe a few Avionics tech. 

2.) Russia made all the investment and did all the hard work. So now we have to work hard to convince them to share tech. 



*Problem 4.) *Project AMCA will run full steam ahead post the R & D for LCA - Mk -2 which should be concluded around 2022 - 23 timeline .

*Solution = *Run AMCA and LCA-Mk2 in Parallel AFTER getting firm buy in from the IAF. It is foolish to run in one behind the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

AMCA would not get off the drawing board until 2025 and would only see the light around 2035...

Only RAFALEs and F-16s are ready for immediate procurement.

FGFA & Gripen would need atleast another 5 years before they could be inducted.


----------



## Skull and Bones

dadeechi said:


> BJP government has a sound plan for that.



Congress had?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dadeechi

Skull and Bones said:


> Congress had?



Congress plan was to expand the PSUs via Made in India

BJP's plan is to expand private MIC via Make in India


----------



## Hephaestus

BON PLAN said:


> In ten years the mainstay of pakistan will be JF17, not J31.
> In the 9 billion of the rafale deal you pay ALL the fixed costs (two air base accomodation, integration of new meapons, new helmet....). All new Rafale will cost you 95 USD million.


All this 5th gen talk is balderdash. Let the FGFA come when it has to. In the meantime MII part of the Rafale deal should be finalised asap. We keep forgetting the IN requirements. Rafale M is the best option.

There just ain't a better bird than Rafale for India to buy & manufacture. 

On the other hand F-16's and Gripen should both come in too. F-16 with full ToT & Gripen assisting Tejas.


----------



## BON PLAN

Hephaestus said:


> All this 5th gen talk is balderdash. Let the FGFA come when it has to. In the meantime MII part of the Rafale deal should be finalised asap. We keep forgetting the IN requirements. Rafale M is the best option.
> 
> There just ain't a better bird than Rafale for India to buy & manufacture.
> 
> On the other hand F-16's and Gripen should both come in too. F-16 with full ToT & Gripen assisting Tejas.


F16 will NEVER come with full ToT. You could assemble it, made someparts, but never the core of the US engine, mains parts of US radar or datalink.... NEVER.

Gripen, if it comes in India will NOT help Tejas. it will kill Tejas !


----------



## TylerDurden07

A significant jump in life after a service life extension of the F-16 Block 70 platform. Total Indian autonomy on who can buy made-in-India F-16s or be part of the resulting supply chain that will be governed entirely by India. A choice of avionics and kit currently under test on the F-35 family of fifth generation fighters. These are the three broad pitch points Lockheed-Martin puts forth as it looks to win India’s next big fighter contest — the Make In India Fighter (MIIF, unofficially). Lockheed-Martin, which had one of the most visible campaigns for India’s erstwhile M-MRCA contest, has clearly re-energised itself for what is, by all accounts, a much more significant piece of Indian pie this time, a contest reported first here on Livefist. As the world’s largest defence firm primes itself for a face-off against what could be a much smaller line-up than the six-horse M-MRCA, Livefist puts some questions to Abhay Paranjape, National Executive for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Business Development in India:

1. Outline the major contours of L-M’s Make in India (MII) F-16 Block 70 offer.
Lockheed Martin is offering India the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft. Exclusive F-16 production in India would make India home to the world’s only F-16 production facility, a leading exporter of advanced fighter aircraft, and offer Indian industry the opportunity to become an integral part of the world’s largest fighter aircraft supply chain.

2. How does the current programme differ qualitatively from the M-MRCA programme, which also envisaged a major MII component?
Leveraging technologies from our 5th Generation fleet of aircraft, the F-16 Block 70 aircraft is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. These advances include the APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, a new high resolution center pedestal display, a new mission computer significantly enhancing processing and storage capacity, and a new 1 gigabit Ethernet databus. Further leveraging recent structural life extension efforts performed for the U.S. Air Force, the F-16 Block 70 will deliver a 50 percent or more increase in additional service life to 12,000 hours or beyond – a significant increase over competing aircraft. From an industrial program perspective, Lockheed Martin’s offer to move all future F-16 production to India is unprecedented, as it would place Indian industry at the center of the world’s most extensive fighter aircraft supply base. None of our competitors can offer that.

3. How does L-M address concerns that the F-16, albeit upgraded, is a legacy fighter at the end of its active life?




The F-16 is the most combat proven aircraft in history and the F-16 Block 70 is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. The updated avionics suite leverages technologies developed as a part of Lockheed Martin’s efforts on our fleet of 5th Generation fighter aircraft. Major elements of these advanced avionics are included in major upgrades for multiple F-16 customers around the world and already slated for integration on more than 300 aircraft that will be flown for decades. These elements will also form the basis for upgrades and aircraft life extension for U.S. Air Force F-16 aircraft as they seek to operate their fleet for 30-plus years into the future. Global demand for new production F-16 aircraft also remains strong in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and South America.

4. If the Indian government presses a single-engine stipulation, the F-16 could square off against the Gripen NG. What’s your pitch on how the F-16 Block 70 over the Gripen NG?
Lockheed Martin is the recognized leader in the design, development and manufacture of the world’s most technologically advanced fighter aircraft. The F-16 Block 70 aircraft leverages avionics technologies from our 5th Generation fighter aircraft to deliver an aircraft with unrivaled speed, agility, range, and payload. We offer proven, unmatched experience developing international fighter production capacity having previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our offer to establish exclusive F-16 production in India to meet worldwide demand for new F-16 aircraft is without precedent and the opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies necessary parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft is unmatched.

5. Pakistan operates F-16s and looks to operate more. Would the future of Pakistan’s fleet be in Indian hands in the event of a successful MII F-16 programme?
As has always been the case, future F-16 production decisions would be subject to government-to-government discussions.

6. Sweden’s Saab has sweetened its Gripen pitch to India by offering Gallium-Nitride (GaN) radar technology as a spin-off. How does Lockheed-Martin propose to beef up its offering?
Lockheed Martin’s F-16 offer to India—the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft—is without precedent. In addition to proposing the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered to the Indian Air Force, exclusive F-16 production in India extends this Make in India opportunity beyond mere “assemble in India” or “manufacture in India,” to a long-term industrial opportunity for India. Our experience developing fighter production capacity around the world is unmatched. Lockheed Martin has previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our F-16 offer also includes the unmatched opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft. The long-term effect of establishing the sole F-16 production line in India will be to position Indian industry as a major contributor in the production of components and sub-components necessary to support the growing worldwide F-16 fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stephen Cohen

TylerDurden07 said:


> A significant jump in life after a service life extension of the F-16 Block 70 platform. Total Indian autonomy on who can buy made-in-India F-16s or be part of the resulting supply chain that will be governed entirely by India. A choice of avionics and kit currently under test on the F-35 family of fifth generation fighters. These are the three broad pitch points Lockheed-Martin puts forth as it looks to win India’s next big fighter contest — the Make In India Fighter (MIIF, unofficially). Lockheed-Martin, which had one of the most visible campaigns for India’s erstwhile M-MRCA contest, has clearly re-energised itself for what is, by all accounts, a much more significant piece of Indian pie this time, a contest reported first here on Livefist. As the world’s largest defence firm primes itself for a face-off against what could be a much smaller line-up than the six-horse M-MRCA, Livefist puts some questions to Abhay Paranjape, National Executive for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Business Development in India:
> 
> 1. Outline the major contours of L-M’s Make in India (MII) F-16 Block 70 offer.
> Lockheed Martin is offering India the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft. Exclusive F-16 production in India would make India home to the world’s only F-16 production facility, a leading exporter of advanced fighter aircraft, and offer Indian industry the opportunity to become an integral part of the world’s largest fighter aircraft supply chain.
> 
> 2. How does the current programme differ qualitatively from the M-MRCA programme, which also envisaged a major MII component?
> Leveraging technologies from our 5th Generation fleet of aircraft, the F-16 Block 70 aircraft is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. These advances include the APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, a new high resolution center pedestal display, a new mission computer significantly enhancing processing and storage capacity, and a new 1 gigabit Ethernet databus. Further leveraging recent structural life extension efforts performed for the U.S. Air Force, the F-16 Block 70 will deliver a 50 percent or more increase in additional service life to 12,000 hours or beyond – a significant increase over competing aircraft. From an industrial program perspective, Lockheed Martin’s offer to move all future F-16 production to India is unprecedented, as it would place Indian industry at the center of the world’s most extensive fighter aircraft supply base. None of our competitors can offer that.
> 
> 3. How does L-M address concerns that the F-16, albeit upgraded, is a legacy fighter at the end of its active life?
> 
> 
> 
> The F-16 is the most combat proven aircraft in history and the F-16 Block 70 is the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered. The updated avionics suite leverages technologies developed as a part of Lockheed Martin’s efforts on our fleet of 5th Generation fighter aircraft. Major elements of these advanced avionics are included in major upgrades for multiple F-16 customers around the world and already slated for integration on more than 300 aircraft that will be flown for decades. These elements will also form the basis for upgrades and aircraft life extension for U.S. Air Force F-16 aircraft as they seek to operate their fleet for 30-plus years into the future. Global demand for new production F-16 aircraft also remains strong in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and South America.
> 
> 4. If the Indian government presses a single-engine stipulation, the F-16 could square off against the Gripen NG. What’s your pitch on how the F-16 Block 70 over the Gripen NG?
> Lockheed Martin is the recognized leader in the design, development and manufacture of the world’s most technologically advanced fighter aircraft. The F-16 Block 70 aircraft leverages avionics technologies from our 5th Generation fighter aircraft to deliver an aircraft with unrivaled speed, agility, range, and payload. We offer proven, unmatched experience developing international fighter production capacity having previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our offer to establish exclusive F-16 production in India to meet worldwide demand for new F-16 aircraft is without precedent and the opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies necessary parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft is unmatched.
> 
> 5. Pakistan operates F-16s and looks to operate more. Would the future of Pakistan’s fleet be in Indian hands in the event of a successful MII F-16 programme?
> As has always been the case, future F-16 production decisions would be subject to government-to-government discussions.
> 
> 6. Sweden’s Saab has sweetened its Gripen pitch to India by offering Gallium-Nitride (GaN) radar technology as a spin-off. How does Lockheed-Martin propose to beef up its offering?
> Lockheed Martin’s F-16 offer to India—the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft—is without precedent. In addition to proposing the most technologically advanced F-16 ever offered to the Indian Air Force, exclusive F-16 production in India extends this Make in India opportunity beyond mere “assemble in India” or “manufacture in India,” to a long-term industrial opportunity for India. Our experience developing fighter production capacity around the world is unmatched. Lockheed Martin has previously established F-16 production lines in four countries and F-35 production lines in two countries. Our F-16 offer also includes the unmatched opportunity for Indian companies to play a major role in the industrial base that supplies parts for a global fleet of more than 3,200 aircraft. The long-term effect of establishing the sole F-16 production line in India will be to position Indian industry as a major contributor in the production of components and sub-components necessary to support the growing worldwide F-16 fleet.



Could you please post the links to this interview


----------



## TylerDurden07

Stephen Cohen said:


> Could you please post the links to this interview


source- livefist

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Bir

*INDIA'S STRATEGIC WIN*
*WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 02, 2016 BY INDIANDEFENSE NEWS*




_*F-16IN "SUPER VIPER" - The Upsides of the Lockheed Martin Deal to Produce F-16's In India*_
*by C. Christine Fair and Dan Shalmon*
In July, Lockheed Martin announced that it would manufacture the most advanced version of the F-16 fighter aircraft (the Block 70/72) exclusively in India as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “made in India” program. Lockheed Martin will likely co-produce the plane with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, which has a standing partnership with Lockheed Martin to produce other airframes such as the C-130 cargo plane and the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter. The announcement was quickly derided by defense wonks who see the F-16 as an outdated workhorse that is used by India’s adversary, Pakistan. However, the deal could be truly transformative, turning India into an exporter of a fighter aircraft with a truly global market.
The F-16 has many detractors in India. There are those who argue that the United States cannot be trusted, implying that Washington will block the collaboration at some point in the future when India has grown reliant on the system. After all, this is what happened to Pakistan in 1990. Others allege that the true motivation for the deal is greed: Lockheed Martin simply wants to take advantage of a recent surge in tensions between Pakistan and India to sell different versions of the same system to both. And that presents another problem: some reject the plane on the facile grounds that India would not want to fight Pakistan using the same platform as its adversary would use. This concern reveals ignorance of the different versions of the airframe and the avionics, sensors, and munitions packages involved.
Even more sinister, some in India simply cannot fathom that Washington wants India to be a world-class power because they believe (without evidence) that the United States seeks to retain “Pakistan as a regional balancer against India.” For these doubters, there simply must be a negative explanation for the deal, even if they do not know what it is. Perhaps the arrangement is an effort to dump an aged, unwanted platform onto India, which my stifle India’s efforts to acquire a fifth-generation aircraft.
More serious critiques stem from the Indian military aviation community’s belief that India needs a two-engine aircraft to provide acceleration and air dominance in anticipation of a “dogfight” with the adversary; the F-16 has a single engine. Beyond ignoring the F-16’s 76:1 air-to-air win:loss ratio, this view focuses excessively on a tactic that is becoming ever-more irrelevant and which India’s Su-30s and Rafales already execute well. India’s multirole aircraft must be reliable, sophisticated, and flexible enough to fly large numbers of strike and patrol sorties in limited warfare and high-threat environments—and the F-16V can do this cheaply enough to shore up India’s collapsing force structure.
The F-16 detractors’ views have varying degrees of validity, but they all miss a larger and more important aspect of this deal: through it, India will become an exporter of a highly lethal fighter platform with a massive extant global market. No other aircraft India was considering offers this enormous opportunity. If India plays its cards correctly, it could have a veto on sales of the plane to countries that undermine India’s interests—such as Pakistan.
Although the technical merits of the F-16 are comparable to those of other aircraft on offer, this scheme is unique in that it will afford India a leadership position in an established long-term supply chain. The market for spare parts and upgrade for the F-16 is larger than for other aircrafts simply because this plane makes up 15 percent of the world's total military aircraft inventory. Because most of the world lags a generation behind the United States and the Indian Air Force, there will certainly be a multibillion-dollar market for F-16 maintenance, repair, and overhaul for decades after the F-35 fully supersedes its predecessor in the West. 
India might be able to use its market dominance as a springboard for additional deals with U.S.-supplied client states and to participate in the development of innovative technologies for the next generation of aircraft. India, in that case, would skip from being a so-called price taker for next-generation aircraft to being a price setter. 
Successful coproduction, meanwhile, will sow the seeds for a new set of indigenous businesses and labor markets. To be sure, at first, India will require access to external technology, money, and human capital to complete the manufacturing. But both the external investor—Lockheed Martin—and the local recipient (most likely Tata) stand to benefit from the capacity building that will follow. The result could be a vast network of contractors and subcontractors along with research centers and spinoffs that these businesses can create. That could spur technologically savvy expats to return to or invest in their homeland.
The best contemporary example of a technology transfer in aerospace becoming a springboard for economic development is what occurred in China. In the 1980s, China’s aviation industry initiated small-scale joint ventures with Western firms and then gradually worked its way up the value chain. By the early 2000s, all the makers of top-tier engines and airframes, including GE, Rolls Royce, Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, had joint ventures in China. Not coincidentally, as China’s defense spending skyrocketed in the early 2000s, its arms imports declined. In that same period, India’s rose. China’s newly acquired expertise in computer-aided manufacturing dramatically accelerated the production of its first fourth-generation aircraft, the JH-7, J-10, and FC-1. The latter (now branded ‘JF-17’) has become the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force.
Distrust of foreign technology suppliers is not a good rationale for rejecting capacity building joint ventures in favor of import purchases. Even Japan—by far the most successful role model for autonomy in airspace engineering—built its capacity for military-industrial production by coproducing more than two dozen weapons systems with the United States.
With the F-16 deal, India can make up for lost time. It need not surreptitiously adapt Western civilian technology to military applications as China has in aerospace and shipbuilding, or follow the Japanese model of incremental gains. In one fell swoop, India would leap virtually overnight into the top tier of military manufacturers worldwide and establish itself as a pivotal player for at least the next two decades.
Put another way, this is not an aircraft buy: it is an industrial transformation on a massive scale and a major strategic win for India.
Source>>

SNAPSHOT November 1, 2016India
*India's Strategic Win*
*The Upsides of the Lockheed Martin Deal to Produce F-16s In India*
By C. Christine Fair and Dan Shalmon

made in India” program. Lockheed Martin will likely co-produce the plane with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, which has a standing partnership with Lockheed Martin to produce other airframes such as the C-130 cargo plane and the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter. The announcement was quickly derided by defense wonks who see the F-16 as an outdated workhorse that is used by India’s adversary, Pakistan. However, the deal could be truly transformative, turning India into an exporter of a fighter aircraft with a truly global market.

The F-16 has many detractors in India. There are those who argue that the United States cannot be trusted, implying that Washington will block the collaboration at some point in the future when India has grown reliant on the system. After all, this is what happened to Pakistan in 1990. Others allege that the true motivation for the deal is greed: Lockheed Martin simply wants to take advantage of a recent surge in tensions between Pakistan and India to sell different versions of the same system to both. And that presents another problem: some reject the plane on the facile grounds that India would not want to fight Pakistan using the same platform as its adversary would use. This concern reveals ignorance of the different versions of the airframe and the avionics, sensors, and munitions packages involved.

Even more sinister, some in India simply cannot fathom that Washington wants India to be a world-class power because they believe (without evidence) that the United States seeks to retain “Pakistan as a regional balancer against India.” For these doubters, there simply must be a negative explanation for the deal, even if they do not know what it is. Perhaps the arrangement is an effort to dump an aged, unwanted platform onto India, which my stifle India’s efforts to acquire a fifth-generation aircraft.

More serious critiques stem from the Indian military aviation community’s belief that India needs a two-engine aircraft to provide acceleration and air dominance in anticipation of a “dogfight” with the adversary; the F-16 has a single engine. Beyond ignoring the F-16’s 76:1 air-to-air win:loss ratio, this view focuses excessively on a tactic that is becoming ever-more irrelevant and which India’s Su-30s and Rafales already execute well. India’s multirole aircraft must be reliable, sophisticated, and flexible enough to fly large numbers of strike and patrol sorties in limited warfare and high-threat environments—and the F-16V can do this cheaply enough to shore up India’s collapsing force structure.







aircraft India was considering offers this enormous opportunity. If India plays its cards correctly, it could have a veto on sales of the plane to countries that undermine India’s interests—such as Pakistan.


Although the technical merits of the F-16 are comparable to those of other aircraft on offer, this scheme is unique in that it will afford India a leadership position in an established long-term supply chain. The market for spare parts and upgrade for the F-16 is larger than for other aircrafts simply because this plane makes up 15 percent of the world's total military aircraft inventory. Because most of the world lags a generation behind the United States and the Indian Air Force, there will certainly be a multibillion-dollar market for F-16 maintenance, repair, and overhaul for decades after the F-35 fully supersedes its predecessor in the West. 

India might be able to use its market dominance as a springboard for additional deals with U.S.-supplied client states and to participate in the development of innovative technologies for the next generation of aircraft. India, in that case, would skip from being a so-called price taker for next-generation aircraft to being a price setter. 

Successful coproduction, meanwhile, will sow the seeds for a new set of indigenous businesses and labor markets. To be sure, at first, India will require access to external technology, money, and human capital to complete the manufacturing. But both the external investor—Lockheed Martin—and the local recipient (most likely Tata) stand to benefit from the capacity building that will follow. The result could be a vast network of contractors and subcontractors along with research centers and spinoffs that these businesses can create. That could spur technologically savvy expats to return to or invest in their homeland.

The best contemporary example of a technology transfer in aerospace becoming a springboard for economic development is what occured in China. In the 1980s, China’s aviation industry initiated small-scale joint ventures with Western firms and then gradually worked its way up the value chain. By the early 2000s, all the makers of top-tier engines and airframes, including GE, Rolls Royce, Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, had joint ventures in China. Not coincidentally, as China’s defense spending skyrocketed in the early 2000s, its arms imports declined. In that same period, India’s rose. China’s newly acquired expertise in computer-aided manufacturing dramatically accelerated the production of its first fourth-generation aircraft, the JH-7, J-10, and FC-1. The latter (now branded ‘JF-17’) has become the backbone of the Pakistani Air Force.


Distrust of foreign technology suppliers is not a good rationale for rejecting capacity building joint ventures in favor of import purchases. Even Japan—by far the most successful role model for autonomy in airspace engineering—built its capacity for military-industrial production by coproducing more than two dozen weapons systems with the United States.

With the F-16 deal, India can make up for lost time. It need not surreptitiously adapt Western civilian technology to military applications as China has in aerospace and shipbuilding, or follow the Japanese model of incremental gains. In one fell swoop, India would leap virtually overnight into the top tier of military manufacturers worldwide and establish itself as a pivotal player for at least the next two decades.

Put another way, this is not an aircraft buy: it is an industrial transformation on a massive scale and a major strategic win for India.


*Get the best of Foreign Affairs delivered to you every day.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

maroofz2000 said:


> aircraft India was considering offers this enormous opportunity. If India plays its cards correctly, it could have a veto on sales of the plane to countries that undermine India’s interests—such as Pakistan.


Never ! USA will never leave you all the keys, even on such a dated product.

Remember Egypt and UAE were not authorised to use their F16 against Lybia... Their OWN F16, 100% payed !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## R&D

BON PLAN said:


> Never ! USA will never leave you all the keys, even on such a dated product.
> 
> Remember Egypt and UAE were not authorised to use their F16 against Lybia... Their OWN F16, 100% payed !!!!



If India buys it, it will be on our terms or we will not buy it at all. 

So time will tell.


----------



## ashok321

http://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...k-on-made-in-india-f-16-fighters-1536119.html 







BENGALURU: United States based aircraft-maker Lockheed Martin that had offered to move its F-16 fighter aircraft production line from the US to India, *has started the ground work* with the hope that India would accept its offer.


The offer comes with a condition that India buys the fighter. *“We want to be prepared and that is the reason we have started the ground work,’’ *Abhay Paranjape, Director, Business Development, India, Lockheed Martin told Express. *“On Monday, we met representatives of 40 defense and aviation firms from across the country to discuss our offer on making F-16 in India,’’* Paranjape added.

Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin made an offer to India that it would shift its only F-16 aircraft production line to India provided, the Indian Air Force (IAF) buys the aircraft.


*“We are offering to make F-16 Block 70, the most advanced aircraft in India. It is one of the most proven fighter aircraft in the world and is flown by air forces in 25 countries,’’ *said Randall L Howard, who looks after F-16 Business Development.


The proposal of shifting the production line, works out for the US firm and also to Indian industries only if there are initial orders from the IAF.* If the IAF buys 100 aircraft*, it gives stability to the industry that will invest lot of money in various manufacturing units that support the production line, he said. *“We make it in India, for India and then we make it in India and export to world.* If the initial orders are not there, it may not work for the industry,’’ Randall added.


*Though India has not yet responded to the offer, the top executives at Lockheed are hopeful that it will accept the offer. “The response has been positive. After we made an offer they asked us right questions. They are looking for single-engine fighter and we are offering one of the best aircraft, so we are confident that India will accept the offer,’’ *said Paranjape. 


“They have sent letters to a few firms, including us (about acquiring single engine aircraft),’’ he said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok321

*Lockheed Martin Plans to Manufacture 30 F-16 Jets A Year In Proposed Indian Facility

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17...Year_In_Proposed_Indian_Facility#.WCKqlvk2vIV

*
Lockheed Martin has offered to *manufacture over 30 aircraft a year* in its proposed Indian facility, one of its most ambitious fighter aircraft production ventures outside the United States.

Lockheed executives briefing defenseworld.net following an Indian suppliers’ meeting in Bangalore today said that they would look at starting the ‘Make-in-India’ manufacturing project with 12 aircraft a year going up to 36 at peak. Randall L Howard, F-16 business development head and Abhay Paranjape, director, business development-India said that they interacted with over 40 Indian entities over the last couple of days who showed interest in being part of the F-16 manufacturing project.

The suppliers’ meet is being followed-up by visits to the facilities of some of the Indian entities to asses their ability to be part of the F-16 supply chain, they said.

The partnership with India is being discussed between the Indian the US government and should the deal come through as a foreign military sales (FMS) agreement, then a certain number of aircraft would be sold to India under ‘flyaway condition’, and the rest would be manufactured in India.

As to possible location of the proposed plant, Howard said nothing was considered yet but it would have to be near an air base with access to a runway.

“The cost to India would reduce with every new block of aircraft manufactured and given the competitive labor costs here, you can look at a real competitively priced plane,” said Howard adding that the made-in-India F-16 would also be exported to markets in the Middle -East, Eastern Europe and Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

A delegation from the Swedish Government is visiting India, meeting Modi today,
as a followup to the visit from the Swedish Prime Minister earlier this year.
Key subject for discussion is obviously the Make in India RFI for single engine fighters,
and the Gripen E,

http://www.regeringen.se/pressmedde...raffar-indiens-premiarminister-narendra-modi/ (Swedish)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## halloweene

So let me sum up. IF India buys 100 F-16, than it will be capable of building up to 30/year? To sell to whom? Former F-16 clients are going for F-35 mostly. Thid low cost labour is a joke. A highly skilled worker will be expensive, be it in india or elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok321

*Not selling fighter with a dead shelf life: Lockheed*
*



*
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-shelf-life-Lockheed/articleshow/55295732.cms


BENGALURU: Aerospace and Defence major Lockheed Martin, which has offered to bring its only functional F-16 fighter jet manufacturing facility to India*, says that it is not selling an aircraft with a dead shelf-life.*

Reports quoting experts in the US have debated that the aircraft's current orders can only keep it running up to 2017, or 2020, at best. However, Randall L Howard, F-16 business development head, told TOI: "I understand the concerns, but we are confident of bagging orders for at least 100 aircraft (not including from India) in the next 5-7 years."

Stating that the firm had a positive conversation with Indonesia just last week, he said: "Conversations are also currently on with multiple countries in South-America, Middle East (West Asia) and Eastern Europe. We expect good business from these countries. A lot of Eastern European countries are currently using Soviet-era fighters with or without integration of western technology."

*Abhay Paranjape, director, business development-India, said: "Many of our international customers are repeat customers, who keep coming back to us." Howard said that the firm has sold 4,588 F-16 aircraft to 27 countries, of which 16 of them have come back to them.*

*"These 16 countries together have given repeat orders 55 times saying they want more. F-16s are cheaper than most in their class, faster and can go farther than every other plane. It can also carry more firepower," Howard said.*



*In the first major effort after making the conditional offer to shift the manufacturing facility to India, Lockheed Martin met with 40 potential Indian suppliers in Bengaluru. "There are those who can make bits and pieces, components, sub-systems, structures and even support equipment. We are making a presentation to them," Howard said.
*



*He added that not only will India be making for India, but also to the world. "There are 3,200 fighters that they will need to feed (components and parts) and take care of (maintenance). There is a huge business opportunity there."
*



*On how different this offer is from facilities that operated in South Korea, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey, Paranjape said: "Those were licensed manufacturing, mostly assembly and they made it for their own countries. What we offer India is the exclusive production facility. There is currently no other such facility barring the one in US and when that come here, it will be only India that makes F16s."
*



On the constraints of transfer of technology (ToT), which US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James had raised as per reports in the US, Howard said: "We did not come to India with the offer as a individual company. We were here along with the US government. There will be a few issues, but from the nose to tail (of the aircraft) we will try to offer as much as we can in an affordable way. Obviously, not everything can be made here."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok321

Desi F-16s to make India a global supply chain leader: Lockheed Martin......







Read more at: http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news...asl-randall-l-howard-f-16-block-70--1.1495780

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## halloweene

I would love to know what Howard calls "it's class' about F-16, which i not anymore particularly a "light" plane. Because if it is weight class, Rafale (but not only) can go further, carry more ordnance... Typhoon can go faster etc.
Very nice piece of PR.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

IAF chief wants to induct more Rafales, and believes Gripen E is the best single engine fighter
offered to India in the Make in India fighter procurement.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/indi...jets-air-chief-marshal-arup-raha-3034670.html


----------



## Hephaestus

A.P. Richelieu said:


> IAF chief wants to induct more Rafales, and believes Gripen E is the best single engine fighter
> offered to India in the Make in India fighter procurement.
> 
> http://www.firstpost.com/india/indi...jets-air-chief-marshal-arup-raha-3034670.html


More Rafales. MII F-16 & Gripen. I want all of 'em please If we can. I'm ready to eat grass for a few months.

Jokes aside. I love the swedes. We gotta have the Gripens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Hephaestus said:


> More Rafales. MII F-16 & Gripen. I want all of 'em please If we can. I'm ready to eat grass for a few months.
> 
> Jokes aside. I love the swedes. We gotta have the Gripens.



If the government has not changed its mind since May, then maybe you get what You want.
(not that I trust sputniknews normally)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

R!CK said:


> With regards to GAN AESA, SAAB couldnt miniaturise it to fit into a fighter aircraft yet, which is why Grippen E flies with a Selex AESA? People from military production and research domain can endorse how tricky the term 'miniaturise' is.
> 
> But if I were to speak for a country that needs a cost effective alternative as their Back bone then there is no other aircraft that fits in perfectly than the Grippen. Unfortunately or fortunately, for a country operating Su30 and Rafale, there is no desperation for Grippen to take up 3rd layer of Defence.
> 
> Personally, if GOI pulls a miracle and fix production output, we don't need any other single engine aircraft for the next decade apart from MK1-A. That makes the most sense both financially, operationally and sometimes even politically.



The Radar for Gripen E was selected a long time ago.
At that time GaN AESA was not ready. SAAB has delivered GaN AESA for ground based radars,
and are confident that they can be ready for a *Gripen* (note spelling) MII.

The Indian Government apparently does not believe that Tejas production quantities
can be increased, alternatively they want more TOT, and are prepared to induct more types to get that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sejong

wasn't the Indian navy considering procuring the F-35 for their new carriers?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

*HAL HTT-40






Using Honeywell engine.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani78

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/589672/india-select-one-more-single.html

New Delhi, Jan 3, 2016 (PTI)




*Cutting down competition as of now to just two fighters - F-16 by Lockheed Martin and Gripen by Saab - Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today said India will select one more single engine aircraft other than Tejas for indigenous manufacture under 'Make in India' route.*

His making it clear that the aircraft would be single engine means that double engine aircraft like F/A 18 by Boeing and Rafale by Dassault Aviation, both preparing for India's next round of multi-billion deal for fighters, are out of the race.

Just-retired IAF chief Arup Raha had said India required about 200 medium weight category aircraft besides the 36 Rafale fighters.

Parrikar also made it clear that navy will continue supporting the development of naval version of Tejas but the current one will be just a technology demonstrator. He said that the navy is seeking a double engine aircraft.

He said when India decides to go for a twin-engine fighter to be made here, the government will also consider the Rafale.

But as of now there are no plans to procure any additional aircraft, he added.

Talking about the next fighter competition of India, Parrikar said the need for a second production line for single engine aircraft is felt besides the one for Tejas.

"The second line of single engine requirement is also felt for which we are thinking of using the strategic partnership route," he said.

The Defence Minister said once the chapter on strategic partnership is finalised this month, his ministry will start moving in the direction of single engine fighter aircraft.

He said by the end of this year, decisions on the next aircraft should be tentatively finished.

Parrikar said few of the initial aircraft may come off the shelf by the "rest would be made in India increasing the Indian capability in aviation".

He said the process for the next fighter aircraft will include both selection through normal process and government- to-government contract.

"Selection of the local partner would be through a transparent and well defined process," he said, adding that capabilities and financial strength would also be looked into.

"Once you select the local partner, the OEM obviously will be selected through a process of the way we do it. It means who gives the best offer, Transfer of Technology and many other things and price. There will be weightage to both to both," he said.

Parrikar added that once the company is selected, there will be a government-to-government contract to ensure that the other government stands guarantee to the promises made by the firm in terms of technology transfer and other issues.


----------



## Sloth 22

Thailand: Fighter jet crashes during Children’s Day airshow, pilot killed
By Asian Correspondent Staff | 14th January 2017 | @ascorrespondent


(File) Three Saab JAS-39 Gripen aircraft of the Hungarian Air Force during an exercise in 2016. Source: Sandor Ujvari/MTI via AP

A GRIPEN fighter jet crashed on a runway during an airshow for Children’s Day in Hat Yai, Songkhla province, Saturday morning, forcing a temporary closure of the airport.

According to local media reports, the pilot identified as Sqn Ldr Dilokrit Pattavee was killed during the 9.27am incident.

Videos filmed and posted online show onlookers during the celebration watching as the jet neared the runway for what was reportedly meant to be a stunt maneuver.





The jet said to be a Swedish-made 39C Gripen, however, nosedived after a flip and crashed into the ground in the distance.

[Video] A Royal Thai Airforce (RTAF) Gripen aircraft has crashed nearby the Hatyai International Airport this morning pic.twitter.com/bJyZSu4fNA
— BERNAMA (@bernamadotcom) January 14, 2017
Bangkok Post reported other local media as claiming an hour later that the fire engine heading to the crash overturned while on the way to put out the fire, forcing authorities to temporarily shutter the Hat Yai airport.

Following the closure, commercial flights were diverted to the nearby Krabi airport, while outbound flights were delayed. The airport is expected to be reopened by afternoon.

Bangkok Post quoted air force spokesman Pongsak Semachai as saying that a committee will be set up to investigate the incident.

According to the daily, the Royal Thai Air Force urged the public to respect the victim’s family as well as other affected parties.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha offered his condolences to the family of the deceased.


----------



## Tshering22

Sloth 22 said:


> Thailand: Fighter jet crashes during Children’s Day airshow, pilot killed
> By Asian Correspondent Staff | 14th January 2017 | @ascorrespondent
> 
> 
> (File) Three Saab JAS-39 Gripen aircraft of the Hungarian Air Force during an exercise in 2016. Source: Sandor Ujvari/MTI via AP
> 
> A GRIPEN fighter jet crashed on a runway during an airshow for Children’s Day in Hat Yai, Songkhla province, Saturday morning, forcing a temporary closure of the airport.
> 
> According to local media reports, the pilot identified as Sqn Ldr Dilokrit Pattavee was killed during the 9.27am incident.
> 
> Videos filmed and posted online show onlookers during the celebration watching as the jet neared the runway for what was reportedly meant to be a stunt maneuver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jet said to be a Swedish-made 39C Gripen, however, nosedived after a flip and crashed into the ground in the distance.
> 
> [Video] A Royal Thai Airforce (RTAF) Gripen aircraft has crashed nearby the Hatyai International Airport this morning pic.twitter.com/bJyZSu4fNA
> — BERNAMA (@bernamadotcom) January 14, 2017
> Bangkok Post reported other local media as claiming an hour later that the fire engine heading to the crash overturned while on the way to put out the fire, forcing authorities to temporarily shutter the Hat Yai airport.
> 
> Following the closure, commercial flights were diverted to the nearby Krabi airport, while outbound flights were delayed. The airport is expected to be reopened by afternoon.
> 
> Bangkok Post quoted air force spokesman Pongsak Semachai as saying that a committee will be set up to investigate the incident.
> 
> According to the daily, the Royal Thai Air Force urged the public to respect the victim’s family as well as other affected parties.
> 
> Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha offered his condolences to the family of the deceased.



Gripens are pretty good platforms. 

Pilot skill is also a major factor for air crashes.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Sloth 22 said:


> Thailand: Fighter jet crashes during Children’s Day airshow, pilot killed
> By Asian Correspondent Staff | 14th January 2017 | @ascorrespondent
> 
> 
> (File) Three Saab JAS-39 Gripen aircraft of the Hungarian Air Force during an exercise in 2016. Source: Sandor Ujvari/MTI via AP
> 
> A GRIPEN fighter jet crashed on a runway during an airshow for Children’s Day in Hat Yai, Songkhla province, Saturday morning, forcing a temporary closure of the airport.
> 
> According to local media reports, the pilot identified as Sqn Ldr Dilokrit Pattavee was killed during the 9.27am incident.
> 
> Videos filmed and posted online show onlookers during the celebration watching as the jet neared the runway for what was reportedly meant to be a stunt maneuver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jet said to be a Swedish-made 39C Gripen, however, nosedived after a flip and crashed into the ground in the distance.
> 
> [Video] A Royal Thai Airforce (RTAF) Gripen aircraft has crashed nearby the Hatyai International Airport this morning pic.twitter.com/bJyZSu4fNA
> — BERNAMA (@bernamadotcom) January 14, 2017
> Bangkok Post reported other local media as claiming an hour later that the fire engine heading to the crash overturned while on the way to put out the fire, forcing authorities to temporarily shutter the Hat Yai airport.
> 
> Following the closure, commercial flights were diverted to the nearby Krabi airport, while outbound flights were delayed. The airport is expected to be reopened by afternoon.
> 
> Bangkok Post quoted air force spokesman Pongsak Semachai as saying that a committee will be set up to investigate the incident.
> 
> According to the daily, the Royal Thai Air Force urged the public to respect the victim’s family as well as other affected parties.
> 
> Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha offered his condolences to the family of the deceased.



*Air Force awaits answers on fatal Gripen crash*
January 30, 2017 01:00

By JITRAPORN SENAWONG

THE NATION

*THE AIR FORCE is attempting to determine the cause of the deadly JAS 39 Gripen crash at a Songkhla air show this month, as it considers buying a full fleet of the Swedish-made fighter jets to make up one of the strongest air forces in Asean.*

Authorities are waiting for answers from the maker of the jet fighter, the aerospace company Saab, which has received the aircraft’s crash survivable memory unit (CSMU), more commonly referred to as the “black box” that records flight data in the event of a crash.

Saab received the CSMU days after the crash that killed Squadron Leader Dilokrit Pattawee on Children’s Day.

The investigation is expected to take about two months based on the analysis of the pre-crash condition of the aircraft, flying conditions at the time of the accident, and relevant issues regarding the pilot and management.

The plane that crashed – one of Thailand’s 12 JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets composing Wing 7 in Surat Thani province – was not among three jets struck by lightning during their 2013 transport to Thailand.

After a temporary suspension following the crash, the remaining 11 jets of the Gripen squadron successfully performed an operation over the Gulf of Thailand on Thursday, which authorities said indicated that the loss of one of the jets had not dented the fleet’s operational abilities.

The Air Force plans to field a total force of 18 Gripen jets. The first 12 were bought for Bt34.4 billion while Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pukbhasuk was the Air Force’s commander-in-chief.

The purchase came with an agreement that Sweden would provide aid, training and maintenance in relation to the jets, but as potential war-fighting aircraft, they were not insured.

The Gripen fighter jet was manufactured to replace the J35 Darken and AJS 37 Viggen fighter jets utilised by the Swedish air force. It was unveiled on April 26, 1987, which coincided with Saab’s 50th anniversary, and tested on December 9, 1988.

The jets were commissioned by the Swedish Air Force in 1997.

Being a 4.5 Generation Fighter, the light, single-engine, multi-role fighter aircraft has a command and control system and is compatible with various weapon systems, meaning it has the potential to be further developed and upgraded.

The aircraft can take off on an 800-metre runway and land on a 500-metre section of highway, while requiring only a five-member ground-support team.

In performing group tasks, squadrons can partially avoid detection by using one jet’s radar to send target information to group members to attack the target. The aircraft has a stealth system reportedly similar to that of the US F-22 fighter jet.

*Original post nationmultimedia.com*


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mansoor raja

Tshering22 said:


> Gripens are pretty good platforms.
> 
> Pilot skill is also a major factor for air crashes.


He fly really low than Jets capabilities. Tejas can do better low flying


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## egodoc222

Water Car Engineer said:


>


This aircraft looks awesome!!
Things are definitely changing for HAL!!


----------



## khanasifm

????
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/indian-air-force-rejects-british-advanced-hawk-aircraft


----------



## X_Killer

Sejong said:


> wasn't the Indian navy considering procuring the F-35 for their new carriers?


Indian Navy already rejected F-35 offer because of single Engine platform.
Indian Navy always prefer dual engine configuration for modern ACC


----------



## sathya

Hamza Siddique said:


> Leonardo announced today that the #PakGov has placed orders for an undisclosed number of additional AW139 intermediate twin engine helicopter




Wrong thread


----------



## Hamza Siddique

sathya said:


> Wrong thread


hahahha  no



sathya said:


> Wrong thread








watch it


----------



## mansoor raja

Hamza Siddique said:


> Leonardo announced today that the #PakGov has placed orders for an undisclosed number of additional AW139 intermediate twin engine helicopter


It's huge corruption in the making. Augusta Westland are rogues theif . Pakistan has many problems but we end up importing costliest helicopter

With only Chinese weapons Pakistan will be at lowest level of Airforce capability against India .The country which operates 240 sukois and trying to upgrade it to super sukoi 300 , Rafale , Tejas with Aesa Israeli systems and American engine . And India is so rich that they want latest version of f16 b70 as their light Jets . That too could be up to 200+ and not to mention by 2028 India will have AMCA, FGFA more refined than PakFa more rafale and technologies involved KNOW how . I mean Pakistan should get out of this armtwisting by China to dumb their junks created by some prvt company in China who got loans of China creates weapons for sake of creating as they will not be inducted into Chinese armed forces but they are Best and will be sold to Pakistan Africa and other totally crippled States . 


The distance is getting longer and longer . Our armed forces are armed with best of China weapons . And will be 100℅ Chinese Pakistanis weapons by 2030 ..



Hamza Siddique said:


> hahahha  no
> 
> 
> View attachment 380460
> 
> watch it


Bro can u send link for Internet downloader full version? Plz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hamza Siddique

mansoor raja said:


> It's huge corruption in the making. Augusta Westland are rogues theif . Pakistan has many problems but we end up importing costliest helicopter
> 
> With only Chinese weapons Pakistan will be at lowest level of Airforce capability against India .The country which operates 240 sukois and trying to upgrade it to super sukoi 300 , Rafale , Tejas with Aesa Israeli systems and American engine . And India is so rich that they want latest version of f16 b70 as their light Jets . That too could be up to 200+ and not to mention by 2028 India will have AMCA, FGFA more refined than PakFa more rafale and technologies involved KNOW how . I mean Pakistan should get out of this armtwisting by China to dumb their junks created by some prvt company in China who got loans of China creates weapons for sake of creating as they will not be inducted into Chinese armed forces but they are Best and will be sold to Pakistan Africa and other totally crippled States .
> 
> 
> The distance is getting longer and longer . Our armed forces are armed with best of China weapons . And will be 100℅ Chinese Pakistanis weapons by 2030 ..
> 
> 
> Bro can u send link for Internet downloader full version? Plz










Hamza Siddique said:


>


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

LCA test pilot after flying Gripen: I am very impressed!






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1507045805974583

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Gripen E on target for debut flight in second quarter*

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...get-for-debut-flight-in-second-quarte-435184/


----------



## Water Car Engineer




----------



## X_Killer




----------



## halloweene

Purely paper plane...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Water Car Engineer said:


>


Summary: India needs to ramp up LCA, but it will not be enough to meet the requirements
for numbers. The Rafale is very capable, and adding a few more squadrons would be good
from a logistics point of view, but it is very costly,
so IAF needs to get something in between the LCA and the Rafale under the MII program.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## X_Killer




----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


>



According to the video, F-16 production will move to Greenville, South Carolina and no production in India under MII program will occur due to Trumps policy to make America Great.
The move will happen after the last plane on order will be finished in September.
The production line will then be offline for two years.

India will however only decide in 2021, which is after next presidental election,
so the US production policy could still change.


----------



## egodoc222

A.P. Richelieu said:


> According to the video, F-16 production will move to Greenville, South Carolina and no production in India under MII program will occur due to Trumps policy to make America Great.
> The move will happen after the last plane on order will be finished in September.
> The production line will then be offline for two years.
> 
> India will however only decide in 2021, which is after next presidental election,
> so the US production policy could still change.


If gripen e wouldn't been have so pricey...IAF could've easily gone with gripen e


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

egodoc222 said:


> If gripen e wouldn't been have so pricey...IAF could've easily gone with gripen e



It was quoted to Denmark @ $64M, and there are not any alternative if F-16 is out.


----------



## egodoc222

A.P. Richelieu said:


> It was quoted to Denmark @ $64M, and there are not any alternative if F-16 is out.


In the above video with MP. You can see he was even including f18 in the race!!
But any of the three would be a good addition to IAF!!

Any how well is your government supporting this sale...sharing of tech...etc


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

egodoc222 said:


> In the above video with MP. You can see he was even including f18 in the race!!
> But any of the three would be a good addition to IAF!!
> 
> Any how well is your government supporting this sale...sharing of tech...etc


Brazil is happy with the ToT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## egodoc222

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Brazil is happy with the ToT.


We are not Brazil though!!


----------



## Hindustani78

In this February 16, 2017 file photo, U.S. fighter aircraft F-16 performs on the third day of Aero India 2017 at Yelahanka air base in Bangalore, India. | Photo Credit:  AP 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...sh-for-f-16-sale-to-india/article17662863.ece

* Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer. *
Two top Senators have urged the Trump administration to push for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to India to build its capability to counter security threats and balance China’s growing military power in the Pacific.

Senators Mark Warner from Virginia and John Cornyn from Texa in a joint letter to US Defence Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, the Trump administration must make the fighter jet acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions with India.

India has launched an effort to expand its combat aircraft fleet and the competition has reportedly narrowed down to Lockheed’s F-16 and Saab’s Gripen.

Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer.

“A primary factor in India’s decision will be compliance with Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative, which will require establishing some level of local production capacity,” Mr. Warner and Mr. Cornyn wrote.

“Given the strategic significance of India selecting a US aircraft as the mainstay for its future Air Force and the potential for a decision this year, we ask that the administration make the fighter acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions,” they said.

Mr. Warner, who is a Democrat and Mr. Cornyn from the Republican Party are the co-chairs of the influential Senate India caucus, the only country specific caucus in the US Senate.

“We urge you to weigh in forcefully with the White House on the strategic significance of this deal, both to America’s defence industrial base and to our growing security partnership with India,” said the letter dated March 23.

Making a strong case for the sale of F-16s to India, the two Senators said this would represent a historic win for America that will deepen the U.S.-India strategic defence relationship and cement cooperation between our two countries for decades to come.

“It would increase interoperability with a key partner and dominant power in South Asia, build India’s capability to counter threat from the north, and balance China’s growing military capability in the Pacific,” they said.

India, they said, increasingly serves as an integral partner in the United States’ security architecture in the volatile South Asia region, helping to protect our joint interests and deter common threats, and has emerged as a critical trading partner, they noted.

As such “it is in our national interest to work with India to progress democratic principles through regional security partnership and burden sharing,” they said.

“To this end, we support the co-production of our legacy F-16 aircraft in India to help sustain the United States’ current fleet of aircraft and aid a critical Indian security need with a proven American product,” Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Warner wrote.

The competition for the fighter jets, they wrote, presents an opportunity to solidify and strengthen the significant gains made in the bilateral U.S.-India defence relationship over the two previous administrations, they said.


----------



## egodoc222

Hindustani78 said:


> In this February 16, 2017 file photo, U.S. fighter aircraft F-16 performs on the third day of Aero India 2017 at Yelahanka air base in Bangalore, India. | Photo Credit:  AP
> 
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...sh-for-f-16-sale-to-india/article17662863.ece
> 
> * Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer. *
> Two top Senators have urged the Trump administration to push for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to India to build its capability to counter security threats and balance China’s growing military power in the Pacific.
> 
> Senators Mark Warner from Virginia and John Cornyn from Texa in a joint letter to US Defence Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, the Trump administration must make the fighter jet acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions with India.
> 
> India has launched an effort to expand its combat aircraft fleet and the competition has reportedly narrowed down to Lockheed’s F-16 and Saab’s Gripen.
> 
> Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer.
> 
> “A primary factor in India’s decision will be compliance with Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative, which will require establishing some level of local production capacity,” Mr. Warner and Mr. Cornyn wrote.
> 
> “Given the strategic significance of India selecting a US aircraft as the mainstay for its future Air Force and the potential for a decision this year, we ask that the administration make the fighter acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions,” they said.
> 
> Mr. Warner, who is a Democrat and Mr. Cornyn from the Republican Party are the co-chairs of the influential Senate India caucus, the only country specific caucus in the US Senate.
> 
> “We urge you to weigh in forcefully with the White House on the strategic significance of this deal, both to America’s defence industrial base and to our growing security partnership with India,” said the letter dated March 23.
> 
> Making a strong case for the sale of F-16s to India, the two Senators said this would represent a historic win for America that will deepen the U.S.-India strategic defence relationship and cement cooperation between our two countries for decades to come.
> 
> “It would increase interoperability with a key partner and dominant power in South Asia, build India’s capability to counter threat from the north, and balance China’s growing military capability in the Pacific,” they said.
> 
> India, they said, increasingly serves as an integral partner in the United States’ security architecture in the volatile South Asia region, helping to protect our joint interests and deter common threats, and has emerged as a critical trading partner, they noted.
> 
> As such “it is in our national interest to work with India to progress democratic principles through regional security partnership and burden sharing,” they said.
> 
> “To this end, we support the co-production of our legacy F-16 aircraft in India to help sustain the United States’ current fleet of aircraft and aid a critical Indian security need with a proven American product,” Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Warner wrote.
> 
> The competition for the fighter jets, they wrote, presents an opportunity to solidify and strengthen the significant gains made in the bilateral U.S.-India defence relationship over the two previous administrations, they said.


I don't think they'll give source codes...to integrate Indian weapons in future!!
I think only Israel is cleared to do so!!


----------



## Ryuzaki

At the most,USA will provide same level of "tech transfer" that Russia provided for Su-30 Mki.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Hindustani78 said:


> In this February 16, 2017 file photo, U.S. fighter aircraft F-16 performs on the third day of Aero India 2017 at Yelahanka air base in Bangalore, India. | Photo Credit:  AP
> 
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...sh-for-f-16-sale-to-india/article17662863.ece
> 
> * Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer. *
> Two top Senators have urged the Trump administration to push for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to India to build its capability to counter security threats and balance China’s growing military power in the Pacific.
> 
> Senators Mark Warner from Virginia and John Cornyn from Texa in a joint letter to US Defence Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, the Trump administration must make the fighter jet acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions with India.
> 
> India has launched an effort to expand its combat aircraft fleet and the competition has reportedly narrowed down to Lockheed’s F-16 and Saab’s Gripen.
> 
> Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer.
> 
> “A primary factor in India’s decision will be compliance with Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative, which will require establishing some level of local production capacity,” Mr. Warner and Mr. Cornyn wrote.
> 
> “Given the strategic significance of India selecting a US aircraft as the mainstay for its future Air Force and the potential for a decision this year, we ask that the administration make the fighter acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions,” they said.
> 
> Mr. Warner, who is a Democrat and Mr. Cornyn from the Republican Party are the co-chairs of the influential Senate India caucus, the only country specific caucus in the US Senate.
> 
> “We urge you to weigh in forcefully with the White House on the strategic significance of this deal, both to America’s defence industrial base and to our growing security partnership with India,” said the letter dated March 23.
> 
> Making a strong case for the sale of F-16s to India, the two Senators said this would represent a historic win for America that will deepen the U.S.-India strategic defence relationship and cement cooperation between our two countries for decades to come.
> 
> “It would increase interoperability with a key partner and dominant power in South Asia, build India’s capability to counter threat from the north, and balance China’s growing military capability in the Pacific,” they said.
> 
> India, they said, increasingly serves as an integral partner in the United States’ security architecture in the volatile South Asia region, helping to protect our joint interests and deter common threats, and has emerged as a critical trading partner, they noted.
> 
> As such “it is in our national interest to work with India to progress democratic principles through regional security partnership and burden sharing,” they said.
> 
> “To this end, we support the co-production of our legacy F-16 aircraft in India to help sustain the United States’ current fleet of aircraft and aid a critical Indian security need with a proven American product,” Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Warner wrote.
> 
> The competition for the fighter jets, they wrote, presents an opportunity to solidify and strengthen the significant gains made in the bilateral U.S.-India defence relationship over the two previous administrations, they said.



The plan says a decision will be made 2021.


----------



## egodoc222

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The plan says a decision will be made 2021.


When will gripen e fly?
If it had been a off the shelf platform...MOD would've been under pressure to make a decision!


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

egodoc222 said:


> When will gripen e fly?
> If it had been a off the shelf platform...MOD would've been under pressure to make a decision!


In a couple of months.
First delivery to the Swedish Air Force in 2019.

It seems that even if India is short of fighters, they do not want to make decision
until Gripen E can be delivered ;-)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## egodoc222

A.P. Richelieu said:


> In a couple of months.
> First delivery to the Swedish Air Force in 2019.
> 
> It seems that even if India is short of fighters, they do not want to make decision
> until Gripen E can be delivered ;-)


Maybe...can't blame though...it's gonna be a huge order...can't take any chances!!


----------



## Hindustani78

egodoc222 said:


> I don't think they'll give source codes...to integrate Indian weapons in future!!
> I think only Israel is cleared to do so!!



US aerospace company Lockheed Martin has since pledged to open a production line in India for the F-16s, but the plan was yet to be approved by the new administration.

Both senators urged Mattis and Tillerson “to weigh in forcefully with the White House on the strategic significance of the deal”, *arguing the F-16 production line solely relies on international buys, with the last aircraft made for the US in 1999.*

“*Keeping the F-16 in production will help sustain a fleet of over 1,000 aircraft currently in the Air Force* and help preserve thousands of American jobs. It will help maintain 800 high value design and engineering jobs in the US, and extend the *only scalable single engine 4th generation fighter aircraft* as a significant security cooperation tool for the US,” wrote Cornyn and Warner.

http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...ld-trump-on-defence-deals-with-india-4585409/

Senators John Cornyn and Mark Warner sent letters this week to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis, urging them to sign off on the F-16 production line in India and approve the export of the Guardian Remotely Piloted Aircraft, a non-lethal maritime surveillance platform, the Hill online reported on Friday.

“The Guardian is exclusively manufactured in the US, and a potential sale to India is estimated to be valued at over $2 billion across the life of the programme,” the second letter stated.

*****************




Designated MQ-9 Reaper® by its U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force customers, the turboprop-powered, multi-mission Predator® B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)

Predator B has an endurance of over 27 hours, speeds of 240 KTAS, can operate up to 50,000 feet, and has a 3,850 pound (1746 kilogram) payload capacity that includes 3,000 pounds (1361 kilograms) of external stores. Twice as fast as Predator, the aircraft carries 500% more payload and has nine times the horsepower. It provides a long-endurance, persistent surveillance/strike capability for the war fighter.

Predator B is powered by the flight-certified and proven Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop engine, integrated with Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC), which significantly improves engine performance and fuel efficiency, particularly at low altitudes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## egodoc222

Hindustani78 said:


> US aerospace company Lockheed Martin has since pledged to open a production line in India for the F-16s, but the plan was yet to be approved by the new administration.
> 
> Both senators urged Mattis and Tillerson “to weigh in forcefully with the White House on the strategic significance of the deal”, *arguing the F-16 production line solely relies on international buys, with the last aircraft made for the US in 1999.*
> 
> “*Keeping the F-16 in production will help sustain a fleet of over 1,000 aircraft currently in the Air Force* and help preserve thousands of American jobs. It will help maintain 800 high value design and engineering jobs in the US, and extend the *only scalable single engine 4th generation fighter aircraft* as a significant security cooperation tool for the US,” wrote Cornyn and Warner.
> 
> http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...ld-trump-on-defence-deals-with-india-4585409/
> 
> Senators John Cornyn and Mark Warner sent letters this week to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis, urging them to sign off on the F-16 production line in India and approve the export of the Guardian Remotely Piloted Aircraft, a non-lethal maritime surveillance platform, the Hill online reported on Friday.
> 
> “The Guardian is exclusively manufactured in the US, and a potential sale to India is estimated to be valued at over $2 billion across the life of the programme,” the second letter stated.
> 
> *****************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designated MQ-9 Reaper® by its U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force customers, the turboprop-powered, multi-mission Predator® B Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)
> 
> Predator B has an endurance of over 27 hours, speeds of 240 KTAS, can operate up to 50,000 feet, and has a 3,850 pound (1746 kilogram) payload capacity that includes 3,000 pounds (1361 kilograms) of external stores. Twice as fast as Predator, the aircraft carries 500% more payload and has nine times the horsepower. It provides a long-endurance, persistent surveillance/strike capability for the war fighter.
> 
> Predator B is powered by the flight-certified and proven Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop engine, integrated with Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC), which significantly improves engine performance and fuel efficiency, particularly at low altitudes.


Two billion dollars for a surveillance drone is such a waste of money....considering we already have a comparable uav heron!!


----------



## Hindustani78

egodoc222 said:


> Two billion dollars for a surveillance drone is such a waste of money....considering we already have a comparable uav heron!!




Heron is Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV .

With a wingspan of 16.6 m, the Heron has a maximum take-off weight of 1,250 kg and payload of 250 kg. 

Rustom-2 has a wingspan of 21 m, a payload of 350 kg and a planned endurance of more than 24 hours. It takes off and lands using a conventional undercarriage.


----------



## egodoc222

Hindustani78 said:


> Heron is Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV .
> 
> With a wingspan of 16.6 m, the Heron has a maximum take-off weight of 1,250 kg and payload of 250 kg.
> 
> Rustom-2 has a wingspan of 21 m, a payload of 350 kg and a planned endurance of more than 24 hours. It takes off and lands using a conventional undercarriage.


I'm talking about heron TP. It has a payload of 2000kg...deal for 10 of them already signed!


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Gripen – an affordable and effective choice for the Czech Republic*

http://www.fmv.se/en/News-and-media/In-focus/xx1/

At this year's NATO Tiger Meet exercise in Saragosa, Spain, the Czech Air Force participated with four Gripen and a total of 30 people. That's 7,5 persons per aircraft.

"Other participants, operating other aircrafts, had up to 25 persons per aircraft to perform the same kind of missions. All we need to fly a Gripen unit is one pilot, one technician and one mechanic. If we must, we can manage with just the pilot and the technician. It is much cheaper and fortunate too because of the difficulties to recruit technicians today."

In some situations, pilots can even do the turn around themselves.

"We added that to the pilot training program in 2008, so that they can turn around the plane on their own and take off again if they had to land at temporary air bases during a mission. That way they do not need to wait for the technicians to get the plane ready for take off. It is very useful for QRA missions." Says Jan Ducha.


----------



## Hindustani78

Dornier aircrafts seen lined up ready for action at the Air Force Station in Yelanhanka. This year, HAL received orders 12 Dornier-228 aircraft for the Indian Navy. | Photo Credit:  K.Gopinathan 

http://www.thehindu.com/business/In...17400-crore/article17758310.ece?homepage=true

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd has achieved a turnover of ₹17,406 crore for the financial year ended March 31, 2017, 4% higher than the year before.

Profit before tax was ₹3,294 crore, barely above last year's PBT.

“The company is doing well on expected lines. We contributed around ₹800 crore to the government exchequer by way of interim dividend. This is in addition to ₹162 crore paid as dividend tax," a release quoted HAL CMD T. Suvarna Raju as saying.

For the previous year, the audited turnover was ₹16,736 crore and pre-tax profit ₹3,288 crore.

During fiscal 2016-17 the company received orders worth 21,000 crore that included 12 Dornier-228 aircraft for the Indian Navy; 32 ALH light helicopters for the Navy and the Coast Guard; and AL-31 FP engines for the fighter Sukhoi-30 MkI.

The year also saw the first flight of two HAL-designed aircraft—basic trainer HTT-40 and the Light Utility Helicopter LUH, besides carriage trials of the indigenous light fighter LCA fixed with a mid-air refuelling probe. 

On the aeroengines front, HAL launched the metal cutting for its 1200-kW HTSE 1200 turboshaft engine.


----------



## X_Killer




----------



## Sloth 22

Ryuzaki said:


> At the most,USA will provide same level of "tech transfer" that Russia provided for Su-30 Mki.



We build everything in Su30MKI ourselves, except for titanium alloys used. And we have already used a Israeli Jammer on it too. Tested ASTRA from it and in process of adding many more things. 

Are you sure we will get all this from USA?



egodoc222 said:


> Two billion dollars for a surveillance drone is such a waste of money....considering we already have a comparable uav heron!!


There are things we buy, whoes bills needs to be paid. But those things can't be mentioned in the bill.

F16 from 113 Wing of Air National Guard of USA has crashed. Pilot safe.


----------



## X_Killer

Sloth 22 said:


> We build everything in Su30MKI ourselves, except for titanium alloys used. And we have already used a Israeli Jammer on it too. Tested ASTRA from it and in process of adding many more things.
> 
> Are you sure we will get all this from USA?
> 
> 
> There are things we buy, whoes bills needs to be paid. But those things can't be mentioned in the bill.
> 
> F16 from 113 Wing of Air National Guard of USA has crashed. Pilot safe.


Su-30MKI deal was done with "licence production" not with "ToT"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sloth 22

X_Killer said:


> Su-30MKI deal was done with "licence production" not with "ToT"



And we are asking the same this time too. 

ToT so as to enable Licence production !

And what we got in the Su30 MKI deal, if that is fixed as the minimum requirement, the Americans and others who are dependent upon Americans for their products loose out at that very moment.


----------



## X_Killer

Sloth 22 said:


> And we are asking the same this time
> 
> ToT so as to enable Licence production !
> 
> And what we got in the Su30 MKI deal, if that is fixed as the minimum requirement, the Americans and others who are dependent upon Americans for their products loose out at that very moment.


Licence production is completely different from ToT.
In licence production we can't modify or alter any tech.
But in case of ToT we can upgrade , modify or alter any technology.
In case of Su-30MKI we only have rights to assemble the imported kits. There is nothing to learn from it.
But when it comes to FGFA , Russia asked for 50% partnership with an estimated investment of ~$4 billion. That is why, present Government is asking for sales rights and ToT. If we got the Tech than we can modify it for the use in AMCA and other ongoing & upcoming projects.


----------



## Hindustani78

Sloth 22 said:


> We build everything in Su30MKI ourselves, except for titanium alloys used. And we have already used a Israeli Jammer on it too. Tested ASTRA from it and in process of adding many more things.



Are you sure ? 

At Goa Shipyard Limited* Titanium Workshop*

A highly specialised titanium workshop equipped with modern welding facilities and a trained workforce fabricates and welds titanium, non-ferrous metals and other components for ship construction.

If Indian Engineers can do fabrication and welds of Titanium and other ferrous metals and other components for ships , then why cant Indian Engineers do it in Airframes of Su 30MKI.


----------



## eldamar

What you have just described qualifies as reverse engineering.

To reverse engineer a piece of equipment, u need the dedicated infrastructure, mechanised-speciality tools, laboratory test kits and most importantly- the brains to examine, analysis n figure out how a part or component is made and why are they created the way they are from an engineering, mathematical, physics and chemistry pov by disassembling an entire plane/ship/tank into single pieces, down to that single screw and bolt. Most importantly, you must have the will- all of which indians lack.


----------



## ziaulislam

Sloth 22 said:


> We build everything in Su30MKI ourselves, except for titanium alloys used. And we have already used a Israeli Jammer on it too. Tested ASTRA from it and in process of adding many more things.
> .



i wonder why you are dealing with Russia for spares than. 
i think your minister is lying for quoting that you build around 50-60% of parts for spares


----------



## X_Killer

ziaulislam said:


> i wonder why you are dealing with Russia for spares than.
> i think your minister is lying for quoting that you build around 50-60% of parts for spares


Only critical components which are not manufacturing and license producing within India , are imported.
You need to know that, India is using ~70% arms and ammunition of Russian origin.

Government should encourage R&D agencies to develop LSA (Light STEALTH Aircraft) based on LCA. its will be more easier to modify the Airframe to stealthy design than incorporate other features when first stage is completed/successful. 
Why to waste too much time on papers. Learn with practical may be more easier. We already spent much time in LCA Project.
i think Government should think over it.


----------



## ziaulislam

X_Killer said:


> Only critical components which are not manufacturing and license producing within India , are imported.
> You need to know that, India is using ~70% arms and ammunition of Russian origin.
> 
> Government should encourage R&D agencies to develop LSA (Light STEALTH Aircraft) based on LCA. its will be more easier to modify the Airframe to stealthy design than incorporate other features when first stage is completed/successful.
> Why to waste too much time on papers. Learn with practical may be more easier. We already spent much time in LCA Project.
> i think Government should think over it.


IAF is upset with LCA being too light and has been literally forced into getting LCA with promise of another single jet which is more medium (F-16/gripen)
throwing a light stealth will be a disastrous


----------



## X_Killer

ziaulislam said:


> IAF is upset with LCA being too light and has been literally forced into getting LCA with of another single jet which is more medium (F-16/gripen)
> throwing a light stealth will be a disastrous


For your kind information, I would like to share. Information that there is need of ~250 single Engine FIGHTER AIRCRAFT by 2027.
The huge need of fighters are raised due to the retirement of Mig-21, Mig-23 and mig-27 squadrons & simultaneous raise in number of squadrons to the number of 42.
Hence there is a need of another fighter to fulfill the need within the available slot of time.
There is nothing like compromise but there is a genuine urgency.


----------



## Sloth 22

ziaulislam said:


> i wonder why you are dealing with Russia for spares than.
> i think your minister is lying for quoting that you build around 50-60% of parts for spares



We have licence and ToT to build the aircraft. The initial deal didn't had a long term Spares Supply deal with Russia. So every six months we needed to buy spares under a new contract. Thereby lowering the number of aircraft ready to fly. 

The recent contract for spares is that the Russian company is directly contracted to supply spares for 5 years. 

At the end of period the Su30MKI fleet will start undergoing Super Sukhoi upgrade, under that program HAL will then get the rights to manufacture all the spares , thereby making Indian Airforce fully independent of Irkut.

Even now most of the spares concerning to Aircrafts Air frame, its avionics and EW systems are manufactured by HAL , which we also export to Flanker operators who buy flankers from IRKUT. But we don't manufacture most of the spares related to the engine ,as we lack a military grade Titanium Plant.


----------



## Joe Shearer

X_Killer said:


> Only critical components which are not manufacturing and license producing within India , are imported.
> You need to know that, India is using ~70% arms and ammunition of Russian origin.
> 
> Government should encourage R&D agencies to develop LSA (Light STEALTH Aircraft) based on LCA. its will be more easier to modify the Airframe to stealthy design than incorporate other features when first stage is completed/successful.
> Why to waste too much time on papers. Learn with practical may be more easier. We already spent much time in LCA Project.
> i think Government should think over it.


Straight out of IDF.


Hindustani78 said:


> In this February 16, 2017 file photo, U.S. fighter aircraft F-16 performs on the third day of Aero India 2017 at Yelahanka air base in Bangalore, India. | Photo Credit:  AP
> 
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...sh-for-f-16-sale-to-india/article17662863.ece
> 
> * Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer. *
> Two top Senators have urged the Trump administration to push for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to India to build its capability to counter security threats and balance China’s growing military power in the Pacific.
> 
> Senators Mark Warner from Virginia and John Cornyn from Texa in a joint letter to US Defence Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, the Trump administration must make the fighter jet acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions with India.
> 
> India has launched an effort to expand its combat aircraft fleet and the competition has reportedly narrowed down to Lockheed’s F-16 and Saab’s Gripen.
> 
> Noting that the last F-16 for the US Air Force rolled off the production line in Fort Worth in 1999, the two Senators said India remains the only major F-16 prospect customer.
> 
> “A primary factor in India’s decision will be compliance with Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative, which will require establishing some level of local production capacity,” Mr. Warner and Mr. Cornyn wrote.
> 
> “Given the strategic significance of India selecting a US aircraft as the mainstay for its future Air Force and the potential for a decision this year, we ask that the administration make the fighter acquisition a priority during initial bilateral discussions,” they said.
> 
> Mr. Warner, who is a Democrat and Mr. Cornyn from the Republican Party are the co-chairs of the influential Senate India caucus, the only country specific caucus in the US Senate.
> 
> “We urge you to weigh in forcefully with the White House on the strategic significance of this deal, both to America’s defence industrial base and to our growing security partnership with India,” said the letter dated March 23.
> 
> Making a strong case for the sale of F-16s to India, the two Senators said this would represent a historic win for America that will deepen the U.S.-India strategic defence relationship and cement cooperation between our two countries for decades to come.
> 
> “It would increase interoperability with a key partner and dominant power in South Asia, build India’s capability to counter threat from the north, and balance China’s growing military capability in the Pacific,” they said.
> 
> India, they said, increasingly serves as an integral partner in the United States’ security architecture in the volatile South Asia region, helping to protect our joint interests and deter common threats, and has emerged as a critical trading partner, they noted.
> 
> As such “it is in our national interest to work with India to progress democratic principles through regional security partnership and burden sharing,” they said.
> 
> “To this end, we support the co-production of our legacy F-16 aircraft in India to help sustain the United States’ current fleet of aircraft and aid a critical Indian security need with a proven American product,” Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Warner wrote.
> 
> The competition for the fighter jets, they wrote, presents an opportunity to solidify and strengthen the significant gains made in the bilateral U.S.-India defence relationship over the two previous administrations, they said.


----------



## Hindustani78

ziaulislam said:


> IAF is upset with LCA being too light and has been literally forced into getting LCA with promise of another single jet which is more medium (F-16/gripen)
> throwing a light stealth will be a disastrous




Indian Military planners are aware what they are doing .


----------



## eldamar

Sloth 22 said:


> We have licence and ToT to build the aircraft. The initial deal didn't had a long term Spares Supply deal with Russia. So every six months we needed to buy spares under a new contract. Thereby lowering the number of aircraft ready to fly.
> 
> The recent contract for spares is that the Russian company is directly contracted to supply spares for 5 years.
> 
> At the end of period the Su30MKI fleet will start undergoing Super Sukhoi upgrade, under that program HAL will then get the rights to manufacture all the spares , thereby making Indian Airforce fully independent of Irkut.
> 
> Even now most of the spares concerning to Aircrafts Air frame, its avionics and EW systems are manufactured by HAL , which we also export to Flanker operators who buy flankers from IRKUT. But we don't manufacture most of the spares related to the engine ,as we lack a military grade Titanium Plant.



U dont call a deal 'ToT' when u dont have the technology that comes from it to manufacture your own spares. How are u having the capability to build your own aircraft when u cant supply your own spares for it?


----------



## TopCat

X_Killer said:


> Licence production is completely different from ToT.
> In licence production we can't modify or alter any tech.
> But in case of ToT we can upgrade , modify or alter any technology.
> In case of Su-30MKI we only have rights to assemble the imported kits. There is nothing to learn from it.
> But when it comes to FGFA , Russia asked for 50% partnership with an estimated investment of ~$4 billion. That is why, present Government is asking for sales rights and ToT. If we got the Tech than we can modify it for the use in AMCA and other ongoing & upcoming projects.


How much out of 4 billion you paid so far? may be few million? Russia already paid for all the R&D.


----------



## X_Killer

TopCat said:


> How much out of 4 billion you paid so far? may be few million? Russia already paid for all the R&D.



India and Russia signed a preliminary design agreement to jointly produce the FGFA for use by both countries, after which each invested $295 million for preliminary design which was completed in 2013.
In $295 millions you can buy atleast 6 additional Su-30's And when you are ready to buy/build 120+ Aircrafts than ToT will be more than essential for a deal. Isn't it.


----------



## TopCat

X_Killer said:


> India and Russia signed a preliminary design agreement to jointly produce the FGFA for use by both countries, after which each invested $295 million for preliminary design which was completed in 2013.
> In $295 millions you can buy atleast 6 additional Su-30's And when you are ready to buy/build 120+ Aircrafts than ToT will be more than essential for a deal. Isn't it.


$295 mln ... ok


----------



## X_Killer

TopCat said:


> $295 mln ... ok


What OK?
If you go through the Nigerian Jf-17 deal than you can buy 59 jf-17's in the same amount.
Also if you get subsidised F-16's than you can have ~39 F-16 fighter aircrafts.
Even if you want to extend Su-30MKI deal you can have additional 6 aircrafts.
Also you can have 4 RAFALE FIGHTER jets with this amount.


----------



## Sloth 22

eldarlmari said:


> U dont call a deal 'ToT' when u dont have the technology that comes from it to manufacture your own spares. How are u having the capability to build your own aircraft when u cant supply your own spaSuor it?



We bought the ToT to build the aircrafts " under a licence " , which means we can build only the given number of parts , which will usually go to new aircrafts , and not more as we don't have the licence to do it.

But it is a ToT as the whole of Su30MKI is built from Raw Materials of India, used to build all the parts from tools of India , by Indians in India.Except Titanium Alloy parts of the engine. Meaning we have the necessary knowhow to build all the Aircraft in India without depending on Russia. But it would then risk future dealings of India with that Russian company.


----------



## eldamar

Sloth 22 said:


> We bought the ToT to build the aircrafts " under a licence " , which means we can build only the given number of parts , which will usually go to new aircrafts , and not more as we don't have the licence to do it.
> 
> But it is a ToT as the whole of Su30MKI is built from Raw Materials of India, used to build all the parts from tools of India , by Indians in India.Except Titanium Alloy parts of the engine. Meaning we have the necessary knowhow to build all the Aircraft in India without depending on Russia. But it would then risk future dealings of India with that Russian company.


U are just doing a 'merry go round' here

What 'ToT' is there when no technology is transfered for HAL to manufacture her own spares?

'ToT' and licensed production, aka screwdriver assembly rights- are 2 different matters. Whats the whole point of a ToT if HAL still has to be reliant on others for spares?


----------



## Sloth 22

eldarlmari said:


> U are just doing a 'merry go round' here
> 
> What 'ToT' is there when no technology is transfered for HAL to manufacture her own spares?
> 
> 'ToT' and licensed production, aka screwdriver assembly rights- are 2 different matters. Whats the whole point of a ToT if HAL still has to be reliant on others for spares?



Screw driver assembly is not what Su30MKI production is about. Had the kits been coming from Russia , and we would have been simply assembling it , your statement might have been correct. 

For the rest , read my previous reply again. 

If not , leave it.


----------



## eldamar

Sloth 22 said:


> Screw driver assembly is not what Su30MKI production is about. Had the kits been coming from Russia , and we would have been simply assembling it , your statement might have been correct.





> If not , leave it.


Why should i? You merely trying to brush me off once i exposed what the situation is on the ground.

Established fact is HAL has to import spares n components from russia for the su30mki.

In other words- other then assembly rights aka 'licensed production', HAL cant manufacture the SU30mki.

No technology gained to make spares. Thats not what a 'ToT' is about.

Now u're on the contrary- making a claim that a ToT has taken place despite HAL having the incapability to produce the plane with all of its components, electronics, engine, radar n the like(not an empty shell) on her own.

So, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that HAL is producing its own spares n components for the MKI- of which, u have not done so.


----------



## ziaulislam

eldarlmari said:


> Why should i? You merely trying to brush me off once i exposed what the situation is on the ground.
> 
> Established fact is HAL has to import spares n components from russia for the su30mki.
> 
> In other words- other then assembly rights aka 'licensed production', HAL cant manufacture the SU30mki.
> 
> No technology gained to make spares. Thats not what a 'ToT' is about.
> 
> Now u're on the contrary- making a claim that a ToT has taken place despite HAL having the incapability to produce the plane on her own.
> 
> So, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that HAL is producing its own spares n components for the MKI- of which, u have not done so.


Tot is blanket term. Doesn't mean much until you knw details. 
E.g we got tot for french subs can we make that sub ourself now. No.
Alot of tech is not transferred. Same is true for su 30. Most of the components are still built in Russia. If you remember there were news reports of HAL blaming Russia for delays in su 30 due to delay kits. Now it doesn't mean india is notbuilding most of the jet. From previous articlesit seems 60% of jet parts are build in india.

A better approach thus is a joint venture in which u own the tochnology and there is max transfer of tech


----------



## Centurion2016

ziaulislam said:


> Tot is blanket term. Doesn't mean much until you knw details.
> 
> 
> A better approach thus is a joint venture in which u own the tochnology and there is max transfer of tech



I suggest you read details of the stand off between India and Russia on the Fgfa deal

India is refusing to agree a deal to spend $4billion to design and build a improved version of the Pakfa until they get transfer of technology and work share in development.

Russia wants to provide screw driver technology with license assembly .

Hence no deal signed yet


----------



## ziaulislam

Centurion2016 said:


> I suggest you read details of the stand off between India and Russia on the Fgfa deal
> 
> India is refusing to agree a deal to spend $4billion to design and build a improved version of the Pakfa until they get transfer of technology and work share in development.
> 
> Russia wants to provide screw driver technology with license assembly .
> 
> Hence no deal signed yet


What did India expected
It will cost at least this much to get some tot. Look at f35 prog for instances

I would argue that rafale was an utter waste of money in grand scheme. Better spent was half gone to pakfa and other half to LCA. with some to more migs or su30s


----------



## ziaulislam

If india wanted western tech they should have done a JV with gripen for gripen NG. Or just take the f16 deal


----------



## Water Car Engineer

ziaulislam said:


> If india wanted western tech they should have done a JV with gripen for gripen NG. Or just take the f16 deal




The single fighter competition is doing just that.


----------



## Centurion2016

ziaulislam said:


> If india wanted western tech they should have done a JV with gripen for gripen NG. Or just take the f16 deal




You mean make the same mistake as Pakistani.

Buy USA technology then be stuck with sanctions ,,,, errr no thank you


----------



## ziaulislam

Centurion2016 said:


> You mean make the same mistake as Pakistani.
> 
> Buy USA technology then be stuck with sanctions ,,,, errr no thank you


Hmm. So no wonder you guys buying so many usa stuff


----------



## ziaulislam

Water Car Engineer said:


> The single fighter competition is doing just that.


But MRCA was "supposeto" do that


----------



## Centurion2016

ziaulislam said:


> Hmm. So no wonder you guys buying so many usa stuff




There is simple reason why during Mmrca selection f16/70 and super hornets came bottom

Simply sanction threats 

Less likely with the French 

Rafale is a awesome machine and hopefully India will order more post 2022


----------



## SorryNotSorry

eldarlmari said:


> Why should i? You merely trying to brush me off once i exposed what the situation is on the ground.
> 
> Established fact is HAL has to import spares n components from russia for the su30mki.
> 
> In other words- other then assembly rights aka 'licensed production', HAL cant manufacture the SU30mki.
> 
> No technology gained to make spares. Thats not what a 'ToT' is about.
> 
> Now u're on the contrary- making a claim that a ToT has taken place despite HAL having the incapability to produce the plane with all of its components, electronics, engine, radar n the like(not an empty shell) on her own.
> 
> So, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that HAL is producing its own spares n components for the MKI- of which, u have not done so.


You should read up on it if youre so interested, i think theres plenty of material on this topic available online. And don't be so sour my Pakistani bud. Cheer up!


----------



## Ryuzaki

73% of components of Su-30 MKI are built in India by numbers,and around 52-55% by value

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ziaulislam

Centurion2016 said:


> There is simple reason why during Mmrca selection f16/70 and super hornets came bottom
> 
> Simply sanction threats
> 
> Less likely with the French
> 
> Rafale is a awesome machine and hopefully India will order more post 2022


the reason was not sanction, it was technical requirements and lies. USA was straight about the amount of tot. french as usual were lying. Though there could be $$$ factor too. French are well known for bribes


----------



## Fledgingwings

Joke Or No Joke! Not Happening.


----------



## Centurion2016

India does not need a cold war relic no matter how much lip stick they put on F16

USA Israel & Nato including turkey are phasing these planes out as we speak and inducting F35 Rafales & Typhoons

At best F16 will remain second tier planes in some air forces

India has its plans well laid out

Rafale FFGA first tier
SU30MKI & Super mki 2nd Tier
Tejas MK1/1A 3rd Tier

there IS NO ROOM for f16


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Centurion2016 said:


> India does not need a cold war relic no matter how much lip stick they put on F16
> 
> USA Israel & Nato including turkey are phasing these planes out as we speak and inducting F35 Rafales & Typhoons
> 
> At best F16 will remain second tier planes in some air forces
> 
> India has its plans well laid out
> 
> Rafale FFGA first tier
> SU30MKI & Super mki 2nd Tier
> Tejas MK1/1A 3rd Tier
> 
> there IS NO ROOM for f16



You do not seem to follow what is happening.
Rafale is too expensive, and Tejas is not beeing inducted in numbers neccessary
to maintain the IAF strength.
Engaging in wishful thinking is not going to change that.


----------



## Centurion2016

A.P. Richelieu said:


> You do not seem to follow what is happening.
> Rafale is too expensive, and Tejas is not beeing inducted in numbers neccessary
> to maintain the IAF strength.
> Engaging in wishful thinking is not going to change that.




AND IF YOU think signing for F16 or Gripen will help this IT WILL NOT

The contract will take 2 years tom sign. ie 2020

deliverys will not start until 2022

AND LAST A 7 years

THATS 2030 far far to late


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Centurion2016 said:


> AND IF YOU think signing for F16 or Gripen will help this IT WILL NOT
> 
> The contract will take 2 years tom sign. ie 2020
> 
> deliverys will not start until 2022
> 
> AND LAST A 7 years
> 
> THATS 2030 far far to late



So with no further orders for

Rafale - too expensive
SU-30MKI - have enough of those
Tejas - Problem increasing production beyond those ordered
there will not be enough planes for the number of desired squadrons.

Waiting with the decision until 2021 is good timing if IAF wants Gripen E.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

https://fightersweep.com/6024/dogfight-f-16v-viper-versus-j-39e-gripen/

*Dogfight! F-16V Viper versus J-39E Gripen: Who Wins?*

*The Verdict*

The F-16V is the clear winner here, because it exists and flies today. It is the most combat proven design in the history of fourth generation multi-role fighter airpower, and it is actual flying and being tested now. I vote for IT as the obvious winner of the F-16V versus J-39E mock-fight.

However, (as a former F-16 operator, this part pains me to say) that if the J-39E becomes a reality, and all the discussed items become real too, IT will be the clear winner. The lower RCS design, the IRSTS, and the higher thrust-to-weight ratio give the J-39E the edge for the top spot on the fourth generation multi-role fighter podium. It will be one highly capable and extremely difficult unicorn to defeat by any capable adversary!


----------



## Super Commando Dhruva

A.P. Richelieu said:


> https://fightersweep.com/6024/dogfight-f-16v-viper-versus-j-39e-gripen/
> 
> *Dogfight! F-16V Viper versus J-39E Gripen: Who Wins?*
> 
> *The Verdict*
> 
> The F-16V is the clear winner here, because it exists and flies today. It is the most combat proven design in the history of fourth generation multi-role fighter airpower, and it is actual flying and being tested now. I vote for IT as the obvious winner of the F-16V versus J-39E mock-fight.
> 
> However, (as a former F-16 operator, this part pains me to say) that if the J-39E becomes a reality, and all the discussed items become real too, IT will be the clear winner. The lower RCS design, the IRSTS, and the higher thrust-to-weight ratio give the J-39E the edge for the top spot on the fourth generation multi-role fighter podium. It will be one highly capable and extremely difficult unicorn to defeat by any capable adversary!


Combat proven against the countries who does not even have AIR Force. Or just gliders or you took your best stealth first. US cant make us fool with absolute plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sloth 22

A.P. Richelieu said:


> So with no further orders for
> 
> Rafale - too expensive
> SU-30MKI - have enough of those
> Tejas - Problem increasing production beyond those ordered
> there will not be enough planes for the number of desired squadrons.
> 
> Waiting with the decision until 2021 is good timing if IAF wants Gripen E.



Tell me the price "fly away " cost of Gripen E.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Sloth 22 said:


> Tell me the price "fly away " cost of Gripen E.


The quote to Denmark was $64M/aircraft including 20 years service.
With TOT, it would be more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sloth 22

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The quote to Denmark was $64M/aircraft including 20 years service.
> With TOT, it would be more.



Keep the fly away cost under 70 million USD and deliver on all the promises made on Gripen. 

At that price , it has a very good prospect.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Sloth 22 said:


> Keep the fly away cost under 70 million USD and deliver on all the promises made on Gripen.
> 
> At that price , it has a very good prospect.



Brazil is paying $5,44B$ for 36 aircrafts which maps out to ~$150M per aircraft,
so it all depends on what extras You want.
It includes special development for Brazil (worth 1B$) and a lot of other things
which never was revealed.


----------



## ziaulislam

F 16 is no doubt the best option 
Design has not changed much since 1980s but would u call the f22 out dated in 10 years (designed in 90) ? Is f 15 outdated, is flanker designed in 80s outdated even rafale will it be outdated, designed in 90s.

F16 was far ahead of its time in 1970-80s. And with saber block 70 is much better in all charaterstics from gripen. I would say its better or at least as good as rafale


----------



## ziaulislam

You will not get anything less than 100M $. Problem is off shore clause. Which exponential rises the cost.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

ziaulislam said:


> F 16 is no doubt the best option
> Design has not changed much since 1980s but would u call the f22 out dated in 10 years (designed in 90) ? Is f 15 outdated, is flanker designed in 80s outdated even rafale will it be outdated, designed in 90s.
> 
> F16 was far ahead of its time in 1970-80s. And with saber block 70 is much better in all charaterstics from gripen. I would say its better or at least as good as rafale



Except that Gripen seems to "shoot down" F-16s during exercises.

http://airheadsfly.com/2014/02/13/norwegian-f-16s-get-buts-kicked-over-iceland/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Except that Gripen seems to "shoot down" F-16s during exercises.
> 
> http://airheadsfly.com/2014/02/13/norwegian-f-16s-get-buts-kicked-over-iceland/


And typhoon are shoot down by f-16 and mig21 creeps over f15.....

Exercises depend upon lot of factors and engagements models. F16 is by far better, as seen by its customers base and proven combact scores. I dont see Norway being gripen, do I. Instead its Lockheed's f35

Gripen N is bringing the technology in next few years that f16block 60 has fielded now for over a decade


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

ziaulislam said:


> And typhoon are shoot down by f-16 and mig21 creeps over f15.....
> 
> Exercises depend upon lot of factors and engagements models. F16 is by far better, as seen by its customers base and proven combact scores. I dont see Norway being gripen, do I. Instead its Lockheed's f35
> 
> Gripen N is bringing the technology in next few years that f16block 60 has fielded now for over a decade



If only customer base and combat score is used to determine which fighter is better,
then F-16 is better than the F-22...
That line of argument is still-born.

The main decision criteria for Norway was alignment with the US, to make them happy
enough to start using the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile.
Being a superpower gives You leverage in many ways.
According to the Norwegian calculations presented, the F-35 was both cheaper 
to buy and to operate compared to the Gripen which is ridiculous, now when real figures
are available.

Wikileaks has shown that the Norwegian evaluation was not real.
They decided to buy the F-35 for political reasons, and then tried 
to come up with arguments for the selection.

If Lockheed Martin F-16 test pilots think Gripen E is a better fighter,
who are You to argue .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

Saab GRIPEN has more than 40% of contents from foreign Origin which can't be claimed under ToT.
Like for Engines, AESA etc.
And most of the remaining stuff is either developed or in trials.
Like EW suite.

Moreover, GRIPEN E is still to get its FOC in 2023, than why can't INDIA wait for its LCA MK-2. INDIA should Fastrack it's process to develop mk2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani78

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/612535/htt-40-second-prototype-completes.html

DH News Service, Bengaluru, May 20 2017, 2:15 IST
Indian Air Force is poised to acquire 70 HTT-40 aircraft






The second prototype (PT-2) of the Basic Trainer Aircraft HTT-40 aircraft flew for an hour, carrying out important manoeuvres.


The second prototype (PT-2) of the Basic Trainer Aircraft HTT-40 completed its maiden flight at the HAL Airport here on Friday evening. Built by state-owned aviation major Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the prototype was made ready within one year.

The aircraft flew for one hour, carrying out important manoeuvres. The flight was certified a success by HAL Chairman and Managing Director, Suvarna Raju.

PT-2 was last seen on static display at the Aero India aerospace exhibition at the Yelahanka Air Force Station in February. 

The aircraft had been equipped with a fully functional cockpit by then. HTT-40 is designed for use as a basic flight trainer aircraft. But it can also be optimised for aerobatics, instrument flying and close-formation flights. The secondary roles will include navigation and night flying.

It is estimated that the commercial production of the trainer aircraft can generate nearly Rs 3,000-4,000 crore. The Indian Air Force is poised to acquire 70 HTT-40. But this number could potentially go up to 200, based on demand. HAL has proposed to get the aircraft certified in 2018.

Launched with HAL’s internal funding of Rs 500 crore, the HTT-40 project was given the go-ahead for design development in August 2013. Once the detailed design was completed in May 2015, the first prototype (PT-1) had its maiden flight in May 2016.

Having undergone several improvisations, PT-1 has completed over 35 flights. Its fuel system was converted to a fully pressurised one and the rudder modified to address sensitivity issues.

Also on HAL’s agenda is a third prototype designed with reduced weight and a weaponised version, PT-4 to suit the needs of the Indian Army.

Indigenous Trainer Aircraft HTT-40 Makes Inaugural Flight

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## el nino

Both the f16 and gripen deals are quietly bring squashed away now in favour of more rafale.

The cost of block 70 and gripen e is almost the same as rafale and delivery time is too far to set up production in India.

This is why India is talking to rafale for fifty more planes for delivery from 2022 onwards after first batch of rsfales are delivered


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

el nino said:


> Both the f16 and gripen deals are quietly bring squashed away now in favour of more rafale.
> 
> The cost of block 70 and gripen e is almost the same as rafale and delivery time is too far to set up production in India.
> 
> This is why India is talking to rafale for fifty more planes for delivery from 2022 onwards after first batch of rsfales are delivered



The India Rafale project is.....8,72B$ for 36 aircraft.
The Brazil Gripen E project is.4,68B$ for 36 aircraft.

The Gripen E project includes TOT.

India needs a fighter for the new aircraft carrier, and seems to favour two engine aircrafts.

I think You are making a hen from a feather.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The India Rafale project is.....8,72B$ for 36 aircraft.
> The Brazil Gripen E project is.4,68B$ for 36 aircraft.



If you are making such a comparison, then it's about 6.5B for Rafale. It's because the Indian deal also includes 2B for customization and about 300M for performance based logistics.

I would agree that the Gripen is significantly cheaper than Rafale. But Dassault's advantage is the deal for 36 has given them the opportunity to bid with about 40% of the production base already present in India.

Anyway, the two jets are no longer in competition with each other. Gripen has to compete with the F-16 for the IAF deal while Rafale has to compete with the SH and/or the F-35 for the IN deal.



el nino said:


> Both the f16 and gripen deals are quietly bring squashed away now in favour of more rafale.
> 
> The cost of block 70 and gripen e is almost the same as rafale and delivery time is too far to set up production in India.
> 
> This is why India is talking to rafale for fifty more planes for delivery from 2022 onwards after first batch of rsfales are delivered



You are confused between the IAF and IN deals.

IAF will have a Single Engine competition between Gripen and F-16 now.

The decision for more Rafales for the IAF, including a production line, will be taken up a few years later. Right now, IAF is only pushing for 18 more Rafales at a third air base. They basically want to guarantee 3 bases with 2 squadrons each.

The 57 jet deal is for the IN.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> If you are making such a comparison, then it's about 6.5B for Rafale. It's because the Indian deal also includes 2B for customization and about 300M for performance based logistics.
> 
> I would agree that the Gripen is significantly cheaper than Rafale. But Dassault's advantage is the deal for 36 has given them the opportunity to bid with about 40% of the production base already present in India.
> 
> Anyway, the two jets are no longer in competition with each other. Gripen has to compete with the F-16 for the IAF deal while Rafale has to compete with the SH and/or the F-35 for the IN deal.



The Brazil Gripen E project also includes customization (including development of a two-seat version, and new cockpit instrumentation).
A quote based on the price given to Denmark would be 2,3B$ for 36 Aircraft.
That includes service for 20 years.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The India Rafale project is.....8,72B$ for 36 aircraft.
> The Brazil Gripen E project is.4,68B$ for 36 aircraft.
> .


Chill man and dig some facts on RAFALE deal.
The deal includes ~$4 bn for jets
~$1.5 bn for Aircraft customisation (including uprated Engine) + MICA & Meteor 
~2 bn for IAF integration and testing + training of IAF crew in France for active deployment without delay
Remaining for setting up Repairing facility at IAF base.

For further deals , the amount will be served for jets only


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Brazil Gripen E project also includes customization (including development of a two-seat version, and new cockpit instrumentation).



That's about 800M more.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/...es-work-on-brazils-gripen-ng-aircraft-4761866



> A quote based on the price given to Denmark would be 2,3B$ for 36 Aircraft.
> That includes service for 20 years.



Any link for that? Would be interesting.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> That's about 800M more.
> 
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/...es-work-on-brazils-gripen-ng-aircraft-4761866
> 
> 
> 
> Any link for that? Would be interesting.



http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/har-ar-prislappen-pa-super-jas-6409662 (Swedish).
I see now that the link is a bit old.
The pricing quoted for the Swedish Gripen last year was a little North of 10% more expensive.


----------



## aarohi

Its online information is available on a jhatka mutton kanpur


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Analysts: India won't ink a single-engine fighter deal before 2019*

*http://www.defensenews.com/articles/analysts-india-wont-ink-a-single-engine-fighter-deal-before-2019*


NEW DELHI — India's single-engine fighter program, worth $12 billion, is unlikely to be "decided before 2019," analysts and officials say, even as the Indian Air Force has decided to hold flight tests of Lockheed's F-16 Block 70 and Sweden's Gripen-E, the two aircraft competing in the program. 

Restricted expressions of interests were sent through Indian embassies to "some overseas participants" to take part in the program in October last year to elicit responses to produce single-engine fighter aircraft in India. Lockheed Martin offered to shift the assembly line of its F-16 Block 70, and Sweden offered to build the Gripen-E aircraft in India with technology transfer. 

The F-16 fighter aircraft did not come up for discussion during last month's summit talks on June 26 between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, said a Ministry of Defence official without commenting on the outcome of the talks. 

However, analysts and officials are skeptical whether the program would come to an early decision. Some analysts even say the F-16 will never be bought by the Indian Air Force, or IAF. 





*"There isn't now even the slightest IAF interest in the F-16 Block 70 or any other variant," said Bharat Karnad, professor of national security studies at Centre for Policy Research. *

When asked about the outcome of the flight trials the IAF will conduct, Karnad said, "Nothing, it will take time and delay any decision to beyond the 2019 election. Thereafter, the medium multirole combat aircraft, or MMRCA, metrics will still apply, and the F-16 will be rejected." 

The F-16 and Gripen were both rejected after flight trials during the 2007 MMRCA tender, which was finally scrapped in 2014, leading to the outright purchase of France's Rafale fighter aircraft worth $8.8 billion that was inked last year. 

An IAF official said that this time, only limited flight trials of the F-16 and Gripen will take place, which will be restricted to the upgraded components that were not in the 2007 MMRCA tender. 




Defense News
Aero India: New single-engine fighters to be star attractions
Daljit Singh, a retired IAF air marshal and defense analyst said, "The F-16 and Gripen fielded during the MMRCA selection did not have all the systems that the IAF would look for in single-engine fighters. AESA radars and EW systems have recently been integrated on the F-16 Block 70 and Gripen E, and they would be required to be evaluated." 

"The time for evaluation would be lesser than the previous evaluation, as only two fighters would be evaluated, and the majority of the capabilities have already been tested," Singh added. 

However, analysts and officials are unanimous in their view that no decision on the program is likely immediately. In addition, the program is to be built in a newly announced Strategic Partners policy, which was notified in June. 

"The chances of seeing any program under this SP program in the near future are slim til the MoD sorts out key issues relating to IP, especially under an unfavorable 49 percent ownership limit for foreign vendors," said Pushan Das, a defense analyst with Observer Research Foundation. 

Another IAF official said, "There could be delays based on IAF asking for more and thereby delays due to integration testing, etc." 

"In my opinion, in the current scenario with home-grown light combat aircraft, or LCA, getting produced and with LCA Mark-1A and an order of 83 cleared by the government already, I do not foresee an immediate decision on any other single-engine fighter aircraft soon," the IAF official added.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sliver

A.P. Richelieu said:


> "In my opinion, in the current scenario with home-grown light combat aircraft, or LCA, getting produced and with LCA Mark-1A and an order of 83 cleared by the government already, I do not foresee an immediate decision on any other single-engine fighter aircraft soon," the IAF official added.


wasn't interest for f-16 (or other single engined fighters) was shown "despite" the home grown fighter?


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Sliver said:


> wasn't interest for f-16 (or other single engined fighters) was shown "despite" the home grown fighter?



Already when the "single engine" RFI was sent out, the plan said decision in 2021,
with deliveries starting a few years later.
There are several possible explanations for this.
My favourite is that IAF sees it as pointless to make the decision
until they can get deliveries of the plane they really want.
First delivery of Gripen E is planned in 2019.
FOC a few years later, and IAF is adapting its schedule.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## surya kiran

Sliver said:


> wasn't interest for f-16 (or other single engined fighters) was shown "despite" the home grown fighter?



The IAF is not going to move its butt on the F-16 or whatever till the Rafales are approved in numbers. The Tejas is on track. One more production line will come online in the next 3 years or so.

People do not seem to understand the size of the IAF. There is a need to replace and increase the squadron size of almost 1000 fighters over the next 15 years. If the F-16 does happen it will be to increase squadron numbers not to replace squadron numbers.


----------



## Sliver

surya kiran said:


> increase the squadron size of almost 1000 fighters over the next 15 years


any links to substantiate this? or is this just what you feel like the numbers should be?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## surya kiran

Sliver said:


> any links to substantiate this? or is this just what you feel like the numbers should be?



There are currently following aircraft which will be replaced

Jaguars - 130
Mig 21 - 245
Mig 27 - 66
Mig 29 - 66
Mirage 2000 - 45

This is just the current size, needing replacements, out of 32 squadrons. Typical IAF squadron has 18 +2. Sanctioned strength is 42 (as of date). So another 200 fighters just for the sanctioned strength.

130+200+245+66+66+45 = 752 fighters will be replaced or added over the next 15 years, just for reaching sanctioned squadron strength. This does not include trainers or any other aircraft. This also does not include the IN air wings, off shore and ac based.

So that would be close to 850 fighters at a minimum, at current squadron sanction levels.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Water Car Engineer

surya kiran said:


> There are currently following aircraft which will be replaced
> 
> Jaguars - 130
> Mig 21 - 245
> Mig 27 - 66
> Mig 29 - 66
> Mirage 2000 - 45
> 
> This is just the current size, needing replacements, out of 32 squadrons. Typical IAF squadron has 18 +2. Sanctioned strength is 42 (as of date). So another 200 fighters just for the sanctioned strength.
> 
> 130+200+245+66+66+45 = 752 fighters will be replaced or added over the next 15 years, just for reaching sanctioned squadron strength. This does not include trainers or any other aircraft. This also does not include the IN air wings, off shore and ac based.
> 
> So that would be close to 850 fighters at a minimum, at current squadron sanction levels.




Good post buddy, thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

surya kiran said:


> So that would be close to 850 fighters at a minimum, at current squadron sanction levels.



I'll double WCE's approval with this caveat, Surya my good mate
that by the end of these replacements, India will likely have dis-
covered as most modern AFs that one on one renewal isn't always
practical or even feasible economically nor necessary if tech has
multiplied the efficiency of the incoming aircrafts.
The Rafale is right along those avenues.

The solution for a 1 on 1 replacement was to have a low cost op-
tion for the lower tier at least, with as few costly imported parts
as possible, a simple cheap workhorse . . .

That's where the feet dragging of the last 30 years takes a toll &
fully shows its drawbacks. Forget the original 1995 induction and
even with the post-1998 local design reorientation and picture the
initial IAF order in 2005 entering production right there and then.

Output a squadron a year as DM Parrikar asked not HAL's 16 and
you'd have a dozen low cost squadrons by now. Which subtracted
from 752 gives us 512.
I'd take out the 36 Rafales to make it 476 but who knows if in such
an ideal scenario the MMRCA would have even taken place at all?

Anyhow, best of days to both, Tay.

​

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

I think Gripen might be as India had already refused F-16s because PAF pilots have a lot of experience on it. Moreover, I think F-18s for IN would work well with a new carreir tech provided by USA.

All the fuss in India about F-16s will gonna turn towards F-35A and F-35B/Cs. Soon


----------



## hassamun

*Why Indian Army’s hunt for assault rifle under Make in India is no good*

*It rejected the indigenously made 7.62mm rifle on the grounds that it was technologically not up to the mark.*

There is little doubt that the Indian Army is in dire need of 7.62mm and 5.56mm assault rifles. The Army still uses the AK-47 in the category of the 7.62mm rifles while the Indian Small Arms Systems (INSAS) 5.56 is an obsolete as well as unreliable assault rifle and needs replacement. A 5.56mm assault rifle is smaller-calibre ammunition which is lighter; hence, for the same load, more rounds can be carried by each infantryman.

In 2016, there were reports that the Army was looking for 1,85,000 assault rifles. Acquiring the assault rifle is crucial for the infantry as it not only faces the brunt on the borders but also carries out counter-terrorism operations. It is a known fact that the Indian Army does not use heavy weaponry in counter-terrorism operations unlike the US and the NATO countries.

One of the reliable weapons systems for the Army during counter-terrorism operations is the assault rifle. Hence, it is important for India to acquire modern and sophisticated assault rifles.

There have been efforts to procure the assault rifle since 2011 but consistent delays have stalled the progress of acquiring a good quality rifle. This delay is a concern for the Army. Despite global companies participating in the assault rifle tender, in 2015, the task to manufacture the rifle was ultimately given to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The DRDO was to make the INSAS Excalibur, but that plan was cancelled. The same year, India decided to manufacture an assault rifle with interchangeable barrel that would be able to fire different calibres - both 5.56mm round and 7.62mm round - so that the same gun could have served the purpose of counter-terrorism as well as guarding borders and peace stations.

However, this ambitious project did not meet any success as the contractors could not meet with the ambitious demand of the Army. The project required the gun to be lightweight and the calibre needed to be changed by changing the barrel and magazine.

This was followed by another event in September 2016, when the ministry of defence reissued a request for information for a 7.62x51mm assault rifle that can "shoot to kill" instead of a 5.56mm INSAS. Such "shoot to kill" weapons are characteristic of a 7.62mm assault rifle and are best suited in counter-terrorism operations when the reaction time is less. The DRDO was previously developing a 7.62x45mm gun but the Indian Army was then interested in a 7.62x51mm assault rifle.






*The Indian Army still uses the AK-47 in the category of the 7.62mm rifles. Photo: Indiandefensenews*

The government wanted to procure an assault rifle under the Make in India strategy but that has not reached any success. This year, the Army rejected the indigenously made 7.62mm rifle on the grounds that it was technologically not up to the mark. The Army cited reasons that the gun was of poor quality and had ineffective fire power. According to reports, during the trial sessions, “excessive flash and sound signature” was observed and did not meet the standard.

Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier and defence analyst, stated once: “DRDO projects will remain technology demonstrators given that they do not provide confidence to the customer, the Indian armed forces, that these weapons systems are modern or state-of-the-art.”

However, hope is not yet lost as India’s private sector organisations are now keen to venture into weapon manufacturing. In May 2017, reports came in that India’s private firm Punj Lloyd Raksha Systems has set up a venture Israeli Weapon Industries (IWI) to manufacture the Tavor assault rifle.

India has already entered into an agreement with Israel to jointly manufacture weapon systems and transfer of technology and this venture would only strengthen this agreement. The special forces of the Army, the Garud special force of the Indian Air Force and the Marine Corps of the Indian Navy already use the Tavor-21 assault rifles.

According to reports, 1,000 foreign companies from 40 countries are vying to capture the defence market in India and hence, the desire to acquire sophisticated weapon systems including assault rifles can be achieved either by joint production or by transfer of technology - two crucial strategies of the Make in India agenda.

http://www.dailyo.in/variety/indian...apons-manufacturing-israel/story/1/18547.html


----------



## StraightShooter

hassamun said:


> *Why Indian Army’s hunt for assault rifle under Make in India is no good*
> 
> *It rejected the indigenously made 7.62mm rifle on the grounds that it was technologically not up to the mark.*
> 
> There is little doubt that the Indian Army is in dire need of 7.62mm and 5.56mm assault rifles. The Army still uses the AK-47 in the category of the 7.62mm rifles while the Indian Small Arms Systems (INSAS) 5.56 is an obsolete as well as unreliable assault rifle and needs replacement. A 5.56mm assault rifle is smaller-calibre ammunition which is lighter; hence, for the same load, more rounds can be carried by each infantryman.
> 
> In 2016, there were reports that the Army was looking for 1,85,000 assault rifles. Acquiring the assault rifle is crucial for the infantry as it not only faces the brunt on the borders but also carries out counter-terrorism operations. It is a known fact that the Indian Army does not use heavy weaponry in counter-terrorism operations unlike the US and the NATO countries.
> 
> One of the reliable weapons systems for the Army during counter-terrorism operations is the assault rifle. Hence, it is important for India to acquire modern and sophisticated assault rifles.
> 
> There have been efforts to procure the assault rifle since 2011 but consistent delays have stalled the progress of acquiring a good quality rifle. This delay is a concern for the Army. Despite global companies participating in the assault rifle tender, in 2015, the task to manufacture the rifle was ultimately given to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
> 
> The DRDO was to make the INSAS Excalibur, but that plan was cancelled. The same year, India decided to manufacture an assault rifle with interchangeable barrel that would be able to fire different calibres - both 5.56mm round and 7.62mm round - so that the same gun could have served the purpose of counter-terrorism as well as guarding borders and peace stations.
> 
> However, this ambitious project did not meet any success as the contractors could not meet with the ambitious demand of the Army. The project required the gun to be lightweight and the calibre needed to be changed by changing the barrel and magazine.
> 
> This was followed by another event in September 2016, when the ministry of defence reissued a request for information for a 7.62x51mm assault rifle that can "shoot to kill" instead of a 5.56mm INSAS. Such "shoot to kill" weapons are characteristic of a 7.62mm assault rifle and are best suited in counter-terrorism operations when the reaction time is less. The DRDO was previously developing a 7.62x45mm gun but the Indian Army was then interested in a 7.62x51mm assault rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Indian Army still uses the AK-47 in the category of the 7.62mm rifles. Photo: Indiandefensenews*
> 
> The government wanted to procure an assault rifle under the Make in India strategy but that has not reached any success. This year, the Army rejected the indigenously made 7.62mm rifle on the grounds that it was technologically not up to the mark. The Army cited reasons that the gun was of poor quality and had ineffective fire power. According to reports, during the trial sessions, “excessive flash and sound signature” was observed and did not meet the standard.
> 
> Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier and defence analyst, stated once: “DRDO projects will remain technology demonstrators given that they do not provide confidence to the customer, the Indian armed forces, that these weapons systems are modern or state-of-the-art.”
> 
> However, hope is not yet lost as India’s private sector organisations are now keen to venture into weapon manufacturing. In May 2017, reports came in that India’s private firm Punj Lloyd Raksha Systems has set up a venture Israeli Weapon Industries (IWI) to manufacture the Tavor assault rifle.
> 
> India has already entered into an agreement with Israel to jointly manufacture weapon systems and transfer of technology and this venture would only strengthen this agreement. The special forces of the Army, the Garud special force of the Indian Air Force and the Marine Corps of the Indian Navy already use the Tavor-21 assault rifles.
> 
> According to reports, 1,000 foreign companies from 40 countries are vying to capture the defence market in India and hence, the desire to acquire sophisticated weapon systems including assault rifles can be achieved either by joint production or by transfer of technology - two crucial strategies of the Make in India agenda.
> 
> http://www.dailyo.in/variety/indian...apons-manufacturing-israel/story/1/18547.html




How is this related to this thread?


----------



## hassamun

StraightShooter said:


> How is this related to this thread?



I only read the Made in India part...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

Sliver said:


> any links to substantiate this? or is this just what you feel like the numbers should be?



IAF had requested in 2011 to increase the squadron strength to 45 which has not yet been approved. I would not be surprised if Modi government has silently in principle agreed to approve it. There is reason why India is pursuing both Single and Twin engine fighter programs.

*IAF seeks Government sanction for more fighter aircraft squadrons*

Bangalore, Feb 11 (PTI)

Preparing itself for a two-front war scenario, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry to increase its sanctioned fighter aircraft strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons.

*"We have proposed to increase our squadron strength from 39.5 to 45 squadrons and it is under consideration of the Defence Ministry," IAF sources told PTI here.*

The current squadron strength of the force is 33. A squadron comprises around 18 to 20 aircraft.In view of increasing Chinese military deployments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the IAF has been strengthening its presence in the northeastern sector and has plans of deploying four squadrons of the air superiority Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft there by 2015.

Asked about the time-frame in which the IAF was looking to achieve these numbers, they said the future acquisitions would depend on the sanctions accorded to the service by the Government.

Under its modernisation plans, air bases on the western front are also being equipped with modern airfield infrastructure and new fighter planes.

The IAF has plans of inducting more than 350 fighter jet aircraft by the end of this decade which includes the 126 multi-role combat planes (M-MRCA), over 160 new Su-30MKIs and over 140 indigenously-built Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

The contract for the new Su-30s has already been signed and the orders for 126 M-MRCA are expected to be placed by the end of September this year.

Six aircraft including Russian MiG-35, American F-16 and F/A-18, Swedish Gripen, European Eurofighter and French Rafale are in the race for the M-MRCA contract, which is expected to cost USD 11 billion.

The IAF is also phasing out its old Russian-origin fleet of MiG aircraft -- the 21, 23 and 27 series. The oldest MiG-21 Type-77 is likely to be decommissioned by the end of next year.


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iaf-...on-for-more-fighter-aircraft-squadrons.92898/


*Grim reality for IAF: Depleting squadrons worry parliamentary panel*
IndiahiddenDec, 22 2014 21:12:11 IST

New Delhi: National security is being "compromised" with a "fast-eroding" combat aircraft squadron strength of the Indian Air Force vis-a-vis the neighbouring countries, leading to a "very grim" situation, a parliamentary panel said today.

"With regard to existing squadron strength, it is learnt that we are down to 25 squadrons today even though the authorisation is for 42 combat squadrons. Thus, our capability has already come down," the Standing Committee on Defence said in a report tabled in Parliament.




Falling strength. Reuters



The 33-member panel, headed by BJP MP BC Khanduri, said, "It was admitted...that our capability (vis-a-vis) our neighbours is fast eroding" and the country's "security requirements are being compromised by ignoring consistently widening gap between sanctioned and existing strength."

*IAF now requires at least 45 fighter squadrons to "counter a two-front collusive threat but the government has authorised a strength of 42 squadrons. This revelation is astonishing ...".*

Noting that IAF had only 25 active fighter squadrons with 14 of them equipped with MiG-21s and MiG-27s combat planes which would retire between 2015 and 2024, it said the strength would be reduced to just 11 squadrons by 2024. This "widening gap" has occured primarily due to the rate of retirement of the fighter jet aircraft, it said.

Though IAF has contracted for 272 Sukhoi-30 MKIs planes, delivery of which would be completed by 2020, to form 13 squadrons, the air force would be able to add 13 squadrons in its fleet only by that year, the committee observed.

"Further, the series production of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is also awaited to form the first LCA squadron in IAF. The Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) is at Contract Negotiation Committee stage," it said.

"It is needless to say that an early induction of additional aircraft is crucial for arresting the downward trend in the strength of fighter squadrons.

"The Committee finds the situation to be very grim and it is quintessential for the (Defence) Ministry to ensure a smooth and adequate flow of funds and providing easier induction procedure for attaining the requisite squadron strength," it said.

PTI



Published Date: Dec 22, 2014 09:12 pm | Updated Date: Dec 22, 2014 09:12 pm

http://www.firstpost.com/india/grim...adrons-worry-parliamentary-panel-2002307.html


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

hassamun said:


> I only read the Made in India part...


So delete it, and repost it in the proper thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ranadd

hassamun said:


> *Why Indian Army’s hunt for assault rifle under Make in India is no good*
> 
> *It rejected the indigenously made 7.62mm rifle on the grounds that it was technologically not up to the mark.*
> 
> There is little doubt that the Indian Army is in dire need of 7.62mm and 5.56mm assault rifles. The Army still uses the AK-47 in the category of the 7.62mm rifles while the Indian Small Arms Systems (INSAS) 5.56 is an obsolete as well as unreliable assault rifle and needs replacement. A 5.56mm assault rifle is smaller-calibre ammunition which is lighter; hence, for the same load, more rounds can be carried by each infantryman.
> 
> In 2016, there were reports that the Army was looking for 1,85,000 assault rifles. Acquiring the assault rifle is crucial for the infantry as it not only faces the brunt on the borders but also carries out counter-terrorism operations. It is a known fact that the Indian Army does not use heavy weaponry in counter-terrorism operations unlike the US and the NATO countries.
> 
> One of the reliable weapons systems for the Army during counter-terrorism operations is the assault rifle. Hence, it is important for India to acquire modern and sophisticated assault rifles.
> 
> There have been efforts to procure the assault rifle since 2011 but consistent delays have stalled the progress of acquiring a good quality rifle. This delay is a concern for the Army. Despite global companies participating in the assault rifle tender, in 2015, the task to manufacture the rifle was ultimately given to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
> 
> The DRDO was to make the INSAS Excalibur, but that plan was cancelled. The same year, India decided to manufacture an assault rifle with interchangeable barrel that would be able to fire different calibres - both 5.56mm round and 7.62mm round - so that the same gun could have served the purpose of counter-terrorism as well as guarding borders and peace stations.
> 
> However, this ambitious project did not meet any success as the contractors could not meet with the ambitious demand of the Army. The project required the gun to be lightweight and the calibre needed to be changed by changing the barrel and magazine.
> 
> This was followed by another event in September 2016, when the ministry of defence reissued a request for information for a 7.62x51mm assault rifle that can "shoot to kill" instead of a 5.56mm INSAS. Such "shoot to kill" weapons are characteristic of a 7.62mm assault rifle and are best suited in counter-terrorism operations when the reaction time is less. The DRDO was previously developing a 7.62x45mm gun but the Indian Army was then interested in a 7.62x51mm assault rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Indian Army still uses the AK-47 in the category of the 7.62mm rifles. Photo: Indiandefensenews*
> 
> The government wanted to procure an assault rifle under the Make in India strategy but that has not reached any success. This year, the Army rejected the indigenously made 7.62mm rifle on the grounds that it was technologically not up to the mark. The Army cited reasons that the gun was of poor quality and had ineffective fire power. According to reports, during the trial sessions, “excessive flash and sound signature” was observed and did not meet the standard.
> 
> Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier and defence analyst, stated once: “DRDO projects will remain technology demonstrators given that they do not provide confidence to the customer, the Indian armed forces, that these weapons systems are modern or state-of-the-art.”
> 
> However, hope is not yet lost as India’s private sector organisations are now keen to venture into weapon manufacturing. In May 2017, reports came in that India’s private firm Punj Lloyd Raksha Systems has set up a venture Israeli Weapon Industries (IWI) to manufacture the Tavor assault rifle.
> 
> India has already entered into an agreement with Israel to jointly manufacture weapon systems and transfer of technology and this venture would only strengthen this agreement. The special forces of the Army, the Garud special force of the Indian Air Force and the Marine Corps of the Indian Navy already use the Tavor-21 assault rifles.
> 
> According to reports, 1,000 foreign companies from 40 countries are vying to capture the defence market in India and hence, the desire to acquire sophisticated weapon systems including assault rifles can be achieved either by joint production or by transfer of technology - two crucial strategies of the Make in India agenda.
> 
> http://www.dailyo.in/variety/indian...apons-manufacturing-israel/story/1/18547.html



Wrong thread.

@Mods. Please clean up.


----------



## m haris khan

INDIAN DEFENCE DEAL WITH DIFFERENT COUNTRIES


----------



## Hindustani78

Ministry of Defence
18-July, 2017 15:11 IST
*Production of HTT-40 Trainer Aircraft *

The maiden flight of 2nd Prototype (PT-2) of Basic Trainer Aircraft (HTT-40) has been successfully completed on 19th May 2017 without any glitch. The aircraft flew for one hour carrying out important manoeuvres, touching altitude of 20000 ft and maximum speed of 185 kmph.


Presently, the project is in advanced stage of development. Two prototypes have been developed and produced till date and both prototypes are under flight trials. Additionally, one more prototype will be manufactured to further speed up the development process. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) aims to get the aircraft certified by December 2018 which will be followed by series production.

In February 2015, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) approved procurement of 70 Basic Trainer Aircraft from HAL. Considering this, HAL has planned to set up facility for manufacturing of 15-20 aircraft per annum. HTT-40 is funded by HAL with its own resources.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri K Rahman Khan in Rajya Sabha today.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Hindustani78 said:


> Ministry of Defence
> 18-July, 2017 15:11 IST
> *Production of HTT-40 Trainer Aircraft *
> 
> The maiden flight of 2nd Prototype (PT-2) of Basic Trainer Aircraft (HTT-40) has been successfully completed on 19th May 2017 without any glitch. The aircraft flew for one hour carrying out important manoeuvres, touching altitude of 20000 ft and maximum speed of 185 kmph.
> 
> 
> Presently, the project is in advanced stage of development. Two prototypes have been developed and produced till date and both prototypes are under flight trials. Additionally, one more prototype will be manufactured to further speed up the development process. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) aims to get the aircraft certified by December 2018 which will be followed by series production.
> 
> In February 2015, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) approved procurement of 70 Basic Trainer Aircraft from HAL. Considering this, HAL has planned to set up facility for manufacturing of 15-20 aircraft per annum. HTT-40 is funded by HAL with its own resources.
> 
> This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri K Rahman Khan in Rajya Sabha today.



What has a Trainer to do with this tread?


----------



## Anish1

*The Americans Are Back: F-16 for the IAF and F/A-18 for the Indian Navy*
Ashley J. Tellis
During the last year, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Navy (IN) confirmed what must have been the worst kept secret in New Delhi: that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, for all its achievements, was unsuitable as a strike-fighter for their near-term modernisation requirements.

Where the IAF was concerned, the request for information (RFI) for a new single-engine fighter issued in the United States, Russia, and Sweden in October 2016 marked a further twist in its long-running saga to complete the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition that first began in 2001. After the aborted competition led to an off-the-shelf purchase of just 36 Rafales in 2015 — instead of the 126 aircraft originally intended — the question of how the IAF would overcome the deficit of the 90 remaining fighters was still unanswered. There were some in India who argued that the IAF should jettison the MMRCA requirement altogether and fill out the remainder of the force with more Su-30s at the high-end and additional Tejas fighters at the low-end.

Given the shortcomings of the Tejas — some, but not all, of which can be rectified — it is not surprising that the IAF finally threw in the towel and decided to seek an advanced foreign fighter to satisfy its MMRCA requirements, even if only partially. That the 90 aircraft now considered for acquisition will be single-engined suggests that this segment of the IAF may eventually end up bifurcated. The single-engine platform, which hopefully will be announced in the next year or so, will complement the 83 Tejas fighters already approved for procurement: together serving as replacements for the retiring MiG-21s in the IAF inventory. Because the 90 future selectees and the 123 Tejas aircraft that will eventually be acquired will still not suffice as one-to-one replacements for the MiG-21s, it is possible that the IAF may consider acquiring additional medium-weight twin-engined Western fighters down the line, if and when finances permit, in order to further strengthen the IAF for counter-air operations involving China and preserve the three-tier force that the service has sought to maintain more recently.

Obviously, there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about a three-tier force structure in the abstract. If the foreign single-engine fighter met the multirole requirement effectively, the IAF could simply expand its numbers to maintain a larger component that straddles the light- and medium- weight categories, as this new acquisition would in any case bring more to the air superiority campaign than a defensive counter-air fighter like the Tejas ever could.

The Indian Navy, in contrast, has moved in a different direction from what appeared to be initially contemplated. Although the navy has been the strongest supporter of India’s indigenous defence development efforts, the sea service too finally rejected the naval version of the Tejas that was originally intended for deployment aboard the INS Vikrant — Indian Aircraft Carrier-1 (IAC-1) — currently under construction. This decision is eminently sensible given the navy’s special requirements: because an aircraft carrier hosts a relatively small number of combat aircraft aboard a single-engine fighter is a risky proposition at even the best of times. The technological and operational limitations of the Tejas only implied that these risks would be magnified, even if it were to be deployed merely as a second-string complement to a more advanced strike-fighter, such as the MiG-29K, which has been bedevilled by serious serviceability problems of its own. Consequently, the IN has prudently chosen to seek a new advanced twin-engine fighter that hopefully will populate the entire combat air wing on the INS Vikrant and possibly the follow- on vessel (IAC-2) as well.

Both the IAF and the IN have thus ended up similarly: although the former, seeking a twin-engined airplane originally, has now settled for a single-engine combatant, and the latter, investing in a single-engine fighter initially, is now exploring a twin-engined aircraft, both have decided to look abroad rather than at home for good reason. A direct purchase of the aircraft finally selected, however, is not on the cards. Thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on ‘Make in India,’ the final winners in both the IAF’s and the IN’s competitions will be decided not simply on operational excellence and costs — the traditional criteria that dominated fighter selections hitherto — but equally on how best they leaven India’s domestic manufacturing capabilities. And the traditional Indian interest in using its defence acquisitions to strengthen its strategic partnerships abroad still remains unchanged; if anything, these geopolitical imperatives have only intensified since Modi took office.

The renewal of a global search to supply India with advanced fighters has unexpectedly pushed the United States back into the game after both its entrants, the F-16IN Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, were ejected from the previous round of the MMRCA competition. Because the IAF’s new RFI specifies a single-engine platform, however, the only two aircraft capable of satisfying this requirement are Lockheed Martin’s venerable F-16, offered to India in its latest and most sophisticated Block 70 variant, and Saab’s Gripen, which has been offered in a new, larger, and more impressive E variant that flew for the first time on 15 June 2017. The IN’s requirement for a twin-engined naval fighter has similarly left only two contestants in the race — Dassault’s Rafale, the previous selectee in the IAF’s MMRCA competition, and Boeing’s Super Hornet, the principal strike-fighter on the US Navy’s aircraft carriers today.

The return of Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70 Fighting Falcon and Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet into the IAF’s and IN’s competitions respectively has irked some Indian commentators, such as Bharat Karnad, who view them as examples of ‘technologically obsolete weaponry.’ This criticism is misplaced and fails to appreciate what makes combat fighters effective.

*Tricolour Roundels on a Falcon?*
Starting with the IAF race first, the F-16 is a storied fighter that has been in continual production since 1976 with over 4,500 aircraft built since. Although designed initially as a light fighter for within- visual-range combat, it has evolved into a formidable multirole platform over time, all the while remaining one of the most agile air combatants ever produced by the United States (US). Today, the F-16 in the US Air Force (USAF), for example, is employed for all-weather counter-air operations: these include both beyond- and within-visual-range air-to-air engagements as well as anti- surface strike (including specialised missions such as the suppression of enemy air defences).

That the F-16’s basic airframe has evolved only modestly over the years has proven to be completely irrelevant where manoeuvring superiority is concerned. This is evinced in the fact that, although the aircraft first flew in 1974, its sustained and instantaneous turn performance (when flying without its conformal fuel tanks) at both low and high altitudes is virtually identical to that of the Gripen and its thrust-to-weight ratio is unambiguously superior — not bad for an aircraft that was designed almost 15 years earlier! It would be surprising if the Gripen E, with its heavier airframe in comparison to its predecessor and its lower-thrust engine in comparison to the F-16, could improve upon this feat dramatically.

Success in modern air combat today, however, is not simply a matter of manoeuvring performance, even though the F-16 is fully the Gripen’s peer in this regard. Rather, the aircraft’s sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, and weapons make an enormous difference — as do pilot training, doctrine, and the concepts of employment. If pilot training is excluded from the comparison, it is in the other realms that the F-16 has undergone a truly transformative metamorphosis over time, making it a worthy competitor to the Gripen in both the air-to-air and the anti-surface warfare regimes.

The F-16’s primary sensor, the AN/ APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Active (AESA) radar, for example, employs fifth-generation AESA radar technology that is derived from the advanced radars developed for the F-22 and the F-35. The F-16’s electronic warfare systems will be sophisticated Israeli systems, selected in accord with IAF preferences, and its weapons are more or less comparable to those of the Gripen E (and are, in fact, interchangeable should India require it). The Gripen’s information management capabilities are undoubtedly exquisite, but whether they are superior in an operational context to those of the F-16 is not obvious. At any rate, the F-16’s larger weapons load and, when used, its conformal fuel tanks give it a larger radius of action in comparison to the Gripen E, which makes it more attractive for theatre strike operations involving China.

None of this derogates from the Gripen E’s technological excellence, which is conspicuous, but it does indicate that the F-16 is at no particular disadvantage to its Swedish competitor where its combat capabilities are concerned. Its age in particular has posed no special impediment as its avionics and weapons — the capabilities that really matter, given that its aerodynamic characteristics are already superlative — have been continuously modernised, as required by the complex operating environment facing its principal and most demanding customer, the US Air Force (USAF). Parenthetically, it may be noted here that the F-16 Block 70 offered to India is so dramatically superior to the version in Pakistan’s employ as to defy serious comparison.

Given the difficult financial constraints facing the IAF today, the unit flyaway and life cycle costs of the two aircraft will be critical factors affecting the Indian decision. Unfortunately, good comparative data on these issues is hard to come by. The original Gripen had a well-deserved reputation for having low operating costs (the F-16’s being somewhat higher), but whether this will be equally true for the Gripen E is as yet unclear. In any case, the price at which the F-16 and the Gripen E are being offered to India today is publicly unknown; suffice it to say that, the closer they are in price, the more attractive the F-16 would be to the Modi government, given its other advantages for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India strategic partnership.

It is in these latter arenas that the F-16’s advantages over the Gripen E are most pronounced. Because Lockheed Martin is transitioning toward the manufacture of the F-35 in the United States, the company has committed to transferring the entire F-16 production line to India, should this aircraft be selected in the IAF’s single engine fighter competition. The transfer of the line would enable Lockheed Martin and its Indian partner, Tata Advanced Systems, to complete the final assembly of the aircraft in India along with manufacturing of its various structural components, while eventually shifting towards the fabrication of some of its combat system components as well.

While Saab is certain to table a similar offer, sweetening the pot with financing in addition to technology transfer, the Lockheed Martin-Tata joint venture promises to advance Modi’s employment generation objectives far more ambitiously because it would integrate India into the global aviation supply chain at a level that Saab cannot match. Beyond supporting the IAF’s own F-16s, all future F-16 sales globally — including to the four-six countries that are currently exploring new acquisitions — could occur from production in Indian plants. Furthermore, India would become a critical node in supporting the 3,200 F-16s still in service in 25 countries (including the 950-odd F-16s that will remain in US Air Force (USAF) service for another two decades), in contrast to becoming a supplier for a much smaller market — at best 200-300 Gripens in some six or seven countries — were it to select the Gripen E eventually. The advantages of the F-16’s global popularity, and its still expanding market, are thus obvious for India.

The gains to a deepened US-India relationship are no less consequential. At a time when President Donald J. Trump seeks transactional benefits to the US from all its foreign partnerships, an Indian purchase of American F-16s would go far in protecting its bilateral ties with the US — still the most important power in the international system — without compromising the IAF’s capabilities. New Delhi’s selection of the Gripen E would obviously strengthen the IAF in similar ways, but a strategic partnership with Sweden is meaningless in the face of the problems posed by China’s rising assertiveness in Asia.

The significant proportion of US technologies in the Gripen further complicates matters: it has been estimated that between 40 to 50 per cent of the original version’s components are of American origin, meaning that the US license regime would apply even if India purchased the Swedish aircraft. This fact diminishes the attractiveness of the Gripen where political considerations are concerned, because New Delhi would end up substantially buying American but without getting the requisite credit. In any event, Saab appears to be attempting to replace the Gripen’s American components with other substitutes, but the success of this effort and its impact of the aircraft’s effectiveness are thus far unclear.

On balance, therefore, whether India finally chooses the F-16 Block 70 or the Gripen E, the IAF comes out ahead because both aircraft are indisputably superior to the Tejas in manoeuvring performance, sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, weapons load, and in radius of action. There are marginal differences in operational capability between the F-16 and the Gripen, some favouring the former and some the latter, with the F-16 having an indisputable advantage in range and in the weight of the payload carried. Both aircraft will continue to evolve in the areas that really matter for air superiority over the long term — sensors for passive and active detection, advanced fire and forget weaponry, cooperative targeting using off-board data, and fire control systems for air and ground operations — and therefore, Indian interests would be well served by choosing either airplane for its air force. Both the F-16 Block 70 and the Gripen E are highly capable multirole fighters, and, as a result, the Indian government will be confronted by the difficult dilemma of juggling operational effectiveness and cost on one hand with the benefits for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India partnership on the other hand. Pulling off such a balancing act cannot be easy, but New Delhi is better off being spoilt for choice than having to cope with skimpiness.

*Super Hornets at Sea?*
If the F-16 is the worthwhile revenant in the IAF’s single engine competition, Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet actually has an upper hand in the IN’s search for a twin-engined fighter for its future aircraft carriers. The fleet’s requirements here are complicated by the fact that the aircraft selected as its primary strike-fighter must be capable of operating from both the INS Vikrant, the ski jump equipped short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) carrier currently being built in Cochin, as well as from its future large deck catapult take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carriers, such as the IAC-2, which will begin construction at some point in the future.

The IN has concluded that the Tejas is unsuitable for either vessel because, despite the structural improvements made to the test airframe in support of carrier operations, the final product did not meet the standard of acceptability at a time when Indian naval aviation is preparing to meet formidable adversaries, such as China, in the Indian Ocean.

Being able to successfully defend against — and overcome — Chinese aircraft carriers with their deployed air wings consisting of Su-33/J-15s, and possibly indigenous J-20s and J-31s in the future, should constitute the real metric for judging the acceptability of a given strike-fighter for the IN’s prospective carriers. This implies that rather than obsessing over some arcane detail pertaining to the increased tensile strength of the Tejas’ undercarriage or the extent of the nose droop improvements intended to expand its pilot’s vision, its worth as the mainstay of Indian carrier aviation must be judged by its effectiveness as a combat system rather than merely by its aerodynamic viability.

Obviously, achieving success on the latter count is a precondition for satisfying the former. But the challenge facing the IN here is that the indigenous Tejas is hopelessly behind the times relative to the threat that it faces from more mature opponents in the here and now — adversaries whose war-fighting performance is now steadily being expanded even as the Indian test-bed struggles to become merely a worthwhile flying platform for carrier operations.

Given this asymmetry, it is not surprising that the IN has chosen to look for an advanced strike-fighter from abroad right away, partly because it cannot wait in hope that the Tejas Mark 2 will eventually make the cut as an effective strike-fighter for the Vikrant. If it is to have a combat aircraft manufactured in India and ready for operations by the time this carrier enters the fleet in 2021, the selection and procurement processes will have to be completed by early 2018 at the latest. Given the development timelines associated with the Tejas Mark 2 thus far, it would be simply miraculous if the aircraft could be certified as combat ready, let alone superior to its likely adversaries, by that date.

Because an aircraft carrier has only a small number of aircraft, the qualitative superiority of both aircraft and pilot are critical, while maintainability — meaning the reliability of the airframe and its combat subsystems as well as the ease of diagnostics and repair — contributes towards the ability to turn an aircraft around quickly for repeated sorties, thus making it a vital combat multiplier, particularly for small- or medium-sized air wings. Of the foreign contestants in the IN’s search list, neither the Swedish Sea Gripen — as yet only a notional alternative — nor the Russian MiG-29K have demonstrated the capacity for both ski jump and catapult launches, and the Sea Gripen additionally fails to meet the RFI’s requirement that it must already be in service in its country of origin. Consequently, only the French Rafale and the American F/A-18 Super Hornet remain as plausible contenders and each offers India the opportunity to dominate the adversaries it is likely to face in the Indian Ocean.

But the two rivals are not evenly matched. The Rafale, unlike the Super Hornet, does not have fully foldable wings and, hence, cannot use the Vikrant’s elevators without major modifications that would add to its already high unit costs. The IAF’s Rafale came out at close to USD160 million per copy and the naval variant, of which less than 50 have been produced, is likely to be even more expensive. But cost aside, the Rafale’s lack of fully folding wings implies that fewer aircraft can be spotted on the carrier’s flight deck, a disadvantage when more aircraft there mean faster cyclic operations and by extension greater combat capability. And its maintenance requirements and operating costs are much more substantial than that of the Super Hornet.

Beyond these issues, even when both aircraft are compared one-on-one, the F/A-18 E/F compares favourably with the Rafale. The Super Hornet’s organic sensors and its capacity for integration with the E-2D airborne early warning aircraft, which is likely to be eventually deployed by the IN ashore and most likely on board the IAC-2, are unparalleled. The F/A-18 E/F’s primary sensor, the APG-79 AESA radar, has no peer among fourth-generation combat aircraft, and its huge detection and electronic attack advantages ensure first look-first shot opportunities that even sophisticated rivals often cannot match. Its advanced electronic warfare suites, one area where the Rafale’s capabilities are indeed comparable, make it exceptionally survivable in a variety of war-fighting environments, while its ability to swing effortlessly between air-to-air and air-to-surface missions make it just as versatile as its French competitor — but in a much cheaper platform.

To make a long story short, the F/A- 18 E/F Super Hornet has been designed for standoff air superiority as well as for flexible multirole operations and for that reason will remain the US Navy’s workhorse strike-fighter well into 2040, if not beyond. Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are superb strike-fighters, but the IN is likely to find the F/A- 18 E/F better suited as the primary aviation battery for both its STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers. The cost advantages of the Super Hornet are considerable and, when considerations relating to defence industrial cooperation and deepening strategic partnerships are taken into account, it also does just as well as, if not better, than the Rafale on both counts. Because Boeing already has major production activities underway in India, including a joint venture with Tata that fabricates the fuselage for the Apache attack helicopter, as well as Indian suppliers that already manufacture components for US and international F/A-18s, such as Sasmoss, Rossell Techsys, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the selection of the Super Hornet by the IN would yield expanded partnerships with Indian industry for the manufacture of its airframe sections, wings and control surfaces, parts of its engines, and various other subsystems.

These activities, which would result in the transfer of proprietary knowhow, advanced manufacturing technologies, and industrial fabrication processes, would help to nurture a production complex that can oversee the delivery of an advanced weapon system that the US has never before sold to India. Developing such an infrastructure would not only create high technology jobs dispersed throughout India, but it would build indigenous proficiency that could aid in the development and manufacture of other civilian and military technologies. Even as these benefits come to fruition, India would position itself to support the nearly 600 F/A-18s that are in operation globally. It would also open the door to possible co-development and co-manufacturing of components for the Advanced F/A-18 Block III, with its conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapons pod, and an enhanced General Electric 414 engine that could serve as a common power plant for the Super Hornet, Tejas, and eventually the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft concurrently. These kinds of benefits would obviously not be comparably available with the Rafale because of its smaller global market.

The deepening of the US-Indian strategic partnership would also be an obvious consequence of an Indian decision to purchase the Super Hornet for its prospective aircraft carriers. The same would be true for India’s partnership with France were the IN to settle for the Rafale. But important though this latter political affiliation is for New Delhi, the twists and turns in the earlier MMRCA endgame demonstrated how the extraordinarily high costs of French equipment made it difficult for India to fuel its strategic partnership with France through large defence transactions. In this instance, therefore, the case for the IN selecting the Super Hornet is persuasive because it would bring combat capabilities on par with the Rafale but at much lower cost while simultaneously enhancing India’s industrial base and strengthening its partnership with Washington.

*Taking the Long View*
There is little doubt that India has good options as it moves forward to fulfil its air force and naval requirements for an advanced strike-fighter. In both cases though, there will be challenging tradeoffs to be made as the government of India juggles the operational excellence of the various contenders, their unit and lifecycle costs, their contributions to leavening India’s defence industry, and their capacity to deepen the country’s strategic partnerships.

When these variables are assessed synoptically, the American offerings prove to be remarkably competitive — not entirely a surprise, even if the circumstances that permitted their re-entry were not initially anticipated. In any event, India should treat the winners chosen in both the IAF and IN competitions merely as ‘interim’ acquisitions despite the fact that these aircraft will be in service for several decades. Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters — a technology area where, at least to date, American suppliers dominate in the international marketplace. Perhaps that is one more reason for giving Lockheed Martin and Boeing serious consideration in the current competition

http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/0...16-for-iaf-and-f-18-for-indian-navy-pub-72706


----------



## Hindustani78

Ministry of Defence
28-July, 2017 15:41 IST
*Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft *

An Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) has been signed in October 2007 between the Governments of India and the Russian Federation for Joint Development and production of Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).

The project is planned to be executed in two phases (i) Preliminary Design (PD) Phase; and (ii) Detailed Design & Development Phase (called R & D Phase). The PD stage contract was signed in December, 2010. The work commenced in February 2011 and completed in June, 2013.

An amount of Rs.1535.45 Crore has been spent as on 31st March 2017.

Planned expenditure has been recommended in the IGA. Any future expenditure under R&D Contract will be known once the Commercial negotiation Committee (CNC) submits its recommendations to the Government.

This information was given by Minister of state for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri Baijayant Jay Panda in Lok Sabha today.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> *Analysts: India won't ink a single-engine fighter deal before 2019*
> 
> *http://www.defensenews.com/articles/analysts-india-wont-ink-a-single-engine-fighter-deal-before-2019*
> 
> 
> NEW DELHI — India's single-engine fighter program, worth $12 billion, is unlikely to be "decided before 2019," analysts and officials say, even as the Indian Air Force has decided to hold flight tests of Lockheed's F-16 Block 70 and Sweden's Gripen-E, the two aircraft competing in the program.
> 
> Restricted expressions of interests were sent through Indian embassies to "some overseas participants" to take part in the program in October last year to elicit responses to produce single-engine fighter aircraft in India. Lockheed Martin offered to shift the assembly line of its F-16 Block 70, and Sweden offered to build the Gripen-E aircraft in India with technology transfer.
> 
> The F-16 fighter aircraft did not come up for discussion during last month's summit talks on June 26 between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, said a Ministry of Defence official without commenting on the outcome of the talks.
> 
> However, analysts and officials are skeptical whether the program would come to an early decision. Some analysts even say the F-16 will never be bought by the Indian Air Force, or IAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"There isn't now even the slightest IAF interest in the F-16 Block 70 or any other variant," said Bharat Karnad, professor of national security studies at Centre for Policy Research. *
> 
> When asked about the outcome of the flight trials the IAF will conduct, Karnad said, "Nothing, it will take time and delay any decision to beyond the 2019 election. Thereafter, the medium multirole combat aircraft, or MMRCA, metrics will still apply, and the F-16 will be rejected."
> 
> The F-16 and Gripen were both rejected after flight trials during the 2007 MMRCA tender, which was finally scrapped in 2014, leading to the outright purchase of France's Rafale fighter aircraft worth $8.8 billion that was inked last year.
> 
> An IAF official said that this time, only limited flight trials of the F-16 and Gripen will take place, which will be restricted to the upgraded components that were not in the 2007 MMRCA tender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defense News
> Aero India: New single-engine fighters to be star attractions
> Daljit Singh, a retired IAF air marshal and defense analyst said, "The F-16 and Gripen fielded during the MMRCA selection did not have all the systems that the IAF would look for in single-engine fighters. AESA radars and EW systems have recently been integrated on the F-16 Block 70 and Gripen E, and they would be required to be evaluated."
> 
> "The time for evaluation would be lesser than the previous evaluation, as only two fighters would be evaluated, and the majority of the capabilities have already been tested," Singh added.
> 
> However, analysts and officials are unanimous in their view that no decision on the program is likely immediately. In addition, the program is to be built in a newly announced Strategic Partners policy, which was notified in June.
> 
> "The chances of seeing any program under this SP program in the near future are slim til the MoD sorts out key issues relating to IP, especially under an unfavorable 49 percent ownership limit for foreign vendors," said Pushan Das, a defense analyst with Observer Research Foundation.
> 
> Another IAF official said, "There could be delays based on IAF asking for more and thereby delays due to integration testing, etc."
> 
> "In my opinion, in the current scenario with home-grown light combat aircraft, or LCA, getting produced and with LCA Mark-1A and an order of 83 cleared by the government already, I do not foresee an immediate decision on any other single-engine fighter aircraft soon," the IAF official added.


On another forum, a very well informed Indian forumer spoke some days ago about a new model needed by IAF and indian Navy : Tejas Mk2 S, a twin engine model. 
If true, it stopped a potential non indian SE initiative.



Anish1 said:


> *The Americans Are Back: F-16 for the IAF and F/A-18 for the Indian Navy*
> Ashley J. Tellis
> During the last year, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Navy (IN) confirmed what must have been the worst kept secret in New Delhi: that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, for all its achievements, was unsuitable as a strike-fighter for their near-term modernisation requirements.
> 
> Where the IAF was concerned, the request for information (RFI) for a new single-engine fighter issued in the United States, Russia, and Sweden in October 2016 marked a further twist in its long-running saga to complete the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition that first began in 2001. After the aborted competition led to an off-the-shelf purchase of just 36 Rafales in 2015 — instead of the 126 aircraft originally intended — the question of how the IAF would overcome the deficit of the 90 remaining fighters was still unanswered. There were some in India who argued that the IAF should jettison the MMRCA requirement altogether and fill out the remainder of the force with more Su-30s at the high-end and additional Tejas fighters at the low-end.
> 
> Given the shortcomings of the Tejas — some, but not all, of which can be rectified — it is not surprising that the IAF finally threw in the towel and decided to seek an advanced foreign fighter to satisfy its MMRCA requirements, even if only partially. That the 90 aircraft now considered for acquisition will be single-engined suggests that this segment of the IAF may eventually end up bifurcated. The single-engine platform, which hopefully will be announced in the next year or so, will complement the 83 Tejas fighters already approved for procurement: together serving as replacements for the retiring MiG-21s in the IAF inventory. Because the 90 future selectees and the 123 Tejas aircraft that will eventually be acquired will still not suffice as one-to-one replacements for the MiG-21s, it is possible that the IAF may consider acquiring additional medium-weight twin-engined Western fighters down the line, if and when finances permit, in order to further strengthen the IAF for counter-air operations involving China and preserve the three-tier force that the service has sought to maintain more recently.
> 
> Obviously, there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about a three-tier force structure in the abstract. If the foreign single-engine fighter met the multirole requirement effectively, the IAF could simply expand its numbers to maintain a larger component that straddles the light- and medium- weight categories, as this new acquisition would in any case bring more to the air superiority campaign than a defensive counter-air fighter like the Tejas ever could.
> 
> The Indian Navy, in contrast, has moved in a different direction from what appeared to be initially contemplated. Although the navy has been the strongest supporter of India’s indigenous defence development efforts, the sea service too finally rejected the naval version of the Tejas that was originally intended for deployment aboard the INS Vikrant — Indian Aircraft Carrier-1 (IAC-1) — currently under construction. This decision is eminently sensible given the navy’s special requirements: because an aircraft carrier hosts a relatively small number of combat aircraft aboard a single-engine fighter is a risky proposition at even the best of times. The technological and operational limitations of the Tejas only implied that these risks would be magnified, even if it were to be deployed merely as a second-string complement to a more advanced strike-fighter, such as the MiG-29K, which has been bedevilled by serious serviceability problems of its own. Consequently, the IN has prudently chosen to seek a new advanced twin-engine fighter that hopefully will populate the entire combat air wing on the INS Vikrant and possibly the follow- on vessel (IAC-2) as well.
> 
> Both the IAF and the IN have thus ended up similarly: although the former, seeking a twin-engined airplane originally, has now settled for a single-engine combatant, and the latter, investing in a single-engine fighter initially, is now exploring a twin-engined aircraft, both have decided to look abroad rather than at home for good reason. A direct purchase of the aircraft finally selected, however, is not on the cards. Thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on ‘Make in India,’ the final winners in both the IAF’s and the IN’s competitions will be decided not simply on operational excellence and costs — the traditional criteria that dominated fighter selections hitherto — but equally on how best they leaven India’s domestic manufacturing capabilities. And the traditional Indian interest in using its defence acquisitions to strengthen its strategic partnerships abroad still remains unchanged; if anything, these geopolitical imperatives have only intensified since Modi took office.
> 
> The renewal of a global search to supply India with advanced fighters has unexpectedly pushed the United States back into the game after both its entrants, the F-16IN Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, were ejected from the previous round of the MMRCA competition. Because the IAF’s new RFI specifies a single-engine platform, however, the only two aircraft capable of satisfying this requirement are Lockheed Martin’s venerable F-16, offered to India in its latest and most sophisticated Block 70 variant, and Saab’s Gripen, which has been offered in a new, larger, and more impressive E variant that flew for the first time on 15 June 2017. The IN’s requirement for a twin-engined naval fighter has similarly left only two contestants in the race — Dassault’s Rafale, the previous selectee in the IAF’s MMRCA competition, and Boeing’s Super Hornet, the principal strike-fighter on the US Navy’s aircraft carriers today.
> 
> The return of Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70 Fighting Falcon and Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet into the IAF’s and IN’s competitions respectively has irked some Indian commentators, such as Bharat Karnad, who view them as examples of ‘technologically obsolete weaponry.’ This criticism is misplaced and fails to appreciate what makes combat fighters effective.
> 
> *Tricolour Roundels on a Falcon?*
> Starting with the IAF race first, the F-16 is a storied fighter that has been in continual production since 1976 with over 4,500 aircraft built since. Although designed initially as a light fighter for within- visual-range combat, it has evolved into a formidable multirole platform over time, all the while remaining one of the most agile air combatants ever produced by the United States (US). Today, the F-16 in the US Air Force (USAF), for example, is employed for all-weather counter-air operations: these include both beyond- and within-visual-range air-to-air engagements as well as anti- surface strike (including specialised missions such as the suppression of enemy air defences).
> 
> That the F-16’s basic airframe has evolved only modestly over the years has proven to be completely irrelevant where manoeuvring superiority is concerned. This is evinced in the fact that, although the aircraft first flew in 1974, its sustained and instantaneous turn performance (when flying without its conformal fuel tanks) at both low and high altitudes is virtually identical to that of the Gripen and its thrust-to-weight ratio is unambiguously superior — not bad for an aircraft that was designed almost 15 years earlier! It would be surprising if the Gripen E, with its heavier airframe in comparison to its predecessor and its lower-thrust engine in comparison to the F-16, could improve upon this feat dramatically.
> 
> Success in modern air combat today, however, is not simply a matter of manoeuvring performance, even though the F-16 is fully the Gripen’s peer in this regard. Rather, the aircraft’s sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, and weapons make an enormous difference — as do pilot training, doctrine, and the concepts of employment. If pilot training is excluded from the comparison, it is in the other realms that the F-16 has undergone a truly transformative metamorphosis over time, making it a worthy competitor to the Gripen in both the air-to-air and the anti-surface warfare regimes.
> 
> The F-16’s primary sensor, the AN/ APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Active (AESA) radar, for example, employs fifth-generation AESA radar technology that is derived from the advanced radars developed for the F-22 and the F-35. The F-16’s electronic warfare systems will be sophisticated Israeli systems, selected in accord with IAF preferences, and its weapons are more or less comparable to those of the Gripen E (and are, in fact, interchangeable should India require it). The Gripen’s information management capabilities are undoubtedly exquisite, but whether they are superior in an operational context to those of the F-16 is not obvious. At any rate, the F-16’s larger weapons load and, when used, its conformal fuel tanks give it a larger radius of action in comparison to the Gripen E, which makes it more attractive for theatre strike operations involving China.
> 
> None of this derogates from the Gripen E’s technological excellence, which is conspicuous, but it does indicate that the F-16 is at no particular disadvantage to its Swedish competitor where its combat capabilities are concerned. Its age in particular has posed no special impediment as its avionics and weapons — the capabilities that really matter, given that its aerodynamic characteristics are already superlative — have been continuously modernised, as required by the complex operating environment facing its principal and most demanding customer, the US Air Force (USAF). Parenthetically, it may be noted here that the F-16 Block 70 offered to India is so dramatically superior to the version in Pakistan’s employ as to defy serious comparison.
> 
> Given the difficult financial constraints facing the IAF today, the unit flyaway and life cycle costs of the two aircraft will be critical factors affecting the Indian decision. Unfortunately, good comparative data on these issues is hard to come by. The original Gripen had a well-deserved reputation for having low operating costs (the F-16’s being somewhat higher), but whether this will be equally true for the Gripen E is as yet unclear. In any case, the price at which the F-16 and the Gripen E are being offered to India today is publicly unknown; suffice it to say that, the closer they are in price, the more attractive the F-16 would be to the Modi government, given its other advantages for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India strategic partnership.
> 
> It is in these latter arenas that the F-16’s advantages over the Gripen E are most pronounced. Because Lockheed Martin is transitioning toward the manufacture of the F-35 in the United States, the company has committed to transferring the entire F-16 production line to India, should this aircraft be selected in the IAF’s single engine fighter competition. The transfer of the line would enable Lockheed Martin and its Indian partner, Tata Advanced Systems, to complete the final assembly of the aircraft in India along with manufacturing of its various structural components, while eventually shifting towards the fabrication of some of its combat system components as well.
> 
> While Saab is certain to table a similar offer, sweetening the pot with financing in addition to technology transfer, the Lockheed Martin-Tata joint venture promises to advance Modi’s employment generation objectives far more ambitiously because it would integrate India into the global aviation supply chain at a level that Saab cannot match. Beyond supporting the IAF’s own F-16s, all future F-16 sales globally — including to the four-six countries that are currently exploring new acquisitions — could occur from production in Indian plants. Furthermore, India would become a critical node in supporting the 3,200 F-16s still in service in 25 countries (including the 950-odd F-16s that will remain in US Air Force (USAF) service for another two decades), in contrast to becoming a supplier for a much smaller market — at best 200-300 Gripens in some six or seven countries — were it to select the Gripen E eventually. The advantages of the F-16’s global popularity, and its still expanding market, are thus obvious for India.
> 
> The gains to a deepened US-India relationship are no less consequential. At a time when President Donald J. Trump seeks transactional benefits to the US from all its foreign partnerships, an Indian purchase of American F-16s would go far in protecting its bilateral ties with the US — still the most important power in the international system — without compromising the IAF’s capabilities. New Delhi’s selection of the Gripen E would obviously strengthen the IAF in similar ways, but a strategic partnership with Sweden is meaningless in the face of the problems posed by China’s rising assertiveness in Asia.
> 
> The significant proportion of US technologies in the Gripen further complicates matters: it has been estimated that between 40 to 50 per cent of the original version’s components are of American origin, meaning that the US license regime would apply even if India purchased the Swedish aircraft. This fact diminishes the attractiveness of the Gripen where political considerations are concerned, because New Delhi would end up substantially buying American but without getting the requisite credit. In any event, Saab appears to be attempting to replace the Gripen’s American components with other substitutes, but the success of this effort and its impact of the aircraft’s effectiveness are thus far unclear.
> 
> On balance, therefore, whether India finally chooses the F-16 Block 70 or the Gripen E, the IAF comes out ahead because both aircraft are indisputably superior to the Tejas in manoeuvring performance, sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, weapons load, and in radius of action. There are marginal differences in operational capability between the F-16 and the Gripen, some favouring the former and some the latter, with the F-16 having an indisputable advantage in range and in the weight of the payload carried. Both aircraft will continue to evolve in the areas that really matter for air superiority over the long term — sensors for passive and active detection, advanced fire and forget weaponry, cooperative targeting using off-board data, and fire control systems for air and ground operations — and therefore, Indian interests would be well served by choosing either airplane for its air force. Both the F-16 Block 70 and the Gripen E are highly capable multirole fighters, and, as a result, the Indian government will be confronted by the difficult dilemma of juggling operational effectiveness and cost on one hand with the benefits for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India partnership on the other hand. Pulling off such a balancing act cannot be easy, but New Delhi is better off being spoilt for choice than having to cope with skimpiness.
> 
> *Super Hornets at Sea?*
> If the F-16 is the worthwhile revenant in the IAF’s single engine competition, Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet actually has an upper hand in the IN’s search for a twin-engined fighter for its future aircraft carriers. The fleet’s requirements here are complicated by the fact that the aircraft selected as its primary strike-fighter must be capable of operating from both the INS Vikrant, the ski jump equipped short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) carrier currently being built in Cochin, as well as from its future large deck catapult take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carriers, such as the IAC-2, which will begin construction at some point in the future.
> 
> The IN has concluded that the Tejas is unsuitable for either vessel because, despite the structural improvements made to the test airframe in support of carrier operations, the final product did not meet the standard of acceptability at a time when Indian naval aviation is preparing to meet formidable adversaries, such as China, in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> Being able to successfully defend against — and overcome — Chinese aircraft carriers with their deployed air wings consisting of Su-33/J-15s, and possibly indigenous J-20s and J-31s in the future, should constitute the real metric for judging the acceptability of a given strike-fighter for the IN’s prospective carriers. This implies that rather than obsessing over some arcane detail pertaining to the increased tensile strength of the Tejas’ undercarriage or the extent of the nose droop improvements intended to expand its pilot’s vision, its worth as the mainstay of Indian carrier aviation must be judged by its effectiveness as a combat system rather than merely by its aerodynamic viability.
> 
> Obviously, achieving success on the latter count is a precondition for satisfying the former. But the challenge facing the IN here is that the indigenous Tejas is hopelessly behind the times relative to the threat that it faces from more mature opponents in the here and now — adversaries whose war-fighting performance is now steadily being expanded even as the Indian test-bed struggles to become merely a worthwhile flying platform for carrier operations.
> 
> Given this asymmetry, it is not surprising that the IN has chosen to look for an advanced strike-fighter from abroad right away, partly because it cannot wait in hope that the Tejas Mark 2 will eventually make the cut as an effective strike-fighter for the Vikrant. If it is to have a combat aircraft manufactured in India and ready for operations by the time this carrier enters the fleet in 2021, the selection and procurement processes will have to be completed by early 2018 at the latest. Given the development timelines associated with the Tejas Mark 2 thus far, it would be simply miraculous if the aircraft could be certified as combat ready, let alone superior to its likely adversaries, by that date.
> 
> Because an aircraft carrier has only a small number of aircraft, the qualitative superiority of both aircraft and pilot are critical, while maintainability — meaning the reliability of the airframe and its combat subsystems as well as the ease of diagnostics and repair — contributes towards the ability to turn an aircraft around quickly for repeated sorties, thus making it a vital combat multiplier, particularly for small- or medium-sized air wings. Of the foreign contestants in the IN’s search list, neither the Swedish Sea Gripen — as yet only a notional alternative — nor the Russian MiG-29K have demonstrated the capacity for both ski jump and catapult launches, and the Sea Gripen additionally fails to meet the RFI’s requirement that it must already be in service in its country of origin. Consequently, only the French Rafale and the American F/A-18 Super Hornet remain as plausible contenders and each offers India the opportunity to dominate the adversaries it is likely to face in the Indian Ocean.
> 
> But the two rivals are not evenly matched. The Rafale, unlike the Super Hornet, does not have fully foldable wings and, hence, cannot use the Vikrant’s elevators without major modifications that would add to its already high unit costs. The IAF’s Rafale came out at close to USD160 million per copy and the naval variant, of which less than 50 have been produced, is likely to be even more expensive. But cost aside, the Rafale’s lack of fully folding wings implies that fewer aircraft can be spotted on the carrier’s flight deck, a disadvantage when more aircraft there mean faster cyclic operations and by extension greater combat capability. And its maintenance requirements and operating costs are much more substantial than that of the Super Hornet.
> 
> Beyond these issues, even when both aircraft are compared one-on-one, the F/A-18 E/F compares favourably with the Rafale. The Super Hornet’s organic sensors and its capacity for integration with the E-2D airborne early warning aircraft, which is likely to be eventually deployed by the IN ashore and most likely on board the IAC-2, are unparalleled. The F/A-18 E/F’s primary sensor, the APG-79 AESA radar, has no peer among fourth-generation combat aircraft, and its huge detection and electronic attack advantages ensure first look-first shot opportunities that even sophisticated rivals often cannot match. Its advanced electronic warfare suites, one area where the Rafale’s capabilities are indeed comparable, make it exceptionally survivable in a variety of war-fighting environments, while its ability to swing effortlessly between air-to-air and air-to-surface missions make it just as versatile as its French competitor — but in a much cheaper platform.
> 
> To make a long story short, the F/A- 18 E/F Super Hornet has been designed for standoff air superiority as well as for flexible multirole operations and for that reason will remain the US Navy’s workhorse strike-fighter well into 2040, if not beyond. Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are superb strike-fighters, but the IN is likely to find the F/A- 18 E/F better suited as the primary aviation battery for both its STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers. The cost advantages of the Super Hornet are considerable and, when considerations relating to defence industrial cooperation and deepening strategic partnerships are taken into account, it also does just as well as, if not better, than the Rafale on both counts. Because Boeing already has major production activities underway in India, including a joint venture with Tata that fabricates the fuselage for the Apache attack helicopter, as well as Indian suppliers that already manufacture components for US and international F/A-18s, such as Sasmoss, Rossell Techsys, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the selection of the Super Hornet by the IN would yield expanded partnerships with Indian industry for the manufacture of its airframe sections, wings and control surfaces, parts of its engines, and various other subsystems.
> 
> These activities, which would result in the transfer of proprietary knowhow, advanced manufacturing technologies, and industrial fabrication processes, would help to nurture a production complex that can oversee the delivery of an advanced weapon system that the US has never before sold to India. Developing such an infrastructure would not only create high technology jobs dispersed throughout India, but it would build indigenous proficiency that could aid in the development and manufacture of other civilian and military technologies. Even as these benefits come to fruition, India would position itself to support the nearly 600 F/A-18s that are in operation globally. It would also open the door to possible co-development and co-manufacturing of components for the Advanced F/A-18 Block III, with its conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapons pod, and an enhanced General Electric 414 engine that could serve as a common power plant for the Super Hornet, Tejas, and eventually the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft concurrently. These kinds of benefits would obviously not be comparably available with the Rafale because of its smaller global market.
> 
> The deepening of the US-Indian strategic partnership would also be an obvious consequence of an Indian decision to purchase the Super Hornet for its prospective aircraft carriers. The same would be true for India’s partnership with France were the IN to settle for the Rafale. But important though this latter political affiliation is for New Delhi, the twists and turns in the earlier MMRCA endgame demonstrated how the extraordinarily high costs of French equipment made it difficult for India to fuel its strategic partnership with France through large defence transactions. In this instance, therefore, the case for the IN selecting the Super Hornet is persuasive because it would bring combat capabilities on par with the Rafale but at much lower cost while simultaneously enhancing India’s industrial base and strengthening its partnership with Washington.
> 
> *Taking the Long View*
> There is little doubt that India has good options as it moves forward to fulfil its air force and naval requirements for an advanced strike-fighter. In both cases though, there will be challenging tradeoffs to be made as the government of India juggles the operational excellence of the various contenders, their unit and lifecycle costs, their contributions to leavening India’s defence industry, and their capacity to deepen the country’s strategic partnerships.
> 
> When these variables are assessed synoptically, the American offerings prove to be remarkably competitive — not entirely a surprise, even if the circumstances that permitted their re-entry were not initially anticipated. In any event, India should treat the winners chosen in both the IAF and IN competitions merely as ‘interim’ acquisitions despite the fact that these aircraft will be in service for several decades. Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters — a technology area where, at least to date, American suppliers dominate in the international marketplace. Perhaps that is one more reason for giving Lockheed Martin and Boeing serious consideration in the current competition
> 
> http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/0...16-for-iaf-and-f-18-for-indian-navy-pub-72706



For the moment, US government don't agree to produce F16 in India. And what is true for F16 is also for SH18, a more modern plane....

sorry it's in french : http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2017/08/04/pas-de-production-de-f-16-en-inde-864085.html

extract : "
Washington, as part of the Indian bid to acquire and produce a new single-engined fighter jet, US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed-Martin was notified of a "*non-receipt*" by the US administration.

The US arms administration and the Pentagon refused to transfer the critical technology and production of the F-16 fighter aircraft as part of the "Make India" initiative.

On the question of whether the United States has accepted the sophisticated technology transfer and production of the F-16 as part of the make in India initiative, Subhash Bhamre, the Indian Minister of State for Defense, "No" to a question in Parliament last Tuesday.

The critical technologies in question are part of the integrated systems of the Electronic Scanning Antenna Radar (AESA), electro-optical targeting systems, the IRST infrared sensor and the radio frequency interference system. These technologies are an important component of the F-16 "Viper" proposed to date in India.

When the US offer was handed over, India had applied for the United States guarantee for the full transfer of technology."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> On another forum, a very well informed Indian forumer spoke some days ago about a new model needed by IAF and indian Navy : Tejas Mk2 S, a twin engine model.
> If true, it stopped a potential non indian SE initiative.
> 
> 
> 
> For the moment, US government don't agree to produce F16 in India. And what is true for F16 is also for SH18, a more modern plane....
> 
> sorry it's in french : http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2017/08/04/pas-de-production-de-f-16-en-inde-864085.html
> 
> extract : "
> Washington, as part of the Indian bid to acquire and produce a new single-engined fighter jet, US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed-Martin was notified of a "*non-receipt*" by the US administration.
> 
> The US arms administration and the Pentagon refused to transfer the critical technology and production of the F-16 fighter aircraft as part of the "Make India" initiative.
> 
> On the question of whether the United States has accepted the sophisticated technology transfer and production of the F-16 as part of the make in India initiative, Subhash Bhamre, the Indian Minister of State for Defense, "No" to a question in Parliament last Tuesday.
> 
> The critical technologies in question are part of the integrated systems of the Electronic Scanning Antenna Radar (AESA), electro-optical targeting systems, the IRST infrared sensor and the radio frequency interference system. These technologies are an important component of the F-16 "Viper" proposed to date in India.
> 
> When the US offer was handed over, India had applied for the United States guarantee for the full transfer of technology."



A twin engine Tejas is not going to be available in the timeframe for the single engine project.
Unlikely that a Navy version can be produced in time for the next carrier.
Doing a twin engine fighter may make sense for other reasons, but why
develop the AMCA an another twin engined fighter?

That there are limits to what ToT US will provide for the F-16 is old news.

LM has only control over 40% of the F-16 design, and they have contracts
with some operators that they are are entitled to a share of the production
of all future F-16s including those produced in India, if India decides for the F-16.

Other sources mentioning the speech does not say the the US will not allow the production in India.


----------



## danger007

ziaulislam said:


> F 16 is no doubt the best option
> Design has not changed much since 1980s but would u call the f22 out dated in 10 years (designed in 90) ? Is f 15 outdated, is flanker designed in 80s outdated even rafale will it be outdated, designed in 90s.
> 
> F16 was far ahead of its time in 1970-80s. And with saber block 70 is much better in all charaterstics from gripen. I would say its better or at least as good as rafale





It should meet our requirements... There is no doubt about F 16 efficiency but the thing is our priorities... I love to see another 36 Rafael in IAF, than seeing F 16...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> A twin engine Tejas is not going to be available in the timeframe for the single engine project.
> Unlikely that a Navy version can be produced in time for the next carrier.
> Doing a twin engine fighter may make sense for other reasons, but why
> develop the AMCA an another twin engined fighter?
> 
> That there are limits to what ToT US will provide for the F-16 is old news.
> 
> LM has only control over 40% of the F-16 design, and they have contracts
> with some operators that they are are entitled to a share of the production
> of all future F-16s including those produced in India, if India decides for the F-16.
> 
> Other sources mentioning the speech does not say the the US will not allow the production in India.


US government has recently decided not to give a "GO" to the F16 production in India...



danger007 said:


> It should meet our requirements... There is no doubt about F 16 efficiency but the thing is our priorities... I love to see another 36 Rafael in IAF, than seeing F 16...


You're right Bro,
F16 was a beautifull fighter. But now it's time for retirement.
It grows block after block, with a always higher weight but the same wings.... and the same small nose.

For a day light dog fighter( it was only that at the beginning), it is in a corner now. Time to turn the glorious page.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kmc_chacko

danger007 said:


> It should meet our requirements... There is no doubt about F 16 efficiency but the thing is our priorities... I love to see another 36 Rafael in IAF, than seeing F 16...



few more Kat on pipeline  just wait till arrival of first plane . . . .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> US government has recently decided not to give a "GO" to the F16 production in India...



Show a US official statement saying this. I doubt You will find one.
AFAIK, the US government has said nothing about the F-16/MII.


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Show a US official statement saying this. I doubt You will find one.
> AFAIK, the US government has said nothing about the F-16/MII.


The Indian govt said it all:

-----------
_Earlier this week, Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre was asked in the Rajya Sabha if India and the US have agreed for transfer of sophisticated technology and production of F-16 fighter jets under 'Make in India'. The Minister replied in the *negative*.
---------_
Game.Set.Match. 


It was a nice ride (for the defence fanboys) while it lasted but now we're going to see the inevitable- the long drawn out death of this SE jet farce.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> The Indian govt said it all:
> 
> -----------
> _Earlier this week, Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre was asked in the Rajya Sabha if India and the US have agreed for transfer of sophisticated technology and production of F-16 fighter jets under 'Make in India'. The Minister replied in the *negative*.
> ---------_
> Game.Set.Match.
> 
> 
> It was a nice ride (for the defence fanboys) while it lasted but now we're going to see the inevitable- the long drawn out death of this SE jet farce.



To not have agreed, is not the same as disagreed.
The US government has not commented on the project.
I repeat: Show a *US* statement.


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> To not have agreed, is not the same as disagreed.
> The US government has not commented on the project.
> I repeat: Show a *US* statement.


Spin it however you like my friend, the govt of India's word is final- that's the end of the road for this circus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> Spin it however you like my friend, the govt of India's word is final- that's the end of the road for this circus.



The logical end, if the US will not allow MII for F-16, is that India buy JAS-39 Gripen E.


----------



## Lord Of Gondor

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The logical end, if the US will not allow MII for F-16, is that India buy JAS-39 Gripen E.


The logical end is to extend orders for the aircraft in production(Su30s, Rafales and Tejas) and on order, and work to get the Next Gen Fighters on time and with minimal cost overruns.
This single engine fighter make in India BS and the original author of the idea Def. Min. Parrikkar are both long gone, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Lord Of Gondor said:


> The logical end is to extend orders for the aircraft in production(Su30s, Rafales and Tejas) and on order, and work to get the Next Gen Fighters on time and with minimal cost overruns.
> This single engine fighter make in India BS and the original author of the idea Def. Min. Parrikkar are both long gone, IMO.



Ordering more Su-30MKI will make IAF unbalanced.

Rafale was selected for MMRCA, with the intention of buying 126.
After 5 years of negotiation, without progress, only 36 was bought.
Nothing has changed, so ordering 100-200 Rafales is not really logical.

The government and IAF is not overly impressed with Tejas.
Maybe they do not want to put all eggs in the same basket.

Modi is keen on MII, so it does not matter that Parrikar left.


----------



## Lord Of Gondor

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Nothing has changed, so ordering 100-200 Rafales is not really logical.


Well India started out with dozens of Su-30s in the late 90's.
It now has the one of the largest Su-30 fleet in the world.
The Rafale will see more orders, make no doubt. How many more is the question.
And the Tejas story is much brighter than you seem to suggest.
The *current *orders are for 123 Jets. That is numerically comparable to the entire fighter fleet of Sweden, so not a small number at all.
And Make in India for defense does not hinge solely on this deal, although it could become a big factor.
And Parrikkar's absence is a huge setback.
There isn't even an RFI out for this so called Single Engined Fighter MII thing. That tells a lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Lord Of Gondor said:


> Well India started out with dozens of Su-30s in the late 90's.
> It now has the one of the largest Su-30 fleet in the world.
> The Rafale will see more orders, make no doubt. How many more is the question.
> And the Tejas story is much brighter than you seem to suggest.
> The *current *orders are for 123 Jets. That is numerically comparable to the entire fighter fleet of Sweden, so not a small number at all.
> And Make in India for defense does not hinge solely on this deal, although it could become a big factor.
> And Parrikkar's absence is a huge setback.
> There isn't even an RFI out for this so called Single Engined Fighter MII thing. That tells a lot.



October 2016:

A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India. Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday to fighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity. *The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI)*, which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). *However, it serves the same purpose*, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

Modi has been in personal contact with the Swedish PM regarding Gripen/MII this summer
- after Parrikar left, so as long as Modi is reelected in 2019, I doubt the project will be killed.
If he is replaced, then anything can happen.


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The logical end, if the US will not allow MII for F-16, is that India buy JAS-39 Gripen E.


Nope, India will not tolerate a single vendor situation and the Gripen E won't be ready for in-country trails before 2022/3 and the deal was to be signed in around 2020. The Gripen E will come too late, by then India will have much more interesting things in its focus. 

The game is over, the GoI did its best to ram this requirement down the IAF's throats that wanted neither the F-16 nor Gripen but ultimately it was never feasible.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Ordering more Su-30MKI will make IAF unbalanced.


More MKIs will be ordered to keep the Nasik plant churning until the mid 2020s (when FGFA prodcution will begin) final numbers will be in te 320-340 range. 

The "unbalanced" talk is total propoganda promoted by SAAB and LM, this has never been a serious consideration of the IAF.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Nothing has changed, so ordering 100-200 Rafales is not really logical.


Everything has changed, the govt, ministers, procurement policies, the strategic threat enviroment, execution of offset obligations by the French side etc etc.

1) The SE jet deal was Parrikar's plan, he is gone now- the Rafale deal was Modi's plan and he now has the reigns of the MoD entirely 
2) China's posturing against India is hightening the need for a strike aircraft which the Rafale is tailored to, the SE jets were only ever going to be used in the West but the IAF has Pakistan covered.
3) France is progressing well in discharging their offsets obligations, particuarly their work with GRTE in reviving the Kaveri engine. 


When the Rafale is absorbed by the IAF they will never look back. Why would they want the Gripen/F-16 that offers just 50-60% of the capability for 75-80% of the cost? Why would the IAF throw away the BILLIONS they have invested in training on/for the Rafale, infrastructure development for it and customising it to their needs just to get an entirely different type? it makes no sense.

The SE jet deal was always a fantasy and it will remain so.




A.P. Richelieu said:


> The government and IAF is not overly impressed with Tejas.


Nonsense, they've ordered 123 units of them, as pointed out- that is more than the size of most airforces, many more will be ordered once the birds start streaming in- there is no big rush for more orders.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Modi is keen on MII, so it does not matter that Parrikar left.



Rafale MII is on its way and it will serve both the IAF's and IN's requirements for new jets- no other OEM can offer this.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> *The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI)*, which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). *However, it serves the same purpose*, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.


Oh so the document sent out was even less worthless than an RFI which itself is worth next to nothing, the average cycle for RFI-RFP-trails/evaluations-negotiations- orders in India is around 5-7 years, if the process was begun today that would mean orders not before 2023-5 with deliveries in 2026-8! Too little, too late.

The GoI floated this with some other motives in mind- perhaps trying to test the water and see what kind of industrial packages it could get or put some extra pressure on Dassualt but the responses it has got from global OEMs/govts has been lukewarm; the US has already declined any worthwhile ToT which was a prerequisite to this deal being signed. 



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Modi has been in personal contact with the Swedish PM regarding Gripen/MII this summer



I'm sure it is standard practice to discuss all of these porposals whenever heads of government speak but it isn't really relevent- Modi doesn't have the authority to simply order 90+ jets, there are rules and procedures that have to be followed, as it stands no official SE jet procurement exists- it is mostly hype in the media being fuelled by some quarters with deep pockets.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> Nope, India will not tolerate a single vendor situation and the Gripen E won't be ready for in-country trails before 2022/3 and the deal was to be signed in around 2020. The Gripen E will come too late, by then India will have much more interesting things in its focus.
> 
> The game is over, the GoI did its best to ram this requirement down the IAF's throats that wanted neither the F-16 nor Gripen but ultimately it was never feasible.
> 
> 
> More MKIs will be ordered to keep the Nasik plant churning until the mid 2020s (when FGFA prodcution will begin) final numbers will be in te 320-340 range.
> 
> The "unbalanced" talk is total propoganda promoted by SAAB and LM, this has never been a serious consideration of the IAF.
> 
> 
> Everything has changed, the govt, ministers, procurement policies, the strategic threat enviroment, execution of offset obligations by the French side etc etc.
> 
> 1) The SE jet deal was Parrikar's plan, he is gone now- the Rafale deal was Modi's plan and he now has the reigns of the MoD entirely
> 2) China's posturing against India is hightening the need for a strike aircraft which the Rafale is tailored to, the SE jets were only ever going to be used in the West but the IAF has Pakistan covered.
> 3) France is progressing well in discharging their offsets obligations, particuarly their work with GRTE in reviving the Kaveri engine.
> 
> 
> When the Rafale is absorbed by the IAF they will never look back. Why would they want the Gripen/F-16 that offers just 50-60% of the capability for 75-80% of the cost? Why would the IAF throw away the BILLIONS they have invested in training on/for the Rafale, infrastructure development for it and customising it to their needs just to get an entirely different type? it makes no sense.
> 
> The SE jet deal was always a fantasy and it will remain so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, they've ordered 123 units of them, as pointed out- that is more than the size of most airforces, many more will be ordered once the birds start streaming in- there is no big rush for more orders.
> 
> 
> 
> Rafale MII is on its way and it will serve both the IAF's and IN's requirements for new jets- no other OEM can offer this.
> 
> 
> Oh so the document sent out was even less worthless than an RFI which itself is worth next to nothing, the average cycle for RFI-RFP-trails/evaluations-negotiations- orders in India is around 5-7 years, if the process was begun today that would mean orders not before 2023-5 with deliveries in 2026-8! Too little, too late.
> 
> The GoI floated this with some other motives in mind- perhaps trying to test the water and see what kind of industrial packages it could get or put some extra pressure on Dassualt but the responses it has got from global OEMs/govts has been lukewarm; the US has already declined any worthwhile ToT which was a prerequisite to this deal being signed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it is standard practice to discuss all of these porposals whenever heads of government speak but it isn't really relevent- Modi doesn't have the authority to simply order 90+ jets, there are rules and procedures that have to be followed, as it stands no official SE jet procurement exists- it is mostly hype in the media being fuelled by some quarters with deep pockets.



India tolerated a single vendor situation after the Eurofighter was rejected 2012 in favour of Rafale.
Production versions of Gripen E will be delivered in 2019, and that is when India can start testing.
The time sschedule say production in 2023, which can also be met.

The Su-30MKIs orders will have to increase to 450-550, to be considered a SE replacement.

The Rafale was not Modi's plan. He inherited the failed Rafale negotiations and killed it
in favour of a direct purchase of 36 Rafale.
And no, it is not 50-60% of the capability at 75-80% of the cost.
When you look at total cost of ownership, the Rafale is much more expensive due to CPFH.
The cost of Rafale has not changed.

India has announced that there will be a dual engine tender, but there is
no further information. Obviously IN wants this.

If You were correct, then India should announce that the SE project is dead.
This has not happened, why?

*Because the US has not announced that the F-16 MII is dead*


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Show a US official statement saying this. I doubt You will find one.
> AFAIK, the US government has said nothing about the F-16/MII.


http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2017/08/04/pas-de-production-de-f-16-en-inde-864085.html

it's in french. Some google translate and it will be cristal clear my dear.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> To not have agreed, is not the same as disagreed.
> The US government has not commented on the project.
> I repeat: Show a *US* statement.


Honnestly Bro,
It is the weapon sale of the moment. Boeing and LM tried to sell their planes to India for years (MMRCAà. And the US governt don't give a ok *NOW *and you think it's not unusual ?



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The logical end, if the US will not allow MII for F-16, is that India buy JAS-39 Gripen E.


Just remember what is the engine of Gripen.... GE from USA
Just remember FBW system is a US one.
and so one....

No F16 and no Gripen in India.

All that story is just about bargaining to have the best conditions for Rafale MII.

Indian SE is well known : Tejas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2017/08/04/pas-de-production-de-f-16-en-inde-864085.html
> 
> it's in french. Some google translate and it will be cristal clear my dear.
> 
> 
> Honnestly Bro,
> It is the weapon sale of the moment. Boeing and LM tried to sell their planes to India for years (MMRCAà. And the US governt don't give a ok *NOW *and you think it's not unusual ?



That Swiss page is referring to the same quote as everyone else. India.
The US has not said yes or no.
The answer to the question if the US has said yes, is therefore *no*.
If the question is if the US has said no, the answer will still be *no*.

The US has never blocked sales of fighters to India.
The US is not allowing ToT on critical items, which is not the same thing.
It is highly unlikely, that they will allow it this time either.

The US has approved the sale of GE engines to India for any Gripen business.

The Rafale is too expensive to buy in the quantities needed to replace the MiG-21.


----------



## BON PLAN

Lord Of Gondor said:


> Well India started out with dozens of Su-30s in the late 90's.
> It now has the one of the largest Su-30 fleet in the world.
> The Rafale will see more orders, make no doubt. How many more is the question.
> And the Tejas story is much brighter than you seem to suggest.
> The *current *orders are for 123 Jets. That is numerically comparable to the entire fighter fleet of Sweden, so not a small number at all.
> And Make in India for defense does not hinge solely on this deal, although it could become a big factor.
> And Parrikkar's absence is a huge setback.
> There isn't even an RFI out for this so called Single Engined Fighter MII thing. That tells a lot.


You're right.
It's not without reasons that India paid so much for indigenization of the Rafale (why integrating Lightening pod and SPICE if it's just for 36 ? ). 
At least onother batch of 36 will be ordered, and probably a third. Indian leaders will not make the Mirage 2000 mistake another time : ordering too few planes.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> That Swiss page is referring to the same quote as everyone else. India.
> The US has not said yes or no.
> The answer to the question if the US has said yes, is therefore *no*.
> If the question is if the US has said no, the answer will still be *no*.
> 
> The US has never blocked sales of fighters to India.
> The US is not allowing ToT on critical items, which is not the same thing.
> It is highly unlikely, that they will allow it this time either.
> 
> The US has approved the sale of GE engines to India for any Gripen business.
> 
> The Rafale is too expensive to buy in the quantities needed to replace the MiG-21.


No answer of a government more than 8 years after the beginning (MMRCA selections began in 2009 and MMRCA requested what is called now MII).... it's worrying no?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> No answer of a government more than 8 years after the beginning (MMRCA selections began in 2009 and MMRCA requested what is called now MII).... it's worrying no?



The US gave the answer no to the release of source code already for the MMRCA.
ToT for non-LM stuff was always a non-starter.
Production in India after Trumps promise to get jobs back is *his* problem.
Production of F-16 abroad has occured several times, so there are prescedents.

Choices:

Deny MII for F-16: results in lost project and lost jobs
Allow MII for F-16: results in *maybe* a won project. Some jobs Will be kept. Trump will be accused of beeing a hypocrite.
Of course Trump is in denial.
If Trump goes, problem is solved.

You guys are all too certain in a world where anything can happen.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The logical end, if the US will not allow MII for F-16, is that India buy JAS-39 Gripen E.


Until or unless India signed more agreement CISMOA & BECA, modified LSA aka LEMOA already signed.

@Abingdonboy 
There is no need to order more MKI.
Nasik Production line is already producing the last batch of 40 Su-30MKI.


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> India tolerated a single vendor situation after the Eurofighter was rejected 2012 in favour of Rafale


What? There was no single vendor situation under MMRCA, EFT and Rafale were downselected (Gripen, F-16, F-18 and MiG-35 were rejected) and Rafale was declared "L1", EFT "L2" based on the sealed bids.




A.P. Richelieu said:


> Production versions of Gripen E will be delivered in 2019, and that is when India can start testing


This is bordering on delusion, the E only just flew for the first time a few weeks ago, it's not going to be ready to travel to India for in-country full spectrum evaluations within 2 years and if it did it would fail miserably as obviously its systems will not be matured at that point. The matured Gripen/F16 couldn't even meet the IAF's requirements under MMRCA now suddenly the untested Gripen E will straight away? Like I sad, delusional.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Su-30MKIs orders will have to increase to 450-550, to be considered a SE replacement.


No one is saying the MKI will make up the gap, more MMRCA will be ordered ie the Rafale- this SE requirement is totally fabricated and the IAF has never expressed any interest in it.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Rafale was not Modi's plan. He inherited the failed Rafale negotiations and killed it


Modi was the key proponant for the Rafale, he could have killed the deal outright and never ordered the Rafale, instead he personally pushed for it and worked with the French side to come to agreeable terms.

There is much more to the IGAs than we know.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> If You were correct, then India should announce that the SE project is dead.
> This has not happened, why?


Umm, what else does this mean:

_Earlier this week, Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre was asked in the Rajya Sabha if India and the US have agreed for transfer of sophisticated technology and production of F-16 fighter jets under 'Make in India'. The Minister replied in the *negative*._



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Rafale is too expensive to buy in the quantities needed to replace the MiG-21.


Whaaaat? When did anyone say the Rafale was to replace the MiG-21? That's what the LCA is for, 123 units of LCA are already on order, more will flow in the years ahead.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The US gave the answer no to the release of source code already for the MMRCA.
> ToT for non-LM stuff was always a non-starter.


Parrikar explicitly stated the ONLY way the SE jet deal would be entertained was if "signifcant ToT" was on the table, the US has answered this question.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> If Trump goes, problem is solved.


Trump isn't going anywhere until at least 2022, by that time the window to order new jets will be utterly closed.



X_Killer said:


> @Abingdonboy
> There is no need to order more MKI.
> Nasik Production line is already producing the last batch of 40 Su-30MKI.


The production of that batch will be finished by 2019-20, FGFA production won't commence until 2025-6, HAL won't allow the production line to stand still so more MKIs will be ordered.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> What? There was no single vendor situation under MMRCA, EFT and Rafale were downselected (Gripen, F-16, F-18 and MiG-35 were rejected) and Rafale was declared "L1", EFT "L2" based on the sealed bids.
> 
> 
> 
> This is bordering on delusion, the E only just flew for the first time a few weeks ago, it's not going to be ready to travel to India for in-country full spectrum evaluations within 2 years and if it did it would fail miserably as obviously its systems will not be matured at that point. The matured Gripen/F16 couldn't even meet the IAF's requirements under MMRCA now suddenly the untested Gripen E will straight away? Like I sad, delusional.
> 
> 
> No one is saying the MKI will make up the gap, more MMRCA will be ordered ie the Rafale- this SE requirement is totally fabricated and the IAF has never expressed any interest in it.
> 
> 
> Modi was the key proponant for the Rafale, he could have killed the deal outright and never ordered the Rafale, instead he personally pushed for it and worked with the French side to come to agreeable terms.
> 
> There is much more to the IGAs than we know.
> 
> 
> Umm, what else does this mean:
> 
> _Earlier this week, Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre was asked in the Rajya Sabha if India and the US have agreed for transfer of sophisticated technology and production of F-16 fighter jets under 'Make in India'. The Minister replied in the *negative*._
> 
> 
> Whaaaat? When did anyone say the Rafale was to replace the MiG-21? That's what the LCA is for, 123 units of LCA are already on order, more will flow in the years ahead.
> 
> 
> Parrikar explicitly stated the ONLY way the SE jet deal would be entertained was if "signifcant ToT" was on the table, the US has answered this question.
> 
> 
> Trump isn't going anywhere until at least 2022, by that time the window to order new jets will be utterly closed.
> 
> 
> The production of that batch will be finished by 2019-20, FGFA production won't commence until 2025-6, HAL won't allow the production line to stand still so more MKIs will be ordered.



Once Eurofighter was out, you had a single source negotiation for five years.
I spoke about 2012, all the others were out by then.
You are quite sloppy...

If there are production aircraft, it is worth testing. That will happen in 2019.
That will be MS20+. FOC will be with MS21.
Gripen C failed becaused it lacked AESA, Gripen E has AESA. Whats Your point?
You are just creating FUD.

The Gripen E AESA radar has been tested in the Gripen NG for quite some time.

The statement means exactly what it says. US has not agreed.
It does not say the US has disagreed.

That US says they are not prepared to supply certain ToT just means that Gripen has
an advantage.

You claimed that replacing the SE project was possible by ordering more MKIs.

Next president will be inaugerated 2021-01-20.
Congress may override the president at any time.
He may also be impeached, with Mike Pence as a president.

You make statements according to your wishes, and not according to any sources.

There are no sources saying more Rafales will be purchased for IAF.
There are no sources saying more than 123 Tejas will be purchased.
There are no sources saying that SE project is dead.


----------



## Abingdonboy

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Once Eurofighter was out, you had a single source negotiation for five years.
> I spoke about 2012, all the others were out by then.
> You are quite sloppy...


No, no and no again. The MMRCA was NEVER a single-vendor situation, EFT was declared L2.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> If there are production aircraft, it is worth testing. That will happen in 2019.


Gripen E won't even have IOC until 2021/2, how can it possibly be in a position to take part in trails in India? The IAF isn't interested in testing an experimental aircraft- it wants a fully matured and war ready platform, if SAAB is foolish enough to send a pre-IOC a/c to test in India the results will be predictable...




A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen C failed becaused it lacked AESA, Gripen E has AESA. Whats Your point?
> You are just creating FUD.


That was one of the reasons...



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Gripen E AESA radar has been tested in the Gripen NG for quite some time.


What is the AESA by the way, the one from SELEX Galileo? If so then the Gripen has NO chance as SALEX's parent company (Finmeccanica) is blacklisted in India.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The statement means exactly what it says. US has not agreed.
> It does not say the US has disagreed.


Mental gymnastics, it is effectively the same thing or at least the outcome is the same- India is not progressing with this farce.




A.P. Richelieu said:


> That US says they are not prepared to supply certain ToT just means that Gripen has
> an advantage.


Not if there is a single vendor situation and even SAAB's ToT may not be sufficient.




A.P. Richelieu said:


> You claimed that replacing the SE project was possible by ordering more MKIs.


No I did not, I never linked more MKIs to the SE jet project.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Congress may override the president at any time.
> He may also be impeached, with Mike Pence as a president.


Ifs and buts, Trump will continue limping on and there are no guarentees he won't be re-elected.

+ it is the US Congress that has consistently rejected Indian ToT demands.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> You make statements according to your wishes, and not according to any sources.


I am applying common sense and logic, you are Swedish with the Gripen in your profile pic, I think I understand your motivations and your wishes....



A.P. Richelieu said:


> There are no sources saying more Rafales will be purchased for IAF.


Again, common sense- India didn't spend billions just to customise 36 Rafales- that woud equate to >$50 MILLION per Rafale, at least 90 more Rafales will come to the IAF just to make this economical. 




A.P. Richelieu said:


> There are no sources saying more than 123 Tejas will be purchased.


There is no reason more won't be purchased, India always orders in batches- once the Mk.1A is in service the picture will change.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Abingdonboy said:


> No, no and no again. The MMRCA was NEVER a single-vendor situation, EFT was declared L2.
> 
> Gripen E won't even have IOC until 2021/2, how can it possibly be in a position to take part in trails in India? The IAF isn't interested in testing an experimental aircraft- it wants a fully matured and war ready platform, if SAAB is foolish enough to send a pre-IOC a/c to test in India the results will be predictable...
> 
> That was one of the reasons...
> 
> What is the AESA by the way, the one from SELEX Galileo? If so then the Gripen has NO chance as SALEX's parent company (Finmeccanica) is blacklisted in India.
> 
> Mental gymnastics, it is effectively the same thing or at least the outcome is the same- India is not progressing with this farce.
> 
> Not if there is a single vendor situation and even SAAB's ToT may not be sufficient.
> 
> No I did not, I never linked more MKIs to the SE jet project.
> 
> Ifs and buts, Trump will continue limping on and there are no guarentees he won't be re-elected.
> 
> + it is the US Congress that has consistently rejected Indian ToT demands.
> 
> I am applying common sense and logic, you are Swedish with the Gripen in your profile pic, I think I understand your motivations and your wishes....
> 
> Again, common sense- India didn't spend billions just to customise 36 Rafales- that woud equate to >$50 MILLION per Rafale, at least 90 more Rafales will come to the IAF just to make this economical.
> 
> There is no reason more won't be purchased, India always orders in batches- once the Mk.1A is in service the picture will change.



If EF was L2, how come they were not invited after five years of failed negotiation.
Any L2 position was clearly pure vapour.

India is well aware of the status of Gripen E, including the Leonardo stuff.
They may reject the Gripen E on whatever, or decide to goahead based
on SAABs total offer.
SAAB has their own AESA radar capability based on GaN. Noone else has this.
That is quite valuable as ToT.

*The fact remains, the US has not said no to India.*

If You did not link the Su-30MKI to the SE project, you did not read the earlier postings.
@Lord Of Gondor did the link, and I pointed out that replacing SE with MKI would result
in an unbalanced solution, which You rejected.

There is no guarantee who will be the president in 2018 even, but You make the assumption
that it is Trump.
Noone knows if he will survive, so just another of your wishful thinking.

I do not make such assumptions and even if Trump is not impeached,
it is January 20, 2021 which is the critical date, not somewhere in 2022.

You do not apply logic, since you do not use logic reasoning.

Your reasoning around Rafale and Tejas is again wishful thinking.


----------



## Hindustani78

Ministry of Defence
04-August, 2017 15:11 IST
*Defence Equipment *

Government is committed to the goal of achieving self reliance in meeting national security objectives. The ‘Make in India’ initiative is the focal point of the current defence procurement policy and procedure and aims to promote indigenous design, development and manufacturing of defence equipment, platforms and systems, involving the public and private sector in the country. 

As an important step towards meeting broader national objectives, Government has recently promulgated the Strategic Partnership Policy to facilitate broader participation of the private sector, in addition to DPSUs / OFB, in manufacture of major defence platforms and equipment such as aircraft, submarines, helicopters and armoured vehicles. It is expected that the implementation of the Policy will enhance competition, increase efficiencies, facilitate faster and more significant absorption of technology and create a tiered industrial ecosystem in the country, including in the MSME Sector. The award of contracts in such cases will be through a transparent and competitive process. The policy is expected to contribute to building indigenous capabilities within the country in respect of the identified segments. 

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri Devusinh Chauhan and others in Lok Sabha today.

Ministry of Defence
04-August, 2017 15:03 IST
*Defence and Aero Manufacturing *

Since the launch of ‘Make in India’ in September 2014, several measures have been taken by the Government to promote indigenous design, development and manufacture of defence & aerospace equipment in the country by harnessing the capabilities of the public and private sector. These measures inter alia include: 

• Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) has been revised and has come into effect from 1st April 2016. A new category of procurement ‘Buy {Indian-IDDM (Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured)}’ has been introduced in DPP-2016 which has been accorded top most priority for procurement of capital equipment. Besides this, preference has been accorded to procurement under ‘Buy (Indian)’ and ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ categories of capital acquisition over ‘Buy (Global)’ & ‘Buy & Make (Global)’ categories. The ‘Make’ Procedure has been simplified with provisions for funding of 90% of development cost by the Government to Indian industry and reserving projects not exceeding development cost of Rs.10 Crore (Government funded) and Rs.3 Crore (Industry funded) for MSMEs. 

• FDI Policy has been revised and under the revised policy, Foreign Investment up to 49% is allowed through automatic route and above 49% under Government route wherever it is likely to result in access to modern technology or for other reasons to be recorded. 

• Industrial licensing regime for Indian manufacturers under IDR {Industries (Development and Regulation)} Act,1951 has been liberalised and most of the components/ parts / sub-systems have been taken out from the list of defence products requiring Industrial Licence. This has reduced entry barriers for new entrants in this sector, particularly SMEs. The initial validity of Industrial Licence under IDR Act, has been increased from 3 years to 15 years with a provision to further extend it by 3 years on a case to case basis. 

• Issues related to level-playing field between Indian & foreign manufacturers, and between public sector & private sector have also been addressed. These include Exchange Rate Variation (ERV) protection for all Indian vendors, removing existing tax anomalies etc. 

• Offset guidelines have been made flexible by allowing change of Indian Offset Partners (IOPs) and offset components, even in signed contracts. Foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are now not required to indicate the details of IOPs and products at the time of signing of contracts. ‘Services’ as an avenue of discharge of offset have been re-instated. 

• The process for export clearance has been streamlined and made transparent & online. 

• Recently, the Government has notified the ‘Strategic Partnership (SP)’ Model which envisages establishment of long-term strategic partnerships with Indian companies through a transparent and competitive process, wherein they are required to engage with global OEMs for Transfer of Technology and domestic manufacturing infrastructure. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) under Ministry of Commerce & Industry, administers ‘Modified Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Scheme (MIIUS)’ for upgradation of common industrial infrastructure in Industrial Clusters in the country. Project proposals for Defence and Aero Manufacturing Clusters are also considered under MIIUS. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) and Dholera Industrial City Development Limited (DICDL), after identifying the land around Sanand and Dholera respectively, forwarded the following two proposals related to Defence and Aerospace manufacturing sector to Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India:- 

• The first project proposal was for establishment of Defence park at Sanand Industrial Estate, under MIIUS, from GIDC. Since, DIPP had already approved two other non-defence project proposals under MIIUS, this proposal could not be considered due to cap of two projects per State in MIIUS guidelines. 

• Another proposal was received from DICDL, Government of Gujarat for seeking support and guidance for attracting major Aerospace and Defence manufacturing companies to invest in Dholera. DIPP had advised to DICDL to take up the proposal for establishment of Aerospace and Defence Manufacturing Park in Dholera with associations like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) etc. This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shrimati Darshana Vikram Jardosh in Lok Sabha today.


----------



## surya kiran

A.P. Richelieu said:


> If EF was L2, how come they were not invited after five years of failed negotiation.
> Any L2 position was clearly pure vapour.



I blame the EFT consortium for this. They did not have a strong enough Indian partner, who can act as a power house. Dassault's smartness lies in the partner it chose. The reason why @Abingdonboy and people like me are confident that Rafale will be in big numbers is because of that number and the on ground activities being laid out by the Indian partner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

Abingdonboy said:


> The production of that batch will be finished by 2019-20, FGFA production won't commence until 2025-6, HAL won't allow the production line to stand still so more MKIs will be ordered.








A total of 222 Su-30MKIs are to be built in Nashik. Till date, 161 have been delivered to the IAF. HAL will have to continue building 16 fighters per year to deliver the remaining 61 aircraft (21 from previous order + 40 new order) in 4 years.

Once the last of the 222 Su-30MKIs to be built in Nashik roll off the lines, this facility will build the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), which HAL and Sukhoi will jointly develop.

First two FGFAs will be delivered directly from Russia for evaluation by mid 2020. And Production might be start once they got green light for stage 1 test by IAF. This might take 2 - 3 years.

For, your kind information, HAL already started their preparation to get ready to produce FGFAs without any delay.

Hope, this will help you to update your calculations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> There are no sources saying more Rafales will be purchased for IAF.



You just needs some common sense ! 

Why do you think India spent more than 1.6 € billion on indigenization? this huge amount just for 36 planes? No.

The next batch will be paid arround 100€ million per plane, because all as already be paid (test bench, bases modification, indigenization, simulators...). All next batchs will be cheap.








A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB has their own AESA radar capability based on GaN. Noone else has this.


??? first time I read that.
SAAB is an integrator, not an electronic devices manufacturer.
Without a vast experience in the domain, no one can make from zero a workable AESA radar.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The fact remains, the US has not said no to India.


If you want to kiss a woman, and if she don't say OK after years ..... it's a NO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> You just needs some common sense !
> 
> Why do you think India spent more than 1.6 € billion on indigenization? this huge amount just for 36 planes? No.
> 
> The next batch will be paid arround 100€ million per plane, because all as already be paid (test bench, bases modification, indigenization, simulators...). All next batchs will be cheap.
> 
> View attachment 417087
> 
> 
> 
> ??? first time I read that.
> SAAB is an integrator, not an electronic devices manufacturer.
> Without a vast experience in the domain, no one can make from zero a workable AESA radar.
> 
> 
> If you want to kiss a woman, and if she don't say OK after years ..... it's a NO.



India has said that they will do a two engine fighter tender after the single engine tender.
Obviously Rafale will have an advantage because of such investments,
but I assume the needs of the Navy will be the deciding factor.

Gripen C has a SAAB radar, Gripen E has a AESA Selex radar, since the SAAB AESA radar
was not ready in time.
SAAB delivered the first GaN AESA radar to customers in 2014 for their Giraffe.
They are ahead of all competition on GaN AESA radar.

Politics is not dating.
Anyway, the fighter competition was not on the agenda when Modi met Trump.
A month ago Indian keyboard warriors was convinced of an F-16 deal after the
LM - Tata agreement.
Noone considers the fact that two questions was asked, and maybe the minister
only answered one of them...

People have in other forums published documents dating just days before the 
question was answered, where the department denied that the US has said no to MII.
Up to You guys, if you want to look like fools, once the situation clarifies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> India has said that they will do a two engine fighter tender after the single engine tender.


There is no such announcement. Please share a credible source for it otherwise you're requested to keep your keyboard rested.

For your kind information:
1. More RAFALEs will be bought.
2. FGFA will be there to raise number of squadrons.
3. AMCA development will be fastened to get into production before 2030. First squadron by 2032.
4. SE deal might be scrapped by 2019. (For reason, read 5)
5.Tejas is under extensive modifications to increase the Indigenous content , including AESA & EW suite. 
6. More Tejas will be ordered by 2019 , if it completed 5.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> There is no such announcement. Please share a credible source for it otherwise you're requested to keep your keyboard rested.
> 
> For your kind information:
> 1. More RAFALEs will be bought.
> 2. FGFA will be there to raise number of squadrons.
> 3. AMCA development will be fastened to get into production before 2030. First squadron by 2032.
> 4. SE deal might be scrapped by 2019. (For reason, read 5)
> 5.Tejas is under extensive modifications to increase the Indigenous content , including AESA & EW suite.
> 6. More Tejas will be ordered by 2019 , if it completed 5.



It was not an announcement, more a comment, which I think was quoted in this thread.
IN needs aircraft for the carriers, and they did not like the single engine Tejas,
so it is not unlikely it will be a dual engine tender in practice.

Your Rafale statement is just guesswork without source.
AMCA schedules are subject to Hofstadters Law as anything else.

India has always the option of ordering more Tejas, and any SE competitor need to show it is better.
At the same time Tejas needs to show the right bang for the bucks.
It is not proof that SE tender is dead.
A decision to go with Tejas does not bring ToT, a key part of the MII deal.
If Modi loses the 2019 election, anything can happen.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> IN needs aircraft for the carriers, and they did not like the single engine Tejas,
> so it is not unlikely it will be a dual engine tender in practice.
> 
> Your Rafale statement is just guesswork without source.
> AMCA schedules are subject to Hofstadters Law as anything else.
> 
> India has always the option of ordering more Tejas, and any SE competitor need to show it is better.
> At the same time Tejas needs to show the right bang for the bucks.
> It is not proof that SE tender is dead.
> A decision to go with Tejas does not bring ToT, a key part of the MII deal.
> If Modi loses the 2019 election, anything can happen.


For IN, RAFALE-M will be there.
For IAF, RAFALE F3R will be there.
And RAFALEs are also twin engine.
Along with RAFALE FGFA is also TE jet.

You can mark my words for your convenience.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB delivered the first GaN AESA radar to customers in 2014 for their Giraffe.
> They are ahead of all competition on GaN AESA radar.


It's VERY DIFFERENT to study and produce a ground based radar and a onboard one ! Not the same weight and dimension and energy exigence, température management...
And on another way after producing the hard, you have to developp the soft. And it need time, tries in flight, assesment of real engagement ... Rafale radar need more than 8 years to be fully multi role.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> It's VERY DIFFERENT to study and produce a ground based radar and a onboard one ! Not the same weight and dimension and energy exigence, température management...
> And on another way after producing the hard, you have to developp the soft. And it need time, tries in flight, assesment of real engagement ... Rafale radar need more than 8 years to be fully multi role.



SAAB has been making airborne fighter radars since 1962.
First Aircraft was J-35B. At that time this group was part of Ericsson, but were aquired by SAAB.
Gripen C is using a SAAB non AESA radar.

The EriEye AESA radar is airborne since 30 years.
The GlobalEye is AESA using GaN and soon to be delivered to UAE.
They have all the competence to make a good AESA fighter radar with GaN.



X_Killer said:


> For IN, RAFALE-M will be there.
> For IAF, RAFALE F3R will be there.
> And RAFALEs are also twin engine.
> Along with RAFALE FGFA is also TE jet.
> 
> You can mark my words for your convenience.


Mark my words.
For IAF, THE X-Wing will be there.
X-Wing is quad engine.
For IN, TIE Fighter will be there.

I have as many sources for that, as You (none).


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen C is using a SAAB non AESA radar.


the PS05A is a direct derivative of the GEC Marconi Blue Vixxen.... you are pulling my leg Bro.

You're right for Erieye. I appologize.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> the PS05A is a direct derivative of the GEC Marconi Blue Vixxen.... you are pulling my leg Bro.
> 
> You're right for Erieye. I appologize.



The PS-05/A was a collaboration with GEC Marconi.
SAAB has done a lot of work on this radar since then,
adding modes, and improving detection range.

Here is a link to their AESA fighter radar.
http://saab.com/about-saab/sites/20...presents-new-aesa-fighter-radar-at-adex-2015/


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB has been making airborne fighter radars since 1962.
> First Aircraft was J-35B. At that time this group was part of Ericsson, but were aquired by SAAB.
> Gripen C is using a SAAB non AESA radar.
> 
> The EriEye AESA radar is airborne since 30 years.
> The GlobalEye is AESA using GaN and soon to be delivered to UAE.
> They have all the competence to make a good AESA fighter radar with GaN.
> 
> 
> Mark my words.
> For IAF, THE X-Wing will be there.
> X-Wing is quad engine.
> For IN, TIE Fighter will be there.
> 
> I have as many sources for that, as You (none).


Dude, do you know that Saab didn't manufacture any GaN modules?
Saab will loose SE deal (which might be cancelled soon), because its basically a integrator. Most of the essential parts and avionics are not manufactured by Saab and not in Sweden too like Engine of general electric f414, selex AESA etc 
Also it has very high price tag of $85 million which is very close to RAFALEs and even F-35 and FGFA.
Another reason is the delay in IOC & FOC for GRIPEN-E.
weapon package also includes many foreign missiles and ammunitions.

Foreign content on EFT is the main reason for the disqualification during the final lap if MMRCA competition.

Upper reasons are enough to skip GRIPEN from SE jet and for F-16 , IAF is very reluctant to accept it.

Hopefully, you will be able to understand the cancellation of SE JET TENDER. Another reason for Tejas testing with Indigenous content, will also play a important role.

Personally, I really like GRIPEN-E over F-16 but not above RAFALEs.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Dude, do you know that Saab didn't manufacture any GaN modules?
> Saab will loose SE deal (which might be cancelled soon), because its basically a integrator. Most of the essential parts and avionics are not manufactured by Saab and not in Sweden too like Engine of general electric f414, selex AESA etc
> Also it has very high price tag of $85 million which is very close to RAFALEs and even F-35 and FGFA.
> Another reason is the delay in IOC & FOC for GRIPEN-E.
> weapon package also includes many foreign missiles and ammunitions.
> 
> Foreign content on EFT is the main reason for the disqualification during the final lap if MMRCA competition.
> 
> Upper reasons are enough to skip GRIPEN from SE jet and for F-16 , IAF is very reluctant to accept it.
> 
> Hopefully, you will be able to understand the cancellation of SE JET TENDER. Another reason for Tejas testing with Indigenous content, will also play a important role.
> 
> Personally, I really like GRIPEN-E over F-16 but not above RAFALEs.



Dude, did You know SAAB is selling GaN equipped AESA radars for several years...
As India just found out, LM is also an integrator.
LM does not manufacture the engine, radar etc.
India wants to, but will use GE and Israeli radar for Tejas Mk 1A.
Guess field is even...

The price tag is more like $75M, and the difference in CPFH easily eats up any difference
in price vs the F-16. CPFH of Tejas is not known to me, but I expect higher.

Weapons package of Gripen is more compatible with India than that of F-16.
Meteor already integrated.
Due to the App based S/W architecture, India can integrate indigenous and Russian weapons.

I let the Indian Government publish its plan, instead of fantasizing,
based on poor understanding.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Dude, did You know SAAB is selling GaN equipped AESA radars for several years...


But do you know who is manufacturing those radars.
Also, ps-05a mk5 is only pulse dopler radar which is only equipped in very few GRIPEN-C & D, not all. Remaining radars do not have AESA antenna.
Raven is only GaN based radar in access to Saab, also the GaN The/R modules are imported from US.
Raven ES-05 is manufactured by Leonardo not by Saab also not in Sweden.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> As India just found out, LM is also an integrator.
> LM does not manufacture the engine, radar etc.


Yup , LM is an integrator of f-16 but everything is sourced from US (that is only 1 nation is engaged).
For radars, please enhance your knowledge.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do/aerospace-defense/radar-sensors.html



A.P. Richelieu said:


> India wants to, but will use GE and Israeli radar for Tejas Mk 1A.
> Guess field is even...


As I already mentioned, TEJAS is to be integrated with DRDO UTTAM AESA AND DARE EW SUITE. For Mk1A , will have Kaveri GTX-35VS.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> The price tag is more like $75M, and the difference in CPFH easily eats up any difference
> in price vs the F-16. CPFH of Tejas is not known to me, but I expect higher.


CPFH of Tejas is very economic because of light weight and efficient f404 as of now with pretty low maintenance.
GRIPEN-E= $85
F-16 block 70= nearly $80
Tejas MK1 $25.13
Mk1A :$31.64
Mk2 : $ 40 Expected


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Weapons package of Gripen is more compatible with India than that of F-16.
> Meteor already integrated.


None of the Saab manufactured Weapon is present in IAF inventory.
Whereas METEOR is coming with french RAFALEs.
What you guys have?


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Due to the App based S/W architecture, India can integrate indigenous and Russian weapons.


RAFALE also agreed to do so.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> I let the Indian Government publish its plan, instead of fantasizing,
> based on poor understanding.


I already shared the understandings, as India is surrounded by two hostile nations. 
And during wars, we don't want to consult individual nations for raising it's maintainence and Support including weapons.
EFT includes 5 Nations whereas RAFALEs have only one.
Hope you understand the facts.

Saab can't share ToT for american F414, Italian Raven radar, and other foreign stuff. They only can share which relates to them only.
So, we have our own Project to get the job done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> But do you know who is manufacturing those radars.
> Also, ps-05a mk5 is only pulse dopler radar which is only equipped in very few GRIPEN-C & D, not all. Remaining radars do not have AESA antenna.
> Raven is only GaN based radar in access to Saab, also the GaN The/R modules are imported from US.
> Raven ES-05 is manufactured by Leonardo not by Saab also not in Sweden.
> 
> Yup , LM is an integrator of f-16 but everything is sourced from US (that is only 1 nation is engaged).
> For radars, please enhance your knowledge.
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do/aerospace-defense/radar-sensors.html
> 
> 
> As I already mentioned, TEJAS is to be integrated with DRDO UTTAM AESA AND DARE EW SUITE. For Mk1A , will have Kaveri GTX-35VS.
> 
> CPFH of Tejas is very economic because of light weight and efficient f404 as of now with pretty low maintenance.
> GRIPEN-E= $85
> F-16 block 70= nearly $80
> Tejas MK1 $25.13
> Mk1A :$31.64
> Mk2 : $ 40 Expected
> 
> None of the Saab manufactured Weapon is present in IAF inventory.
> Whereas METEOR is coming with french RAFALEs.
> What you guys have?
> 
> RAFALE also agreed to do so.
> 
> I already shared the understandings, as India is surrounded by two hostile nations.
> And during wars, we don't want to consult individual nations for raising it's maintainence and Support including weapons.
> EFT includes 5 Nations whereas RAFALEs have only one.
> Hope you understand the facts.
> 
> Saab can't share ToT for american F414, Italian Raven radar, and other foreign stuff. They only can share which relates to them only.
> So, we have our own Project to get the job done.



You obviously have little knowledge of SAAB.
Raven is GaAs based as are most radars today and is planned to be used on current Gripen E orders.
The GaN AESA is developed inside SAAB and was announced 2015 (too late for current orders) but can be finalized in time for India.
UTTAM is based on an Israeli AESA radar.
What is Indias contribution?

The F-16 has around 75 suppliers, from a *dozen countries* including UK, Belgium, Netherlands,
Denmark, Germany, South Korea etc.
Most of these countries have contracts with LM guaranteeing them production orders
for all future F-16s *including those produced in India*.
India will not be able to replace those parts with indigenous developed products, so *expect
to buy a lot from outside USA.*
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=F-16_Fighting_Falcon

You will also have to deal with each US vendor in separate deals.

With Rafale, France will do the integration, n'est pas?
With Gripen, India can do the integration.

SAAB can fully support Gripen, if India chooses to get a maintenance contract.
If India wants SAAB to be the single contact for purchasing, I am sure that can also be arranged
but at a price adder of course.

The CPFH is related to how hard it is to complete maintenance, and beeing light weight
does not immediately render low CPFH.
You have to include features in the design that simplifies maintenance, or cost goes up.
For the F-35, the RAM coating needs to be maintained after flights, adding a lot to the cost.
You obviously have no clue about Tejas CPFH, just more fantasies.


----------



## BON PLAN

X_Killer said:


> Dude, do you know that Saab didn't manufacture any GaN modules?
> Saab will loose SE deal (which might be cancelled soon), because its basically a integrator. Most of the essential parts and avionics are not manufactured by Saab and not in Sweden too like Engine of general electric f414, selex AESA etc
> Also it has very high price tag of $85 million which is very close to RAFALEs and even F-35 and FGFA.
> Another reason is the delay in IOC & FOC for GRIPEN-E.
> weapon package also includes many foreign missiles and ammunitions.
> 
> Foreign content on EFT is the main reason for the disqualification during the final lap if MMRCA competition.
> 
> Upper reasons are enough to skip GRIPEN from SE jet and for F-16 , IAF is very reluctant to accept it.
> 
> Hopefully, you will be able to understand the cancellation of SE JET TENDER. Another reason for Tejas testing with Indigenous content, will also play a important role.
> 
> Personally, I really like GRIPEN-E over F-16 but not above RAFALEs.


I totally agree.
I think this SE initiative is more a new bargaining pressure method put on Dassault head so as to have the best condition possible for another Rafale batch or MII rafale.

If Gripen E costs 85 $million = 75€million.
Rafale was selled to India 95€ million. 26% more for a plane largely better (see Swiss eval, comparing Rafale F3R and Gripen E in the second round)



A.P. Richelieu said:


> With Rafale, France will do the integration, n'est pas?
> With Gripen, India can do the integration.


? what do you mean?


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> I totally agree.
> I think this SE initiative is more a new bargaining pressure method put on Dassault head so as to have the best condition possible for another Rafale batch or MII rafale.
> 
> If Gripen E costs 85 $million = 75€million.
> Rafale was selled to India 95€ million. 26% more for a plane largely better (see Swiss eval, comparing Rafale F3R and Gripen E in the second round)



The $85M for Gripen is taken out of nowhere.
Swedish Air Force pays $72M (35,6B SEK for 60 aircrafts).
Denmark was quoted $64M per aircraft (but a few years earlier)
Brazilian contract was for a lot more, but the contract included also much more
than the aircrafts.

The Swiss decided that the Gripen E was the best bang for the buck.
If Rafale costs $10,000 more per flight hour, this is $80M more per plane (8,000 hours)
In effect the cost of inducting Rafale is 2x that of Gripen E.
Since the intention is to replace MiGs, mostly used as defensive fighters,
the extra range of the Rafale may not be worth such extra costs.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Swiss decided that the Gripen E was the best bang for the buck.


NO.
*Swiss air force *said it was the worst of the three tested, and the sole under the minimum criteria.
rank was : 1 = rafale. 2 = Eventually Eurofighter. 3 = Gripen, but not a satisfying solution.





*The politics *decided to choose the worst efficient solution. (so why making a field test in this case...)

*******************************************************************************



A.P. Richelieu said:


> If Rafale costs $10,000 more per flight hour, this is $80M more per plane (8,000 hours)
> In effect the cost of inducting Rafale is 2x that of Gripen E.


At least cost per hour of a Rafale can be well known, as it is on line until 10 years+

What about the cost / hour of a plane which have made it's first flight some weeks ago ??? Sci Fi.

As Gripen E has only one engine, but bigger than those of the Rafale, and because the cost/hour is mot made entirely by the sole engine(s) (there is only one radar, one landing gear, one electronic suite... on each), the cost/hour of the Rafale can't be the double of the Gripen. Somewhere between ]1 and 2[. Saying 1.5 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> You obviously have little knowledge of SAAB.
> Raven is GaAs based as are most radars today and is planned to be used on current Gripen E orders.
> The GaN AESA is developed inside SAAB and was announced 2015 (too late for current orders) but can be finalized in time for India.



Saab only integrates GaN T/R modules to their giraffe 4A AESA . 
http://saabgroup.com/sv/Media/news-...-Surface-Radar-is-on-track-and-in-production/

Selex also pushing GaN based AESA antenna for GRIPEN-E.

Saab still waiting for the expertise in radar tech and want India to co-develop the same.
https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-india-gripen-pitch/


A.P. Richelieu said:


> UTTAM is based on an Israeli AESA radar.
> What is Indias contribution?


I don't know what you are talking about. Refresh you mind.
India also pushing GaN fabrication and recently they got success in GaN fabrication process as tech Demonstration.
Don't be jealous with Indian development.
@BON PLAN 


A.P. Richelieu said:


> The F-16 has around 75 suppliers, from a *dozen countries* including UK, Belgium, Netherlands,
> Denmark, Germany, South Korea etc.
> You will also have to deal with each US vendor in separate deals.


Hope, you better understand the term called "critical components".


A.P. Richelieu said:


> With Rafale, France will do the integration, n'est pas?
> With Gripen, India can do the integration.


RAFALE also agreed for MII , if they got large order.
Than they will share its integration source codes.
You should go through the MII requirements.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB can fully support Gripen, if India chooses to get a maintenance contract.
> If India wants SAAB to be the single contact for purchasing, I am sure that can also be arranged
> but at a price adder of course.


Why should we buy a less capable jet at higher prices when we already have better option at affordable prices?


A.P. Richelieu said:


> The CPFH is related to how hard it is to complete maintenance, and beeing light weight
> does not immediately render low CPFH.


RAFALE already proved them all.
GRIPEN-E still take a lot time to prove itself


A.P. Richelieu said:


> You have to include features in the design that simplifies maintenance, or cost goes up.


RAFALE's modular design already did it.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> For the F-35, the RAM coating needs to be maintained after flights, adding a lot to the cost.


But it adds stelth to it.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> You obviously have no clue about Tejas CPFH, just more fantasies.


GRIPEN-E is still in its initial phase. 
It still have to get IOC & FOC which are very essential for IAF (which delays Tejas too).
As per schedule GRIPEN-E will get its FOC by 2023, which is too late for India.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Swiss decided that the Gripen E was the best bang for the buck.
> If Rafale costs $10,000 more per flight hour, this is $80M more per plane (8,000 hours)
> In effect the cost of inducting Rafale is 2x that of Gripen E.
> Since the intention is to replace MiGs, mostly used as defensive fighters,
> the extra range of the Rafale may not be worth such extra costs.


Saab claims the maintenance cost of Gripen is about $4,700. But it is for older versions like Gripen A, B, C. And it’s the flight cost but not the real maintenance cost, either. There is no data for the real maintenance cost of Gripen E, since Gripen E is still in the early stage of development.

Its a bitter truth that GRIPEN-E is only a fantasy fighter as of now. It requires about more than 5 years to reach full scale Production.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> NO.
> *Swiss air force *said it was the worst of the three tested, and the sole under the minimum criteria.
> rank was : 1 = rafale. 2 = Eventually Eurofighter. 3 = Gripen, but not a satisfying solution.
> View attachment 417666
> 
> *The politics *decided to choose the worst efficient solution. (so why making a field test in this case...)
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> 
> 
> At least cost per hour of a Rafale can be well known, as it is on line until 10 years+
> 
> What about the cost / hour of a plane which have made it's first flight some weeks ago ??? Sci Fi.
> 
> As Gripen E has only one engine, but bigger than those of the Rafale, and because the cost/hour is mot made entirely by the sole engine(s) (there is only one radar, one landing gear, one electronic suite... on each), the cost/hour of the Rafale can't be the double of the Gripen. Somewhere between ]1 and 2[. Saying 1.5 ?



Gripen E (MS21) was close to fulfilling the requirements.
The Air Force gives an opinion about the bang, the politicians compare this with the buck
anf found the Rafale wanting.

The cost per flight hour is determined by fuel, replacement parts and number of hours
of maintenance per flight hour.
Gripen is designed to be maintained by 1 trained engineer and 6 conscripts,
and basically is self testing itself, reducing man hours.
One of the goals of the Gripen E was to reduce the CPFH, and
while fuel consumption might go up a bit due to the stronger engine,
I do not expect it to be vastly higher than the CPFH of the Gripen C.
Hopefully, it is lower.

The data I have seen (Janes) indicate more than $10k difference between Gripen C and Rafale.
The important thing is to compare apples to apples, so taking two differents sources of CPFH is not a good idea.

The big point is that, just comparing the purchase price is a bad idea.



X_Killer said:


> Saab only integrates GaN T/R modules to their giraffe 4A AESA .
> http://saabgroup.com/sv/Media/news-...-Surface-Radar-is-on-track-and-in-production/
> 
> Selex also pushing GaN based AESA antenna for GRIPEN-E.
> 
> Saab still waiting for the expertise in radar tech and want India to co-develop the same.
> https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-india-gripen-pitch/
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about. Refresh you mind.
> India also pushing GaN fabrication and recently they got success in GaN fabrication process as tech Demonstration.
> Don't be jealous with Indian development.
> @BON PLAN
> 
> Hope, you better understand the term called "critical components".
> 
> RAFALE also agreed for MII , if they got large order.
> Than they will share its integration source codes.
> You should go through the MII requirements.
> 
> Why should we buy a less capable jet at higher prices when we already have better option at affordable prices?
> 
> RAFALE already proved them all.
> GRIPEN-E still take a lot time to prove itself
> 
> RAFALE's modular design already did it.
> 
> But it adds stelth to it.
> 
> GRIPEN-E is still in its initial phase.
> It still have to get IOC & FOC which are very essential for IAF (which delays Tejas too).
> As per schedule GRIPEN-E will get its FOC by 2023, which is too late for India.
> 
> 
> Saab claims the maintenance cost of Gripen is about $4,700. But it is for older versions like Gripen A, B, C. And it’s the flight cost but not the real maintenance cost, either. There is no data for the real maintenance cost of Gripen E, since Gripen E is still in the early stage of development.
> 
> Its a bitter truth that GRIPEN-E is only a fantasy fighter as of now. It requires about more than 5 years to reach full scale Production.



Gripen E production deliveries will begin in 2019, when both the Swedish Air Force and 
Brazilian Air Force will get their first deliveries.
The Aircraft production has already started...

The App based Gripen S/W architecture is vastly superior to "sharing source code"
You do not need the iOS source code to write an App for the iPhones.

Your claim was that everything is sourced by the US, now it is "critical components"...

Go back and check the rest of the nonsens you have written.
Not even worth bothering answering.


----------



## Hindustani78

Ministry of Defence
11-August, 2017 15:08 IST
*Defence Hardware Sector *

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is manufacturing Sukhoi-30 MKI, Hawk, and Dornier 228 (DO 228) aircraft under License from foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) for which Technologies have been fully absorbed to the extent of Transfer of Technology (ToT) contracts.


Light Combat Aircraft “TEJAS” and Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv are indigenously designed & developed.


Indigenization of components is a continuous process involving development and qualification. New technologies especially, advanced avionics, advanced mechanical systems, structured design capabilities;


several world class high value ground test rigs have been established and HAL has also involved private industries to supply airborne items, aircraft/helicopter sub-assemblies and assemblies which can directly fit on aircraft/helicopter. 


The present status of indigenization of the major platforms manufactured by HAL is as below:-


S. No.
Platform
Present %age of indigenization content (By number of parts)


1.
Sukhoi-30 MKI
75%

2.
Hawk
72%

3.
LCA
75%

4.
ALH
75%

5.
DO-228
74%


The expenditure on purchase of defence equipment for the three services during the last two years from the foreign vendors and Indian vendors is as follows :-


Capital and Revenue expenditure (Rs. in crore):


Year
Total procurement
Procurement from Foreign Vendors
Procurement from Indian Vendors

2015-16
76178.80
34.38%
65.62%

2016-17
84260.98
36.19%
63.18%


Government has taken various steps to encourage indigenization and self-reliance in defence. Under ‘Make in India’ initiative, Government has taken following initiatives:-

i. A new Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), 2016 has been promulgated by the Government to take effect from 01st April, 2016 whereby a new category of procurement ‘Buy {Indian-IDDM (Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured)}’ which has been accorded top–most priority for procurement of Capital equipment. Besides this, preference has been accorded to ‘Buy (Indian) and ‘Buy & Make (Indian)’ categories of capital acquisition over ‘Buy (Global)’ and ‘Buy & Make (Global)’ categories. The ‘Make’ Procedure has been simplified with provisions for funding of 90% of development cost by the Government to Indian industry and reserving projects not exceeding development cost of Rs. 10 Crore (Government funded) and Rs. 3 Crore (Industry funded) for MSMEs.

ii. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy has been revised. FDI up to 49% is allowed through automatic route and beyond 49% under Government approval route wherever it is likely to result in access to modern technology or for other reasons to be recorded.

iii. Indian licensing regime for Indian manufacturers has been liberalized and most of the components/ parts/ sub-systems have been taken out from the list of Defence products requiring industrial license which has resulted in reduction in the entry barriers for new entrants in this sector particularly SMEs. The initial validity of industrial license has been increased from 3 years to 15 years with a provision to further extend it by 3 years on a case to case basis.

iv. Issues related to level playing field between Indian and foreign manufacturers and between Public sector & Private sector have also been addressed. These include Exchange Rate Variation (ERV) protection for Indian vendors.

v. Offset guidelines have been made flexible by allowing change of Indian Offset Partners (IOPs) and Offset components even in signed contracts. Foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are now not required to indicate the details of IOPs and products at the time of signing of contracts. ‘Services’ as an avenue of offset have been re-instated.

vi. In HAL, an R&D Corpus of 10% of the operational profit after tax is earmarked for R&D activities both in-house and with private vendors.

vii. Strategic partnership model has been formulated by the Government in May, 2017 to focus on substitution of imported spares, ensure greater self-reliance and dependability of supplies, essential to meet national security objectives.

viii. Certain components of some of the defence equipment of Russian origin have been identified and published on the web for identifying Indian private sector companies for indigenous manufacture under Joint Ventures/Transfer of Technology agreements with Russian OEMs.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri Jose K. Mani in Lok Sabha today.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen E (MS21) was close to fulfilling the requirements.


Back your statement with credible source.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen is designed to be maintained by 1 trained engineer and 6 conscripts,
> and basically is self testing itself, reducing man hours.



RAFALE also have this Capability due to its modular design but take slightly longer time than GRIPEN because of being a TE jet.
It can do 5 mission sorties a day (claimed by Dassault) and it's highest in its category.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> The data I have seen (Janes) indicate more than $10k difference between Gripen C and Rafale.
> The important thing is to compare apples to apples, so taking two differents sources of CPFH is not a good idea.


Data shared by Jane's is quite contradictory because it uses GRIPEN's basic cost where as for others it includes overall cost including maintenance, inventory,etc.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen E production deliveries will begin in 2019, when both the Swedish Air Force and
> Brazilian Air Force will get their first deliveries.
> The Aircraft production has already started...



No more fancy tales please.
Back your statement with credible source.
It recently bmake its maiden flight than how it already started its production.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> The App based Gripen S/W architecture is vastly superior to "sharing source code"


You may like it too.






A.P. Richelieu said:


> Your claim was that everything is sourced by the US, now it is "critical components"...


Please checkout the whole list of components manufacturers of f-16 programs.
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I used the term "critical components" because LM will not import wires, rivets and other materials which can be easily availablebin India at affordable prices.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Go back and check the rest of the nonsens you have written.
> Not even worth bothering answering.


You don't have any credible answer to defend.
And also you don't have anything with source.
Better you must learn about it in deep.


All in all, I m not supporting F-16. Personally I don't like it over GRIPEN-E (as advertised). But GRIPEN is not able to fit in indian requirements is the basic thing which I want to convey.

Also SE jet tender fate is solely depends on the integration of critical Indigenous content including Uttam AESA, dare's ew suite

@A.P. Richelieu 
Clear you confusion about UTTAM AESA


----------



## doe33

Hindustani78 said:


> Ministry of Defence
> 11-August, 2017 15:08 IST
> *Defence Hardware Sector *
> 
> Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is manufacturing Sukhoi-30 MKI, Hawk, and Dornier 228 (DO 228) aircraft under License from foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) for which Technologies have been fully absorbed to the extent of Transfer of Technology (ToT) contracts.
> 
> 
> Light Combat Aircraft “TEJAS” and Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv are indigenously designed & developed.
> 
> 
> Indigenization of components is a continuous process involving development and qualification. New technologies especially, advanced avionics, advanced mechanical systems, structured design capabilities;
> 
> 
> several world class high value ground test rigs have been established and HAL has also involved private industries to supply airborne items, aircraft/helicopter sub-assemblies and assemblies which can directly fit on aircraft/helicopter.
> 
> 
> The present status of indigenization of the major platforms manufactured by HAL is as below:-
> 
> 
> S. No.
> Platform
> Present %age of indigenization content (By number of parts)
> 
> 
> 1.
> Sukhoi-30 MKI
> 75%
> 
> 2.
> Hawk
> 72%
> 
> 3.
> LCA
> 75%
> 
> 4.
> ALH
> 75%
> 
> 5.
> DO-228
> 74%
> 
> 
> The expenditure on purchase of defence equipment for the three services during the last two years from the foreign vendors and Indian vendors is as follows :-
> 
> 
> Capital and Revenue expenditure (Rs. in crore):
> 
> 
> Year
> Total procurement
> Procurement from Foreign Vendors
> Procurement from Indian Vendors
> 
> 2015-16
> 76178.80
> 34.38%
> 65.62%
> 
> 2016-17
> 84260.98
> 36.19%
> 63.18%
> 
> 
> Government has taken various steps to encourage indigenization and self-reliance in defence. Under ‘Make in India’ initiative, Government has taken following initiatives:-
> 
> i. A new Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), 2016 has been promulgated by the Government to take effect from 01st April, 2016 whereby a new category of procurement ‘Buy {Indian-IDDM (Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured)}’ which has been accorded top–most priority for procurement of Capital equipment. Besides this, preference has been accorded to ‘Buy (Indian) and ‘Buy & Make (Indian)’ categories of capital acquisition over ‘Buy (Global)’ and ‘Buy & Make (Global)’ categories. The ‘Make’ Procedure has been simplified with provisions for funding of 90% of development cost by the Government to Indian industry and reserving projects not exceeding development cost of Rs. 10 Crore (Government funded) and Rs. 3 Crore (Industry funded) for MSMEs.
> 
> ii. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy has been revised. FDI up to 49% is allowed through automatic route and beyond 49% under Government approval route wherever it is likely to result in access to modern technology or for other reasons to be recorded.
> 
> iii. Indian licensing regime for Indian manufacturers has been liberalized and most of the components/ parts/ sub-systems have been taken out from the list of Defence products requiring industrial license which has resulted in reduction in the entry barriers for new entrants in this sector particularly SMEs. The initial validity of industrial license has been increased from 3 years to 15 years with a provision to further extend it by 3 years on a case to case basis.
> 
> iv. Issues related to level playing field between Indian and foreign manufacturers and between Public sector & Private sector have also been addressed. These include Exchange Rate Variation (ERV) protection for Indian vendors.
> 
> v. Offset guidelines have been made flexible by allowing change of Indian Offset Partners (IOPs) and Offset components even in signed contracts. Foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are now not required to indicate the details of IOPs and products at the time of signing of contracts. ‘Services’ as an avenue of offset have been re-instated.
> 
> vi. In HAL, an R&D Corpus of 10% of the operational profit after tax is earmarked for R&D activities both in-house and with private vendors.
> 
> vii. Strategic partnership model has been formulated by the Government in May, 2017 to focus on substitution of imported spares, ensure greater self-reliance and dependability of supplies, essential to meet national security objectives.
> 
> viii. Certain components of some of the defence equipment of Russian origin have been identified and published on the web for identifying Indian private sector companies for indigenous manufacture under Joint Ventures/Transfer of Technology agreements with Russian OEMs.
> 
> This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Dr. Subhash Bhamre in a written reply to Shri Jose K. Mani in Lok Sabha today.


Can you please link the page?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Back your statement with credible source.


If you care to read, and not only write, you would have noticed that statement
in the excerpt of the Swiss evaluation in this thread.



X_Killer said:


> RAFALE also have this Capability due to its modular design but take slightly longer time than GRIPEN because of being a TE jet.
> It can do 5 mission sorties a day (claimed by Dassault) and it's highest in its category.
> 
> Data shared by Jane's is quite contradictory because it uses GRIPEN's basic cost where as for others it includes overall cost including maintenance, inventory,etc.






X_Killer said:


> No more fancy tales please.
> Back your statement with credible source.
> It recently bmake its maiden flight than how it already started its production.


It made its maiden flight after the S/W had been fully qualified.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...b-postpones-gripen-e-first-flight-good-reason
"Fabrication of the first three production aircraft for launch customers Sweden and Brazil has started, with deliveries scheduled for 2019."



X_Killer said:


> You may like it too.





X_Killer said:


>


Putting an iPad in the knee of the Rafale pilot is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about apps for adding additional missiles etc.



X_Killer said:


> Please checkout the whole list of components manufacturers of f-16 programs.
> http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=F-16_Fighting_Falcon
> I used the term "critical components" because LM will not import wires, rivets and other materials which can be easily availablebin India at affordable prices.


Do you consider 

Landing Gear
Data Bus
Flaps
Stabilizers
Rudders
Pylons
Fuselage Sections
Fuel Tank

Wings
IFF
VHF/UHF Transceivers
Head Up Display
Emergency Power unit
critical components?

All produced outside USA, and many have to be imported by India from abroad due to LM contracts.



X_Killer said:


> You don't have any credible answer to defend.
> And also you don't have anything with source.
> Better you must learn about it in deep.
> 
> 
> All in all, I m not supporting F-16. Personally I don't like it over GRIPEN-E (as advertised). But GRIPEN is not able to fit in indian requirements is the basic thing which I want to convey.
> 
> Also SE jet tender fate is solely depends on the integration of critical Indigenous content including Uttam AESA, dare's ew suite
> 
> @A.P. Richelieu
> Clear you confusion about UTTAM AESA



Not going to debate with someone without a clue on SAAB + Gripen + Radars.
Not going to waste 25 minutes on Your video either.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen E (MS21) was close to fulfilling the requirements.


YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS !

Gripen, even in it's last config (E now) never reach the lower limit of 6. And we are speaking of a paper plane, with some risk about real perf as demonstrate in their time by SH18, F35...

The only one to do so, in the current config and more easily on the futur one, is Rafale.




















A.P. Richelieu said:


> One of the goals of the Gripen E was to reduce the CPFH


They learn that from Rafale programme .


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> If you care to read, and not only write, you would have noticed that statement
> in the excerpt of the Swiss evaluation in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It made its maiden flight after the S/W had been fully qualified.
> 
> http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...b-postpones-gripen-e-first-flight-good-reason
> "Fabrication of the first three production aircraft for launch customers Sweden and Brazil has started, with deliveries scheduled for 2019."
> 
> 
> 
> Putting an iPad in the knee of the Rafale pilot is not what I am talking about.
> I am talking about apps for adding additional missiles etc.
> 
> 
> Do you consider
> 
> Landing Gear
> Data Bus
> Flaps
> Stabilizers
> Rudders
> Pylons
> Fuselage Sections
> Fuel Tank
> 
> Wings
> IFF
> VHF/UHF Transceivers
> Head Up Display
> Emergency Power unit
> critical components?
> 
> All produced outside USA, and many have to be imported by India from abroad due to LM contracts.
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to debate with someone without a clue on SAAB + Gripen + Radars.
> Not going to waste 25 minutes on Your video either.


You are again failed to Share anything credible about any of your claim.
Nice way to hide your incapability.

You may keep it up....


----------



## abc123xyx

IAF better keep buying su30mki , there is no other visible solution on sight at present.....
18 mki and 16 tejas yearly will makeup well to the depleting squ numbers....

better not to venture into any other project which might take time , considering the present international as well as national war situation....


----------



## X_Killer

O.P.D said:


> IAF better keep buying su30mki , there is no other visible solution on sight at present.....
> 18 mki and 16 tejas yearly will makeup well to the depleting squ numbers....
> 
> better not to venture into any other project which might take time , considering the present international as well as national war situation....


Su-30MKI Production Line is still running and have a pending orders of 61jets.

FGFA deal will be signed by year end and first 2 deliveries will be made from Russia and later deliveries will be made from modified Su-30MKI Production line at HAL, Nasik.
IAF is planning to order 108 FGFA jets.

Tejas is undergone through Indigenous modifications, which might be completed by next year. Till then the Production rate will be controlled for lower production


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> You are again failed to Share anything credible about any of your claim.
> Nice way to hide your incapability.
> 
> You may keep it up....



From @BON PLAN posting today since You fail to read and/or comprehend.

"The improvement scheduled for the Gripen MS21 bring the capability close to the
Swiss expected capabilities"

It is ranked similar as Eurofighter for Strike Missions.
It says nothing about its capabilities for A2A.

MS21 is first introduced in Gripen E. Gripen C is at MS20.






The link to F-16 vendors shows company name and what they produce.
It is quite easy to check which companies in the vendor list are non-US,
and then list what parts of the F-16 they produce.
You are either too lazy or incompetent to extract the information,
But source has been provided.

You have also a link showing production of Gripen E has started, with planned
delivery in 2019 to Brazil and Sweden.




BON PLAN said:


> YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS !
> 
> Gripen, even in it's last config (E now) never reach the lower limit of 6. And we are speaking of a paper plane, with some risk about real perf as demonstrate in their time by SH18, F35...
> 
> The only one to do so, in the current config and more easily on the futur one, is Rafale.
> 
> View attachment 417708
> View attachment 417709
> View attachment 417710
> View attachment 417711
> View attachment 417712
> 
> 
> 
> They learn that from Rafale programme .



Based on that, and the cost of Rafale, it lost...
As I said, not enough bang for the bucks.

SAAB learns from the Air Forces operating their fighters.
Learning from Dassault, would probably make CPFH go up.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> From @BON PLAN posting today since You fail to read and/or comprehend.
> 
> "The improvement scheduled for the Gripen MS21 bring the capability close to the
> Swiss expected capabilities"
> 
> It is ranked similar as Eurofighter for Strike Missions.
> It says nothing about its capabilities for A2A.
> 
> MS21 is first introduced in Gripen E. Gripen C is at MS20.
> 
> View attachment 417764
> 
> 
> The link to F-16 vendors shows company name and what they produce.
> It is quite easy to check which companies in the vendor list are non-US,
> and then list what parts of the F-16 they produce.
> You are either too lazy or incompetent to extract the information,
> But source has been provided.
> 
> You have also a link showing production of Gripen E has started, with planned
> delivery in 2019 to Brazil and Sweden.
> 
> Based on that, and the cost of Rafale, it lost...
> As I said, not enough bang for the bucks.
> 
> SAAB learns from the Air Forces operating their fighters.
> Learning from Dassault, would probably make CPFH go up.


Dude, you have no sense about the Production schemes.
If I believe by your fact , India is also producing LCA from 2000 but it's not actually correct.

Those three Airframes for which you are talking about to be delivered soon, are the test Aircrafts which are not meant as war Fighters.
After that it go through LSP when it got IOC, than after when they have FOC , GRIPEN cleared for serial production. hope you will be able to find something related to IOC & FOC timeline.
http://indiandefencenews.in/gripen-e-beyond-hype-reality-is-much-stormier-much-murkier-much-scarier/
https://www.copybook.com/news/gripen-e-multirole-fighter-debuts

Also you created too much rant for the cost of GRIPEN E, the below link will be able to clear you facts. But didn't have RAFALE F3R's flyaway cost, it is 95 million USD.
https://defenseissues.net/2013/10/05/modern-aircraft-flyaway-costs/

Basically, Sweden selected GRIPEN over RAFALE because its is Sweden's own fighter.

For F-16 vender Companies, you should know that almost all Companies have their headquarters in US like P&W whereas it also has subsidiaries in other countries like Canada.
Here too , you failed to share anything which can back your statement.


Don't show your laziness in providing the backing stuff.

Good luck for your next attempt.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Dude, you have no sense about the Production schemes.
> If I believe by your fact , India is also producing LCA from 2000 but it's not actually correct.
> 
> Those three Airframes for which you are talking about to be delivered soon, are the test Aircrafts which are not meant as war Fighters.
> After that it go through LSP when it got IOC, than after when they have FOC , GRIPEN cleared for serial production. hope you will be able to find something related to IOC & FOC timeline.
> http://indiandefencenews.in/gripen-e-beyond-hype-reality-is-much-stormier-much-murkier-much-scarier/
> https://www.copybook.com/news/gripen-e-multirole-fighter-debuts
> 
> Also you created too much rant for the cost of GRIPEN E, the below link will be able to clear you facts. But didn't have RAFALE F3R's flyaway cost, it is 95 million USD.
> https://defenseissues.net/2013/10/05/modern-aircraft-flyaway-costs/
> 
> Basically, Sweden selected GRIPEN over RAFALE because its is Sweden's own fighter.
> 
> For F-16 vender Companies, you should know that almost all Companies have their headquarters in US like P&W whereas it also has subsidiaries in other countries like Canada.
> Here too , you failed to share anything which can back your statement.
> 
> 
> Don't show your laziness in providing the backing stuff.
> 
> Good luck for your next attempt.



Nope, the test aircrafts are separate from this.
Aircraft will be delivered in 2019 to MS20+ standard.
Are You not worried that your two links on IOC/FOC show widely differing dates?

Using an unsourced forum entry for price is not a source.
A news article needs to refer to an actual contract to be useable as a source.
It also needs to be able to separate the aircraft from other parts of the contract.
Often, you cannot get the absolute price, but You can see the offer for the full deal,
and judge this against other offers.

India is getting IOC/FOC information as well as price, and if it does not fit, that is it.

Try finding the US headquarters for British Aerospace (BAE).
P&W is a US company, with a Canadian subsidiary.
Did I list fighter engines?
If You prefer to stick your head in the ground, and indulge in fantasies, it is your problem.
Fact is that you have to deal with companies from 10-20 different countries
if You want to produce F-16.

In the agreement between the US and NATO countries buying F-16,
it says that they have the right to part ot the production in third party countries,
which includes India.

Why would the European Countries demand such a clause, if production ends up with US companies in the US?

http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/119675.pdf


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Nope, the test aircrafts are separate from this.
> Aircraft will be delivered in 2019 to MS20+ standard.
> Are You not worried that your two links on IOC/FOC show widely differing dates?


That is why I shared the date with least difference. But still you are unable share anything about it



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Using an unsourced forum entry for price is not a source.
> A news article needs to refer to an actual contract to be useable as a source.
> It also needs to be able to separate the aircraft from other parts of the contract.
> Often, you cannot get the absolute price, but You can see the offer for the full deal,
> and judge this against other offers.
> 
> India is getting IOC/FOC information as well as price, and if it does not fit, that is it.


No credible information.
You are enjoying and sharing your fancy tales.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Try finding the US headquarters for British Aerospace (BAE).
> P&W is a US company, with a Canadian subsidiary.
> Did I list fighter engines?
> If You prefer to stick your head in the ground, and indulge in fantasies, it is your problem.


You didn't listed anything except fantasies.
You have nothing to defend yourself.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Fact is that you have to deal with companies from 10-20 different countries
> if You want to produce F-16.


I don't like F-16 for IAF But for you kind information , the process will be very similar to RAFALE deal because it is a combination of several french companies like Dassault, Thales, Safran etc but we don't need to sign individual contracts.
Similar will go for f-16 , if selected. But it's not same in GRIPEN case.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> In the agreement between the US and NATO countries buying F-16,
> it says that they have the right to part ot the production in third party countries,
> which includes India.
> 
> Why would the European Countries demand such a clause, if production ends up with US companies in the US?
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/119675.pdf
> 
> View attachment 417810


As you are quoting, EU countries for f-16, I want to tell you that there is a specific Production clause i.e. LICENCE PRODUCTION.
like India is license producing several projects including Su-30MKI, Hawk , do-228 etc. In license Production , the producing country can replace parts with the permission from OEM.

Right now Turkey and Japan is license producing F-35s too but with very minor modifications.

POST SOME SENSIBLE FACTS.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> That is why I shared the date with least difference. But still you are unable share anything about it
> 
> 
> No credible information.
> You are enjoying and sharing your fancy tales.
> 
> You didn't listed anything except fantasies.
> You have nothing to defend yourself.
> 
> I don't like F-16 for IAF But for you kind information , the process will be very similar to RAFALE deal because it is a combination of several french companies like Dassault, Thales, Safran etc but we don't need to sign individual contracts.
> Similar will go for f-16 , if selected. But it's not same in GRIPEN case.
> 
> 
> As you are quoting, EU countries for f-16, I want to tell you that there is a specific Production clause i.e. LICENCE PRODUCTION.
> like India is license producing several projects including Su-30MKI, Hawk , do-228 etc. In license Production , the producing country can replace parts with the permission from OEM.
> 
> Right now Turkey and Japan is license producing F-35s too but with very minor modifications.
> 
> POST SOME SENSIBLE FACTS.



I do not need to share data on IOC and FOC since I do not disagree
with the fact that they will occur later.
I agree with IOC = 2021 and FOC = 2023.
The argument is first production delivery in 2019, for which I have provided a source.

You claim that a number of EUROPEAN companies are American.
I gave you the example BAE, which undeniable is European, and undeniable is delivering
F-16 parts. Your reply is that this is fantasy.
For Your information, Safran is another one. You just called Safran a French company.
Are You going to change Your mind now, when they turn out to be a supplier of F-16 parts.
Where is the US headquarters of the Safran company, with a French subsidiary?

It is easy for everyone to find out the origins from the list of companies.
Apparently You fail to do this.

You appear to believe that LM can license production to India, regardless of
their contracts with other countries. 
Wrong, They have signed away some of their rights, as shown previously.
There are a number of countries which has legal rights to production of parts
for a possible F-16 MII project.
The Su-30MKI, Hawk etc. that you mention does not have such legal commitments.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I do not need to share data on IOC and FOC since I do not disagree
> with the fact that they will occur later.
> I agree with IOC = 2021 and FOC = 2023.
> The argument is first production delivery in 2019, for which I have provided a source.]


There will be no LSP before IOC and no SP before FOC.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> You claim that a number of EUROPEAN companies are American.
> I gave you the example BAE, which undeniable is European, and undeniable is delivering
> F-16 parts. Your reply is that this is fantasy.
> For Your information, Safran is another one. You just called Safran a French company.
> Are You going to change Your mind now, when they turn out to be a supplier of F-16 parts.
> Where is the US headquarters of the Safran company, with a French subsidiary?]


Unable to get your point. And I never said that SAFRAN is a F-16 vendor. You must Read my previous post to get the actual reference. I was talking about RAFALE when I mentioned Safran and Thales there.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> You appear to believe that LM can license production to India, regardless of
> their contracts with other countries.
> Wrong, They have signed away some of their rights, as shown previously.
> There are a number of countries which has legal rights to production of parts
> for a possible F-16 MII project.
> The Su-30MKI, Hawk etc. that you mention does not have such legal commitments.


You don't have any understandings about the same


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> There will be no LSP before IOC and no SP before FOC.
> 
> Unable to get your point. And I never said that SAFRAN is a F-16 vendor. You must Read my previous post to get the actual reference. I was talking about RAFALE when I mentioned Safran and Thales there.
> 
> 
> You don't have any understandings about the same


You said that Safran is a French Vendor.
The F-16 Vendor list contains Safran...
From that, one can deduce that Your statement that the F-16 can be 100% supplied
by US vendors is wrong.

I understand fully that India will have to buy products from all vendors
that have a contractual share of *all* F-16 production,
and India will never be allowed full rights to produce F-16.
LM cannot sell what they do not own.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> You said that Safran is a French Vendor.
> The F-16 Vendor list contains Safran...


I said Safran is a French vendor for RAFALE , not F-16.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> I understand fully that India will have to buy products from all vendors
> that have a contractual share of *all* F-16 production,
> and India will never be allowed full rights to produce F-16.
> LM cannot sell what they do not own.



Why don't you wait and watch...


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> I said Safran is a French vendor for RAFALE , not F-16.
> 
> Why don't you wait and watch...



Let me repeat myself:


You said Safran is French.
The F-16 Vendor list contains Safran.

What is the logical conclusion of that?

The Vendor List contains a French company.
That makes the statement:

All parts of the F-16 are produced by US vendors
FALSE!


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Let me repeat myself:
> 
> 
> You said Safran is French.
> The F-16 Vendor list contains Safran.
> 
> What is the logical conclusion of that?
> 
> The Vendor List contains a French company.
> That makes the statement:
> 
> All parts of the F-16 are produced by US vendors
> FALSE!


You need to learn some English because I'm unable to learn Swedish.

I'm quoting my statement for your convenience. now, You must translate my statement in that language which is convenient for you.


X_Killer said:


> for you kind information , the process will be very similar to RAFALE deal because it is a combination of several french companies like Dassault, Thales, Safran etc but we don't need to sign individual contracts.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> You need to learn some English because I'm unable to learn Swedish.
> 
> I'm quoting my statement for your convenience. now, You must translate my statement in that language which is convenient for you.



The Rafale MMRCA deal is no more.
The actual Rafale deal is a purchase from Dassault of completed items.
Of course, You do not need to negotiate with the suppliers of Dassault.

For an MII deal, you can negotiate a contract for X airplanes,
but you cannot negotiate a contract with infinite duration for an unknown number of aircraft.
You can ask LM to act like a distributor for all F-16 parts and negotiate a price with them,
but that means they will charge for the pleasure.
You can make the same deal with SAAB in that case.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Rafale MMRCA deal is no more.
> The actual Rafale deal is a purchase from Dassault of completed items.
> Of course, You do not need to negotiate with the suppliers of Dassault.
> 
> For an MII deal, you can negotiate a contract for X airplanes,
> but you cannot negotiate a contract with infinite duration for an unknown number of aircraft.
> You can ask LM to act like a distributor for all F-16 parts and negotiate a price with them,
> but that means they will charge for the pleasure.
> You can make the same deal with SAAB in that case.


I shared many facts from the actual ground from MoD.

None of the both f-16 and GRIPEN will going to induct in IAF , once if the ongoing test will get success.

More RAFALEs will be there for sure.

You must have to wait and watch....


____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________




Rafale Pilot using the Fighter Sphere tablet.

Sphere is an integrated Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) from Dassault Aviaition. EFBs are electronic information management devices that helps flight crews perform flight management tasks more easily and efficiently with less paper. It is a general purpose computing platform intended to reduce, or replace, paper-based reference material often found in the pilot's carry-on flight bag, including the aircraft operating manual, flight-crew operating manual, and navigational charts (including moving map for air and ground operations).

In addition, the EFB can host purpose-built software applications to automate other functions normally conducted by hand, such as performance take-off calculations.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> I shared many facts from the actual ground from MoD.
> 
> None of the both f-16 and GRIPEN will going to induct in IAF , once if the ongoing test will get success.
> 
> More RAFALEs will be there for sure.
> 
> You must have to wait and watch....
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rafale Pilot using the Fighter Sphere tablet.
> 
> Sphere is an integrated Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) from Dassault Aviaition. EFBs are electronic information management devices that helps flight crews perform flight management tasks more easily and efficiently with less paper. It is a general purpose computing platform intended to reduce, or replace, paper-based reference material often found in the pilot's carry-on flight bag, including the aircraft operating manual, flight-crew operating manual, and navigational charts (including moving map for air and ground operations).
> 
> In addition, the EFB can host purpose-built software applications to automate other functions normally conducted by hand, such as performance take-off calculations.



So You said, and you have nothing from the Indian Government to back You up.

Showing a tablet does not make the Rafale S/W architecture App based.

Can You write a program on the tablet that allows the Rafale to fire an AMRAAM
without changing the Rafale Firmware?


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> So You said, and you have nothing from the Indian Government to back You up.


I didn't find any of the strict stuff with credible backing from your side.
It's like discussing a topic with a statue or a unrelevant UI. 
You need to share something to back your words first.
I already shared each and everything but as you are behaving like dumbhead than its not my headache..


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Showing a tablet does not make the Rafale S/W architecture App based.
> 
> Can You write a program on the tablet that allows the Rafale to fire an AMRAAM
> without changing the Rafale Firmware?


That post wasn't joined with the reply.
It's an individual post but due to this freaking forum it gets attached with that. And other one is you who didn't find the dash breaking line.

You will find the basic functions of that sphere tablet , in that post.

Good luck


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> I didn't find any of the strict stuff with credible backing from your side.
> It's like discussing a topic with a statue or a unrelevant UI.
> You need to share something to back your words first.
> I already shared each and everything but as you are behaving like dumbhead than its not my headache..
> 
> That post wasn't joined with the reply.
> It's an individual post but due to this freaking forum it gets attached with that. And other one is you who didn't find the dash breaking line.
> 
> You will find the basic functions of that sphere tablet , in that post.
> 
> Good luck


The US has not said NO to MII F-16 nor ToT of F-16 parts.
Not saying yes, does not mean saying no.
You have not been able to show any India Government source claiming this.

You have not been able to show any source indicating India
is planning to buy more Rafale for the Indian Air Force.

There will be a tender for IN, where they rejected Tejas as underpowered
and they seem to favour dual engine solutions.

I have seen quotes here on PDF, that India intends to look for
dual engine fighters after the single engine tender is completed.
That was a comment from an official, and there has been no official request.
I have certainly not bothered to look through PDF for that.

You claim that the Single Engine project is a fake.
You claim that this will never result in a purchase.
We agree that no RFI has been sent out, but India has asked a number
of countries for information, and this is equivalent to an RFI.
You have shown no source, indicating that India has planned to kill the tender.
You have given a number of arguments why neither the F-16 nor Gripen E
will be acceptable to India. That is not the same thing as giving source.
You might be right, You also might be wrong.
There are others here that has stated that India will buy F-16 with
the same enthusiasm you show, when You say that the SE is dead.

You are totally clueless regarding Gripen E radars.
The Swedish and Brazil Gripen E are planned to use GaAs based Raven.
You claim that this is using GaN. No Source.

I have shown source of SAABs GaN based radar, which has been offered to India
as part of a ToT package, if India chooses Gripen E.
It is not 100% ready for production, but at an advanced stage
and can be made ready in the timeframe needed for Indias production.
SAAB has flying AESA technology since 30 years in EriEye.
SAAB has GaN AESA in production for Giraffe since 2014 and EriEye ER
with same will soon be delivered to UAE.
Competition will only have flying GaN AESA radars in 3-4 years.

You have claimed that Gripen is incompatible with Indias weapons.
I have argued that it is much easier to integrate weapons with Gripen E
due to its S/W architecture where a weapon can be added through an App.
This is a much more efficient way of dealing with the problem
than the old fashioned way of making source codes available.
You have replied with an irrelevant photo of a tablet.



While the USA has not said no to ToT for F-16:
LM can only negotiate ToT for what they own. That is self-evident.
There are no incentive for GE, P&W, Grumman to provide ToT on their products.
Conclusion: It is unlikely that Engine/Radar/EW will be part of an F-16 ToT package.

F-16 contains parts from a dozen countries.
Source has been given by providing a list of vendors.
Anyone can check where those companies are located.
You have chosen to ignore facts, and claim that all companies are US based
which means that you claim Safran and BAE are US companies.
You have contradicted yourself by claiming Safran is a French company.

India has the choice.
1. Negotiate with vendors from a dozen countries
2. Make a distribution deal with someone (LM) which will negotiate with
all vendors for a price adder (25%?)

The option to produce all parts in India does not exist.
LM has signed contracts with a number of countries giving them
rights to supply parts to all future F-16 production (including MII F-16)
Source for this has been given.

Note: I may have attributed comments from other Indians to You.
Arguments still stand.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The US has not said NO to MII F-16 nor ToT of F-16 parts.
> Not saying yes, does not mean saying no.
> You have not been able to show any India Government source claiming this.


I said , SE TENDER will be cancelled once if LCA TEJAS ABLE TO INTEGRATED THE MORE Indigenousation in respect of critical components like RADAR, EW SUITE ETC . 2018 END IS THE DEADLINE FOR IT.
You can understand that there are many things which can't be share on Government domain.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> You have not been able to show any source indicating India
> is planning to buy more Rafale for the Indian Air Force.


IAF
Presently deal has an option of 18 jets, hope you know about that.
It'll be cleared at the time when delivery of first batch started.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-01-12/more-rafales-india-still-likely?amp


A.P. Richelieu said:


> There will be a tender for IN, where they rejected Tejas as underpowered
> and they seem to favour dual engine solutions.


We're discussing about IAF not IN. 
you're are trying to derail the topic.
Tender already floated and 5 contenders Responded along with Saab with its paper-plane Sea GRIPEN


A.P. Richelieu said:


> I have seen quotes here on PDF, that India intends to look for
> dual engine fighters after the single engine tender is completed.
> That was a comment from an official, and there has been no official request.
> I have certainly not bothered to look through PDF for that.


The delay in decision about SE tender is actually due to the new integration of AESA , EW etc on TEJAS. Everything is not shared in public media.
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/07/india-wont-ink-single-engine-fighter.html?m=1

moreover, PDF is not the actual stage to have such informations. You may sign-up IDF for more credible information.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> You claim that the Single Engine project is a fake.


Where I claimed that?


A.P. Richelieu said:


> You claim that this will never result in a purchase.
> We agree that no RFI has been sent out, but India has asked a number
> of countries for information, and this is equivalent to an RFI.
> You have shown no source, indicating that India has planned to kill the tender.


First India has no official RFI and nothing is equivalent to it in formal.
And regarding the cancellation, it has a condition.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> You have given a number of arguments why neither the F-16 nor Gripen E
> will be acceptable to India. That is not the same thing as giving source.
> You might be right, You also might be wrong.
> There are others here that has stated that India will buy F-16 with
> the same enthusiasm you show, when You say that the SE is dead.


If Indian DPSU failed to fulfill the condition regarding LCA than you will see a formal RFI under MII.
We have requirement for point Defense jet or Interceptor, not a deep Strike fighter. And LCA fits in that scenario very much.
F-16 has only one majors reason for rant is that it is used by our Enemy forces.
Everybody is free to share his/her views about anything in India (not on PDF) and they are share their views about f-16 or GRIPEN. And than you have to decide , on which info you need to believe.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> I have shown source of SAABs GaN based radar, which has been offered to India
> as part of a ToT package, if India chooses Gripen E.
> It is not 100% ready for production, but at an advanced stage


I also shared a source which states that Saab has requested India to co-develop GaN AESA . It makes some sense.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> You have claimed that Gripen is incompatible with Indias weapons.
> I have argued that it is much easier to integrate weapons with Gripen E
> due to its S/W architecture where a weapon can be added through an App.


I never said that GRIPEN is incompatible with Indian missiles and bombs. Whereas I said IAF don't have any Saab manufactured MISSILE or bomb. 



A.P. Richelieu said:


> This is a much more efficient way of dealing with the problem
> than the old fashioned way of making source codes available.
> You have replied with an irrelevant photo of a tablet.


But here you failed to back your claim by an credible source.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> which means that you claim Safran
> You have contradicted yourself by claiming Safran is a French company.


Are you stupid or mentally dumb. 
You are unable to understand English sentences than its not my problem.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> India has the choice.
> 1. Negotiate with vendors from a dozen countries
> 2. Make a distribution deal with someone (LM) which will negotiate with
> all vendors for a price adder (25%?)


Let India to decide about its requirements.
India has its own Indigenous option . $31 million never be equal to $85 million.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The option to produce all parts in India does not exist.
> LM has signed contracts with a number of countries giving them
> rights to supply parts to all future F-16 production (including MII F-16)
> Source for this has been given.


Your previous posts (which also don't have any credible source ) can't be considered as a source.


NOTE: Don't try put your words in my mouth. 
You are trying to make many false claims on my behalf. If you have anything which I said ever than please quote that post despite of creating rant over it, raised due to your loose hands on language understanding.

You'll get better understanding about these facts on Indian Defense forums whereas you're trying to find them of this biased Pakistani Defense forum, where anyone can be banned anytime.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> I said , SE TENDER will be cancelled once if LCA TEJAS ABLE TO INTEGRATED THE MORE Indigenousation in respect of critical components like RADAR, EW SUITE ETC . 2018 END IS THE DEADLINE FOR IT.
> You can understand that there are many things which can't be share on Government domain.
> 
> IAF
> Presently deal has an option of 18 jets, hope you know about that.
> It'll be cleared at the time when delivery of first batch started.
> http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-01-12/more-rafales-india-still-likely?amp
> 
> We're discussing about IAF not IN.
> you're are trying to derail the topic.
> Tender already floated and 5 contenders Responded along with Saab with its paper-plane Sea GRIPEN
> 
> The delay in decision about SE tender is actually due to the new integration of AESA , EW etc on TEJAS. Everything is not shared in public media.
> http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/07/india-wont-ink-single-engine-fighter.html?m=1
> 
> moreover, PDF is not the actual stage to have such informations. You may sign-up IDF for more credible information.
> 
> Where I claimed that?
> 
> First India has no official RFI and nothing is equivalent to it in formal.
> And regarding the cancellation, it has a condition.
> 
> 
> If Indian DPSU failed to fulfill the condition regarding LCA than you will see a formal RFI under MII.
> We have requirement for point Defense jet or Interceptor, not a deep Strike fighter. And LCA fits in that scenario very much.
> F-16 has only one majors reason for rant is that it is used by our Enemy forces.
> Everybody is free to share his/her views about anything in India (not on PDF) and they are share their views about f-16 or GRIPEN. And than you have to decide , on which info you need to believe.
> 
> 
> I also shared a source which states that Saab has requested India to co-develop GaN AESA . It makes some sense.
> 
> 
> I never said that GRIPEN is incompatible with Indian missiles and bombs. Whereas I said IAF don't have any Saab manufactured MISSILE or bomb.
> 
> 
> But here you failed to back your claim by an credible source.
> 
> 
> Are you stupid or mentally dumb.
> You are unable to understand English sentences than its not my problem.
> 
> Let India to decide about its requirements.
> India has its own Indigenous option . $31 million never be equal to $85 million.
> 
> 
> Your previous posts (which also don't have any credible source ) can't be considered as a source.
> 
> 
> NOTE: Don't try put your words in my mouth.
> You are trying to make many false claims on my behalf. If you have anything which I said ever than please quote that post despite of creating rant over it, raised due to your loose hands on language understanding.
> 
> You'll get better understanding about these facts on Indian Defense forums whereas you're trying to find them of this biased Pakistani Defense forum, where anyone can be banned anytime.



In Short, You have very little sources to back Your claims.

SAAB has offered India to *participate* in the finalizing of the *SAAB* GaN radar.
It is an offer of ToT. Not a request for help.
SAAB can complete the design on their own, but will only do so once they have an order.


----------



## Taygibay

X_Killer said:


> You'll get better understanding about these facts on Indian Defense forums whereas you're trying to find them of this biased Pakistani Defense forum, where anyone can be banned anytime.



Hum! Mate? Check this from the page of members with most positives :
*Joe Shearer*
PROFESSIONAL, Male, from Hyderabad
Messages: 13,802 Ratings: +89 / 23,119 / *-0
*​Catch my drift? Not anyone, man and I picked my example as you noticed.
It's up to each of us to behave so as to avoid bans or even causing turmoil.

And getting any understanding from Indian fora is very unlikely and endless,
IMHoO!

This said, you are trying to make someone else make sense and have been
at it for a while now. Philosophers and teachers will tell you it may not happen?

Go for a walk, man, enjoy yourself ...
and have a great IRL?
GL, Tay.


----------



## Sinnerman108

X_Killer said:


> I shared many facts from the actual ground from MoD.
> 
> None of the both f-16 and GRIPEN will going to induct in IAF , once if the ongoing test will get success.
> 
> More RAFALEs will be there for sure.
> 
> You must have to wait and watch....
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rafale Pilot using the Fighter Sphere tablet.
> 
> Sphere is an integrated Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) from Dassault Aviaition. EFBs are electronic information management devices that helps flight crews perform flight management tasks more easily and efficiently with less paper. It is a general purpose computing platform intended to reduce, or replace, paper-based reference material often found in the pilot's carry-on flight bag, including the aircraft operating manual, flight-crew operating manual, and navigational charts (including moving map for air and ground operations).
> 
> In addition, the EFB can host purpose-built software applications to automate other functions normally conducted by hand, such as performance take-off calculations.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> In Short, You have very little sources to back Your claims.
> 
> SAAB has offered India to *participate* in the finalizing of the *SAAB* GaN radar.
> It is an offer of ToT. Not a request for help.
> SAAB can complete the design on their own, but will only do so once they have an order.


Baseless argument...
No official offer about ToT is made from Saab's side.
If you believe than please back it with credible data (which you didn't do in either reply)



Taygibay said:


> Hum! Mate? Check this from the page of members with most positives :
> *Joe Shearer*
> PROFESSIONAL, Male, from Hyderabad
> Messages: 13,802 Ratings: +89 / 23,119 / *-0
> *​Catch my drift? Not anyone, man and I picked my example as you noticed.
> It's up to each of us to behave so as to avoid bans or even causing turmoil.
> 
> And getting any understanding from Indian fora is very unlikely and endless,
> IMHoO!
> 
> This said, you are trying to make someone else make sense and have been
> at it for a while now. Philosophers and teachers will tell you it may not happen?
> 
> Go for a walk, man, enjoy yourself ...
> and have a great IRL?
> GL, Tay.


I was the the who was banned for 2 times due to sharing some technical information about jf-17.
Anyways, I don't want to ruin this thread by these biased posts.


Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL, Male, from Hyderabad
Messages: 13,802 Ratings: +89 / 23,119 / -0
And this guys is a false-flagger and a Bangladeshi not Indian.
Check out, one of his reply.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/harsh-mander-commits-sedition.446516/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Baseless argument...
> No official offer about ToT is made from Saab's side.
> If you believe than please back it with credible data (which you didn't do in either reply)




https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-india-gripen-pitch/

Sweden and Saab have offered to co-develop *its* Gallium Nitride AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar with India. In meetings held with a visiting Indian defense ministry committee this week, which included Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha — and following on from briefings in New Delhi last month — Saab officials have pitched the idea of joint development of the technology to India, if India were to select the Gripen for production in India, via Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make in India initiative.

Lars Tossman, Head of Saab’s Airborne Surveillance business unit told visiting Indian media last month, “We talked in India – we said *if India would choose Gripen, then we would be willing to share this technology and co-develop it.* We have a lot to contribute but we’re willing to share that.”


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-india-gripen-pitch/
> 
> Sweden and Saab have offered to co-develop *its* Gallium Nitride AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar with India. In meetings held with a visiting Indian defense ministry committee this week, which included Indian Air Force (IAF) Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha — and following on from briefings in New Delhi last month — Saab officials have pitched the idea of joint development of the technology to India, if India were to select the Gripen for production in India, via Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make in India initiative.
> 
> Lars Tossman, Head of Saab’s Airborne Surveillance business unit told visiting Indian media last month, “We talked in India – we said *if India would choose Gripen, then we would be willing to share this technology and co-develop it.* We have a lot to contribute but we’re willing to share that.”


Now, I have no doubt that you are unable to under English.
1. ToT and co-development are two different terms.
2. As you said that Saab will offer GRIPEN with its GaN Radar than what the hell is this co-development.

3. Please read what I mentioned before along with source, does it mean anything else.


X_Killer said:


> Saab still waiting for the expertise in radar tech and want India to co-develop the same.
> https://www.stratpost.com/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-india-gripen-pitch/


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/make...-gripen-any-other.448850/page-37#post-9756070

Ahh! You used the exactly the same link which I shared. 
You should consult a good psychiatrist and believe me you will be fine soon.

Q.E.D.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Now, I have no doubt that you are unable to under English.
> 1. ToT and co-development are two different terms.
> 2. As you said that Saab will offer GRIPEN with its GaN Radar than what the hell is this co-development.
> 
> 3. Please read what I mentioned before along with source, does it mean anything else.
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/make...-gripen-any-other.448850/page-37#post-9756070
> 
> Ahh! You used the exactly the same link which I shared.
> You should consult a good psychiatrist and believe me you will be fine soon.
> 
> Q.E.D.


SAAB has the technology to build a GaN fighter radar.
They have GaN AESA FOR Giraffe and EriEye ER today for delivery.
The Fighter version needs to be customized for a particular aircraft.

To make it fit the Gripen E, further development is needed.
SAAB is offering to share the technology they have to India.
This will cut the development time by 5-10 years.
How is that not ToT?


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB has the technology to build a GaN fighter radar.
> They have GaN AESA FOR Giraffe and EriEye ER today for delivery.
> The Fighter version needs to be customized for a particular aircraft.
> 
> To make it fit the Gripen E, further development is needed.
> SAAB is offering to share the technology they have to India.
> This will cut the development time by 5-10 years.
> How is that not ToT?


Without completing its development, how is it possible to deliver GaN AESA for SE tender?
This will become another reason of delay.

I think you didn't heard about that DRDO already developed GaN modules and continuing their development to refine the tech.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Without completing its development, how is it possible to deliver GaN AESA for SE tender?
> This will become another reason of delay.
> 
> I think you didn't heard about that DRDO already developed GaN modules and continuing their development to refine the tech.



SAAB believes that the radar is far enough in development that Indias target for 2023 production delivery can be met. Derivatives can be fit into future Tejas, FGFA and AMCA.
A GaN module is not a radar.
Also having a module, does not neccessary mean it is a good module (or bad).
SAAB, having stuff in production is ahead of the pack, and co-development with SAAB
will save India a lot of time.

Now, Your video does not support Your claim that DRDO have developed GaN modules.
This is what the video is saying about GaN.
"DRDO is establishing this future technology"
This means that they have not even started.

SAAB might be 10 years ahead of them.


----------



## Taygibay

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB might be 10 years ahead of them.



Since SAAB does not own a foundry for its GaN elements, probably!
But by that count, India can copy SAAB and LockMart and just buy
up-to-date ones of the market until theirs are top notch ... and when
it happens, they'll have their own production line?



A.P. Richelieu said:


> A GaN module is not a radar.



Very right! Then again, India has already bought 2 AESA radars, see?
So they may not need a third esp. knowing the FGFA bring its own.

Tay.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB believes that the radar is far enough in development that Indias target for 2023 production delivery can be met. Derivatives can be fit into future Tejas, FGFA and AMCA.
> A GaN module is not a radar.



Still you are living in your fantasy dreams.
As I said , DRDO is now refining the GaN Tech. And for your kind information that Without GaN modules there is nothing like GaN AESA . 
Only these modules creates a difference between them.
And atleast we have our own GaN foundry which is still missing at SAAB.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Also having a module, does not neccessary mean it is a good module (or bad).


Sticking a Saab template will not make it a manufacturer.
Saab is only a integrator not a manufacturer.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB, having stuff in production is ahead of the pack, and co-development with SAAB
> will save India a lot of time.


Any proofs?


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Now, Your video does not support Your claim that DRDO have developed GaN modules.
> This is what the video is saying about GaN.
> "DRDO is establishing this future technology"
> This means that they have not even started.


You are totally dumb head.
I don't have any cure for this.
SAAB also claimed GRIPEN E is a future fighter jet, does it mean the same.




A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB might be 10 years ahead of them.


Saab is 10 years ahead and you are 100 years ahead, but only in your dreams.
Congratulations, LOL





Taygibay said:


> Sinc-upSAAB does not own a foundry for its GaN elements, probably!
> But by that count, India can copy SAAB and LockMart and just buy
> up-to-date ones of the market until theirs are top notch ... and when
> it happens, they'll have their own production line?
> 
> 
> 
> Very right! Then again, India has already bought 2 AESA radars, see?
> So they may not need a third esp. knowing the FGFA bring its own.
> 
> Tay.


This dumb guy has no idea of anything.

I'm already fed-up

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

Abingdonboy said:


> No, no and no again. The MMRCA was NEVER a single-vendor situation, EFT was declared L2.
> 
> 
> Gripen E won't even have IOC until 2021/2, how can it possibly be in a position to take part in trails in India? The IAF isn't interested in testing an experimental aircraft- it wants a fully matured and war ready platform, if SAAB is foolish enough to send a pre-IOC a/c to test in India the results will be predictable...
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the reasons...
> 
> 
> What is the AESA by the way, the one from SELEX Galileo? If so then the Gripen has NO chance as SALEX's parent company (Finmeccanica) is blacklisted in India.
> 
> 
> Mental gymnastics, it is effectively the same thing or at least the outcome is the same- India is not progressing with this farce.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if there is a single vendor situation and even SAAB's ToT may not be sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not, I never linked more MKIs to the SE jet project.
> 
> 
> Ifs and buts, Trump will continue limping on and there are no guarentees he won't be re-elected.
> 
> + it is the US Congress that has consistently rejected Indian ToT demands.
> 
> 
> I am applying common sense and logic, you are Swedish with the Gripen in your profile pic, I think I understand your motivations and your wishes....
> 
> 
> Again, common sense- India didn't spend billions just to customise 36 Rafales- that woud equate to >$50 MILLION per Rafale, at least 90 more Rafales will come to the IAF just to make this economical.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason more won't be purchased, India always orders in batches- once the Mk.1A is in service the picture will change.


You make absolute sense. What doesnt make sense why was this whole thing floated in first place. Was india deliberately trolling LM and gripen

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Papa Dragon

ziaulislam said:


> You make absolute sense. What doesnt make sense why was this whole thing floated in first place. Was india deliberately trolling LM and gripen


There is a high possibility that India maybe trolling LM and SAAB. F-16 is dead as they denied ToT which is expected from the Americans and given their history of backstabbing, there is a high possibility to deny us spares or use the possibly rumored kill switches on their export version F-16s if we ever go against a country backed by the Yankees which India and I guess even Pakistanis have been skeptical about. 

Gripen may have better prospects in this regard but it still has it's share of reservations as IAF has never been interested in untested platforms except for the FGFA as it is a 5th gen. Unless extensive ToT and complete production and assembly operations take place under MII with Indian manufactured components, I don't see the Gripen coming. 

Co-producing 2-3 squadrons of Rafale under MII and focusing on the Kaveri engine along with Safran to develop 90KN, 110KN and 125KN variants which can be used on the Tejas Mk2, AMCA, Su-30MKI and FGFA respectively is the best option that India could go with.


----------



## X_Killer

Papa Dragon said:


> There is a high possibility that India maybe trolling LM and SAAB. F-16 is dead as they denied ToT which is expected from the Americans and given their history of backstabbing, there is a high possibility to deny us spares or use the possibly rumored kill switches on their export version F-16s if we ever go against a country backed by the Yankees which India and I guess even Pakistanis have been skeptical about.


Nice tried but you're sharing old new. Better to go for latest one.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-report-on-f-16-tech-transfer-to-indi-440209/


Papa Dragon said:


> Gripen may have better prospects in this regard but it still has it's share of reservations as IAF has never been interested in untested platforms except for the FGFA as it is a 5th gen. Unless extensive ToT and complete production and assembly operations take place under MII with Indian manufactured components, I don't see the Gripen coming.


You might be correct but it clearly depends on LCA TEJAS.
You may seek to my previous post for details.


Papa Dragon said:


> Co-producing 2-3 squadrons of Rafale under MII and focusing on the Kaveri engine along with Safran to develop 90KN, 110KN and 125KN variants which can be used on the Tejas Mk2, AMCA, Su-30MKI and FGFA respectively is the best option that India could go with.


Kaveri for Su-30MKI is only a speculation
But you overhyped by adding FGFA to this list.


----------



## Papa Dragon

X_Killer said:


> Nice tried but you're sharing old new. Better to go for latest one.
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-report-on-f-16-tech-transfer-to-indi-440209/
> 
> You might be correct but it clearly depends on LCA TEJAS.
> You may seek to my previous post for details.
> 
> Kaveri for Su-30MKI is only a speculation
> But you overhyped by adding FGFA to this list.


It is the senate that calls the shots but not LM. There is only a possibility to transfer the assembly line to India with all the components being manufactured in the US itself as that has been Trump's primary agenda during is election campaigning to keep the jobs in US. The report also states that US denied transfer of critical technologies to S.Korea which is a full time long-term ally of the US.

I am aware that Kaveri for Su-30 MKI is only a speculation but given the relatively lower service life and unreliability issues with the Russian engines, it a always a better option to go with an engine co-developed with the French. While PAK-FA is currently using a derivative of the AL-41F1 and the izdeliye 30 is being developed, I just offered my opinion that India may look into the prospect of installing Kaveri in the long run and maintain uniformity in our fighter jets for ease of maintenance, service and spares. Also, I'm pretty sure Kaveri would be developed indigenously with locally procured and manufactured components, so that we don't have to rely on other countries for critical components and spares during times of need.


----------



## X_Killer

Papa Dragon said:


> It is the senate that calls the shots but not LM. There is only a possibility to transfer the assembly line to India with all the components being manufactured in the US itself as that has been Trump's primary agenda during is election campaigning to keep the jobs in US. The report also states that US denied transfer of critical technologies to S.Korea which is a full time long-term ally of the US.


There are only national interests in the world, there is nothing like friendship and Ally.
If they get their interests fulfilled than they will share ToT otherwise no chance...


Papa Dragon said:


> I am aware that Kaveri for Su-30 MKI is only a speculation but given the relatively lower service life and unreliability issues with the Russian engines, it a always a better option to go with an engine co-developed with the French. While PAK-FA is currently using a derivative of the AL-41F1 and the izdeliye 30 is being developed, I just offered my opinion that India may look into the prospect of installing Kaveri in the long run and maintain uniformity in our fighter jets for ease of maintenance, service and spares. Also, I'm pretty sure Kaveri would be developed indigenously with locally procured and manufactured components, so that we don't have to rely on other countries for critical components and spares during times of need.


Hope your speculations may come true but I'll not going to make firm statement about it because it is still in development with french offsets.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Taygibay said:


> Since SAAB does not own a foundry for its GaN elements, probably!
> But by that count, India can copy SAAB and LockMart and just buy
> up-to-date ones of the market until theirs are top notch ... and when
> it happens, they'll have their own production line?
> 
> 
> 
> Very right! Then again, India has already bought 2 AESA radars, see?
> So they may not need a third esp. knowing the FGFA bring its own.
> 
> Tay.


The important thing is the design.
The foundry can be outsourced.
Apple does not have a foundry, yet they get advanced products using their designs.



X_Killer said:


> Still you are living in your fantasy dreams.
> As I said , DRDO is now refining the GaN Tech. And for your kind information that Without GaN modules there is nothing like GaN AESA .
> Only these modules creates a difference between them.
> And atleast we have our own GaN foundry which is still missing at SAAB.
> 
> 
> Sticking a Saab template will not make it a manufacturer.
> Saab is only a integrator not a manufacturer.
> 
> Any proofs?
> 
> You are totally dumb head.
> I don't have any cure for this.
> SAAB also claimed GRIPEN E is a future fighter jet, does it mean the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Saab is 10 years ahead and you are 100 years ahead, but only in your dreams.
> Congratulations, LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dumb guy has no idea of anything.
> 
> I'm already fed-up



http://aviationweek.com/defense/counter-stealth-radar-key-growing-aew-market

http://saabgroup.com/sv/Media/news-...ld-class-sensor-package-for-indian-tejas-lca/

"Saab’s solutions are based on the latest state-of-the-art technologies and COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) available. The AESA fighter radar and electronic warfare units have no ITAR-restricted (Internationally Traffic in Arms Regulations) components, *due to the high degree of Saab in-house developed and manufactured building blocks.* Using contemporary technology provides the adaptability and growth potential needed to stay ahead. Technologies are re-used between variants and platforms in order to minimize Life Cycle Cost (LCC)."

As for DRDO "refining" GaN, you have no sources for that,
only sources for an intention to start working with GaN.

Gripen E has been developed for the last decade, mostly using the Gripen NG demonstrator,
so it is at a much further state than Your unsourced fantasies about Indias GaN competence.


----------



## surya kiran

A.P. Richelieu said:


> As for DRDO "refining" GaN, you have no sources for that,
> only sources for an intention to start working with GaN.



Not start work. To start production. Its not DRDO which will do it, but IISc. Current radar being tested with 700 trms.

"The proposed foundry is supposed to be developed around an existing facility for producing gallium nitride transistors on silicon wafers and the development is supposed to take place under the supervision of associate professor Srinivasan Raghavan."

http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...or-production-of-wonder-nano-material/754727/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

surya kiran said:


> Not start work. To start production. Its not DRDO which will do it, but IISc. Current radar being tested with 700 trms.
> 
> "The proposed foundry is supposed to be developed around an existing facility for producing gallium nitride transistors on silicon wafers and the development is supposed to take place under the supervision of associate professor Srinivasan Raghavan."
> 
> http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...or-production-of-wonder-nano-material/754727/



Much better source, but still it only mentions producing transistors in prototype volumes.
The article says initial funding for the foundry was approved about one month ago,
which means it is going to take time to get it running.
A normal semiconductor fab takes at least 2-3 years to get running from approval.
The claim by @X_Killer that India has a foundry is just another fantasy.

Still nothing mentioned in the link what is done with those GaN transistors.
The UTTAM Radar is GaAs based, not GaN based.
If You want to claim it is GaN, show some source.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Meanwhile, the idea that the US has denied ToT on F-16 is now proven *FALSE*.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-report-on-f-16-tech-transfer-to-indi-440209/
=========
"A recent report claiming the US denied critical F-16 technology to the government of India is erroneous, the US Air Force and F-16 manufacturer Lockheed Martin say."
...
"Any media reports claiming the US has denied or approved the transfer of F-16 technology to India are simply not true,” Lockheed says. “The government of India is still determining its single-engine fighter requirements and government-to-government discussions between India and the USs are ongoing. No decisions have been made yet regarding technology transfer.”
=========
So the question was _if the US has approved ToT for F-16_, and the answer was no.

Using broken logic, Indian keyboard warriors believed this meant that the US had denied ToT.
End Result:







Separate thread started for unknown reasons.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lock...-technology-transfer-is-still-ongoing.512012/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The important thing is the design.
> The foundry can be outsourced.
> Apple does not have a foundry, yet they get advanced products using their designs.


You guys have only speculated concept of GaN AESA radar for fighter jets. Till now there is nothing available on ground.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> http://aviationweek.com/defense/counter-stealth-radar-key-growing-aew-market


DRDO AEW&C has upper hand over your so called eyerie which you guys sold to PAF.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> http://saabgroup.com/sv/Media/news-...ld-class-sensor-package-for-indian-tejas-lca/



UTTAM AESA & EW suite will be tested on LCA PV-1 by mid 2018. And later as soon as GaN will get ready , it will be tested and fabricated oN UTTAM AESA.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> .Saab’s’s solutions are based on the latest state-of-the-art technologies and COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) available. The AESA fighter radar and electronic warfare units have no ITAR-restricted (Internationally Traffic in Arms Regulations) components, *due to the high degree of Saab in-house developed and manufactured building blocks.* Using contemporary technology provides the adaptability and growth potential needed to stay ahead. Technologies are re-used between variants and platforms in order to minimize Life Cycle Cost (LCC)."



You can get your answer once you find the Saab's content on GRIPEN C/D because they are active jets.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> As for DRDO "refining" GaN, you have no sources for that,
> only sources for an intention to start working with GaN.


Video shared by me has the final GaN module which will be further refined. I'm unable to share that video in Swedish .
For your kind information, the video was from Official DRDO library.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen E has been developed for the last decade, mostly using the Gripen NG demonstrator,
> so it is at a much further state than Your unsourced fantasies about Indias GaN competence.


Another baseless argument.
I can understand your frustration about the increased probability about SE TENDER cancellation which is still not Officially raised.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Meanwhile, the idea that the US has denied ToT on F-16 is now proven *FALSE*.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-report-on-f-16-tech-transfer-to-indi-440209/
> =========
> "A recent report claiming the US denied critical F-16 technology to the government of India is erroneous, the US Air Force and F-16 manufacturer Lockheed Martin say."
> ...
> "Any media reports claiming the US has denied or approved the transfer of F-16 technology to India are simply not true,” Lockheed says. “The government of India is still determining its single-engine fighter requirements and government-to-government discussions between India and the USs are ongoing. No decisions have been made yet regarding technology transfer.”
> =========
> So the question was _if the US has approved ToT for F-16_, and the answer was no.
> 
> Using broken logic, Indian keyboard warriors believed this meant that the US had denied ToT.
> End Result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate thread started for unknown reasons.
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lock...-technology-transfer-is-still-ongoing.512012/


When India finalized to have SE jet tender, you will be able to find that LM offered something better than Saab.
That will probably a out of the box offer.
They already signed basic contract with TASL which has a good experience in Aviation manufacturing, whereas on the other hand , Saab is in talks with ADANI which has no experience in Aviation sector.

That make a difference between both manufacturers on Indian Ground.

If SE tender will be there, than there will be a probability ratio of 70:30 between LM and Saab. Because SEjets are intended to replace old migs which will be completely retired by 2024,


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> You guys have only speculated concept of GaN AESA radar for fighter jets. Till now there is nothing available on ground.
> 
> 
> DRDO AEW&C has upper hand over your so called eyerie which you guys sold to PAF.
> 
> 
> UTTAM AESA & EW suite will be tested on LCA PV-1 by mid 2018. And later as soon as GaN will get ready , it will be tested and fabricated oN UTTAM AESA.
> 
> 
> You can get your answer once you find the Saab's content on GRIPEN C/D because they are active jets.
> 
> 
> Video shared by me has the final GaN module which will be further refined. I'm unable to share that video in Swedish .
> For your kind information, the video was from Official DRDO library.
> 
> Another baseless argument.
> I can understand your frustration about the increased probability about SE TENDER cancellation which is still not Officially raised.
> 
> 
> When India finalized to have SE jet tender, you will be able to find that LM offered something better than Saab.
> That will probably a out of the box offer.
> They already signed basic contract with TASL which has a good experience in Aviation manufacturing, whereas on the other hand , Saab is in talks with ADANI which has no experience in Aviation sector.
> 
> That make a difference between both manufacturers on Indian Ground.
> 
> If SE tender will be there, than there will be a probability ratio of 70:30 between LM and Saab. Because SEjets are intended to replace old migs which will be completely retired by 2024,



So suddenly the SE tender is alive? You proclaimed is a fake just a few postings ago.
The module shown is a GaAs module.
Will have GaN... But You don't have it...
You are a waste of time.
Now on ignore...


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> So suddenly thedevelopmentsis alive? You proclaimed is a fake just a few postings ago.
> The module shown is a GaAs module.
> Will have GaN... But You don't have it...
> You are a waste of time.
> Now on ignore...


You're not more than a psycho with very little knowledge about Indian developments.
You have only one vision "GRIPEN is best among all available jets in the world" and this is nothing more than a freaking dream. You should know about that.

Good Day


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Much better source, but still it only mentions producing transistors in prototype volumes.
> The article says initial funding for the foundry was approved about one month ago,
> which means it is going to take time to get it running.
> A normal semiconductor fab takes at least 2-3 years to get running from approval.
> The claim by @X_Killer that India has a foundry is just another fantasy.
> 
> Still nothing mentioned in the link what is done with those GaN transistors.
> The UTTAM Radar is GaAs based, not GaN based.
> If You want to claim it is GaN, show some source.



India already has a GaN foundry. It's going to be expanded pretty soon in a $450M project.

http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...or-production-of-wonder-nano-material/754727/

By 2018, we will be producing GaN based T/R modules in large scale. We need it for multiple projects, particularly ground based radars.

As for Uttam, the prototype versions may be GaAs, but the production version will be GaN. I mean it doesn't make a significant difference whether you use GaAs or GaN, you simply retrofit the antenna in an hour or two. Switching the PESA to AESA on Rafale takes only 2 hours. We only need to make LCA compatible for AESA radars. Right now the LCA Mk1 doesn't have space for liquid cooling.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The important thing is the design.
> The foundry can be outsourced.
> Apple does not have a foundry, yet they get advanced products using their designs.



That's right.

Saab may not have a foundry, but in case India selects Saab's radar, then India can manufacture GaN modules for both India's needs as well as Sweden's.


----------



## Taygibay

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The important thing is the design.
> The foundry can be outsourced.
> Apple does not have a foundry, yet they get advanced products using their designs.



Again, you managed to be perfectly right and totally useless both at once!

You - "SAAB might be 10 years ahead of them."
Me - "Since SAAB does not own a foundry for its GaN elements, probably!"

Probably after since means that it is the case, that I know that it works
that way. As much is even present in my next sentence with SAAB &
also Lockheed-Martin given as examples of corps doing w/o a foundry.

I suppose you came back to that point in order to ignore the real one I
directed at you which is that an Indian entity could do that too. That is
where it turns to fanboy_ism_ because most of the replies in the last few
pages are of the same weight. Hundreds of lines of people ignoring that
they agree on true facts while fighting over speculations ...

Enthusiasm is fine but you don't hire a dervish to craft a manuscript.

I would suggest a soothing walk as for X-k but hey, feel free to keep at it.
A thread with India-fighter-jet-musings in its title wasn't likely to be smooth
going and reality based in any case; twas doomed from the onset!
Darn PariK! LOL 

Keep calm and have a great day one & all, Tay.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Taygibay said:


> Again, you managed to be perfectly right and totally useless both at once!
> 
> You - "SAAB might be 10 years ahead of them."
> Me - "Since SAAB does not own a foundry for its GaN elements, probably!"
> 
> Probably after since means that it is the case, that I know that it works
> that way. As much is even present in my next sentence with SAAB &
> also Lockheed-Martin given as examples of corps doing w/o a foundry.
> 
> I suppose you came back to that point in order to ignore the real one I
> directed at you which is that an Indian entity could do that too. That is
> where it turns to fanboy_ism_ because most of the replies in the last few
> pages are of the same weight. Hundreds of lines of people ignoring that
> they agree on true facts while fighting over speculations ...
> 
> Enthusiasm is fine but you don't hire a dervish to craft a manuscript.
> 
> I would suggest a soothing walk as for X-k but hey, feel free to keep at it.
> A thread with India-fighter-jet-musings in its title wasn't likely to be smooth
> going and reality based in any case; twas doomed from the onset!
> Darn PariK! LOL
> 
> Keep calm and have a great day one & all, Tay.



The issue is timing.
India can start a GaN module design, but you only know how long time it takes, after it works.
Having a design which has been proven to work may gain a number of years.
That is the selling point.

The Indian GaN transistors may have definciencies which only show up after they have been
tested in practice. What if they die after 6 months?
That will easily add a year to the schedule.

If India continues on its own and the transistors work, they must be producable, and yield is difficult in GaN. This may require iterations, and years to the schedule.

I remember a True BiPolar CMOS chip designed in 1989.
It was 15x15 mm which is huge.
I talked to the design manager, and he asked if I could guess how many good chips
per 6" wafer was expected.
When I hesitated, he continued saying that it was the wrong question.
The correct question was how many wafers were needed to produce one good die,
and the answer was around 1k wafers @ $1600, so each chip would cost $1,6M to produce.
The project was cancelled...

If India makes a fab, and will get crappy yield, they will not be able to afford
to build GaN radars, until yield is improved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

And my point was that they can outsource until then,
just as good corps do even for 30 years for the parts.

They'll be learning about lobes and beams and so on
in the meanwhile.

Gone riding, Tay.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The issue is timing.
> India can start a GaN module design, but you only know how long time it takes, after it works.
> Having a design which has been proven to work may gain a number of years.
> That is the selling point.
> 
> The Indian GaN transistors may have definciencies which only show up after they have been
> tested in practice. What if they die after 6 months?
> That will easily add a year to the schedule.
> 
> If India continues on its own and the transistors work, they must be producable, and yield is difficult in GaN. This may require iterations, and years to the schedule.
> 
> I remember a True BiPolar CMOS chip designed in 1989.
> It was 15x15 mm which is huge.
> I talked to the design manager, and he asked if I could guess how many good chips
> per 6" wafer was expected.
> When I hesitated, he continued saying that it was the wrong question.
> The correct question was how many wafers were needed to produce one good die,
> and the answer was around 1k wafers @ $1600, so each chip would cost $1,6M to produce.
> The project was cancelled...
> 
> If India makes a fab, and will get crappy yield, they will not be able to afford
> to build GaN radars, until yield is improved.



We already have GaN modules for fighter AESAs.

Anyway--
http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ns-vital-tejas-1a-project-117072501231_1.html
_Letter says national resources being wasted in importing AESA radar, though DRDO had developed one_

India's indigenous radar will begin flight tests next year. So it's still under development, but they have made a lot of progress on it and it should be at a similar readiness level as Saab's new radar. But Israel has the advantage here.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Taygibay said:


> And my point was that they can outsource until then,
> just as good corps do even for 30 years for the parts.
> 
> They'll be learning about lobes and beams and so on
> in the meanwhile.
> 
> Gone riding, Tay.


Yes, they can outsource the GaN transistors, but designing the modules and make it work
in the system is going to take time
Getting simple 2,4Ghz modules into production can take years.
This is more difficult.



randomradio said:


> We already have GaN modules for fighter AESAs.
> 
> Anyway--
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ns-vital-tejas-1a-project-117072501231_1.html
> _Letter says national resources being wasted in importing AESA radar, though DRDO had developed one_
> 
> India's indigenous radar will begin flight tests next year. So it's still under development, but they have made a lot of progress on it and it should be at a similar readiness level as Saab's new radar. But Israel has the advantage here.



And where is the source for having GaN modules?

The difference is that SAAB has a working radar with a lot of features & modes,
which has been flying in the Gripen C.
They can build on that experience for the backend.
I doubt Israel has an advantage.


----------



## X_Killer

randomradio said:


> We already have GaN modules for fighter AESAs.
> 
> Anyway--
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ns-vital-tejas-1a-project-117072501231_1.html
> _Letter says national resources being wasted in importing AESA radar, though DRDO had developed one_
> 
> India's indigenous radar will begin flight tests next year. So it's still under development, but they have made a lot of progress on it and it should be at a similar readiness level as Saab's new radar. But Israel has the advantage here.


He is a GRIPEN fanboy and doesn't want to hear anything against it.

Also, he claims that Saab will begin its full scale Production before IOC & FOC.


----------



## Taygibay

Let's be blunt : IAF has one jet in inventory with an AESA.*
Sweden has pulse doppler units and a prototype.

Stop buggering the Indians, mate . . . or are you jealous?

Good day still, Tay.

* And 2052 in, RBE2 coming, UTTAM going for it, that's 3 sooner than later!


----------



## X_Killer

Taygibay said:


> Let's be blunt : IAF has one jet in inventory with an AESA.*
> Sweden has pulse doppler units and a prototype.
> 
> Stop buggering the Indians, mate . . . or are you jealous?
> 
> Good day still, Tay.
> 
> * And 2052 in, RBE2 coming, UTTAM going for it, that's 3 sooner than later!


ELTA EL/W-2090 is left, buddy 
Which is already Operational from years.

IAF has 1st fighter jet with AESA and 2nd in overall IAF inventory...

Probably, NIIP's beylka will also be there with FGFA.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Taygibay said:


> Let's be blunt : IAF has one jet in inventory with an AESA.*
> Sweden has pulse doppler units and a prototype.
> 
> Stop buggering the Indians, mate . . . or are you jealous?
> 
> Good day still, Tay.
> 
> * And 2052 in, RBE2 coming, UTTAM going for it, that's 3 sooner than later!



The SAAB competence in GaN AESA is highly relevant to the MII deal since it is offered as ToT.

The Indians here first deny that SAAB has any radar competence.
I have shown that SAAB has been working with Radar for 50 years.
Then it is denied that SAAB has AESA radar competence.
I have shown that EriEye is AESA and has been around for 30 years.
Then they do not believe SAAB has GaN.
Once it is proven that SAAB actually have what they need, they claim they do not need it
because they already have it.
Then they claim that SAABs offer of GaN AESA ToT as part of a Gripen deal is a request for help.
An announcement that India plans to build a foundry for GaN is taken as proof they have a foundry.
A GaAs module is used as proof they have a GaN module.
The development of a AESA based radar is proof that it must be based on GaN.

They claim that F-16 production and ToT has been denied, which has been proven false.
They claim that SE project is dead... while Indian government is negotiation - no source.
They claim that F-16 parts are produced only by US companies, proven false.

Once Indians start to accept facts and provide real sources, they will not have to be buggered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

It's my personal view:

If there will be a SE jet tender than there should be a condition that if they got selected for India under MII than they should ensure that it will not going to sale or service anything of our Enemy countries.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> I doubt Israel has an advantage.



http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities...est-flies-with-aesa-radar/article19466548.ece


----------



## ziaulislam

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The SAAB competence in GaN AESA is highly relevant to the MII deal since it is offered as ToT.
> 
> The Indians here first deny that SAAB has any radar competence.
> I have shown that SAAB has been working with Radar for 50 years.
> Then it is denied that SAAB has AESA radar competence.
> I have shown that EriEye is AESA and has been around for 30 years.
> Then they do not believe SAAB has GaN.
> Once it is proven that SAAB actually have what they need, they claim they do not need it
> because they already have it.
> Then they claim that SAABs offer of GaN AESA ToT as part of a Gripen deal is a request for help.
> An announcement that India plans to build a foundry for GaN is taken as proof they have a foundry.
> A GaAs module is used as proof they have a GaN module.
> The development of a AESA based radar is proof that it must be based on GaN.
> 
> They claim that F-16 production and ToT has been denied, which has been proven false.
> They claim that SE project is dead... while Indian government is negotiation - no source.
> They claim that F-16 parts are produced only by US companies, proven false.
> 
> Once Indians start to accept facts and provide real sources, they will not have to be buggered.


honestly i feel sorry for SAAB, for they have tried so much and invested so much, denied systems to pakistan for sake of MRCA and will end up with nothing.they probably would have gotten a good chank of sales if they had been involved in thunder, the french first did and backed out but atleast they got the "36" rafales.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

@A.P. Richelieu 
Saab has no GaN based AESA for fighter jets under its own brand "Saab"

The below link is from Saab's OFFICIAL website.
http://saab.com/region/india/about-.../2015/selex-es-raven-aesa-radar-on-gripen-ng/







Also you can go through the third-party source
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sa...has-an-awesome-way-to-make-its-1743963539/amp
It states that it adds a repositioner to Raven AESA. This system, which is called a repositioner, is ingenious as it allows the Gripen NG’s Raven ES-05 radar to gain another 40 degrees of scanning ability to either side of the aircraft’s nose. This is in addition to the 60 degrees AESA radar sets typically provide (120 degrees combined).

Enjoy your day



ziaulislam said:


> they probably would have gotten a good chank of sales if they had been involved in thunder, the french first did and backed out but atleast they got the "36" rafales.


LoL did you said THUNDER?


For RAFALE, soon, You will see a total number of RAFALEs will cross 100 for Navy + IAF


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities...est-flies-with-aesa-radar/article19466548.ece



If You accept a GaAs AESA fighter radar, the obviously SAAB does not have that.
What I meant was the Israelis do not have an advantage if a GaN is desired.

A GaN radar has much better range than a GaAs radar, so once it can
be produced at a reasonable cost, this is where You want to go.



X_Killer said:


> @A.P. Richelieu
> Saab has no GaN based AESA for fighter jets under its own brand "Saab"
> 
> The below link is from Saab's OFFICIAL website.
> http://saab.com/region/india/about-.../2015/selex-es-raven-aesa-radar-on-gripen-ng/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also you can go through the third-party source
> http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sa...has-an-awesome-way-to-make-its-1743963539/amp
> It states that it adds a repositioner to Raven AESA. This system, which is called a repositioner, is ingenious as it allows the Gripen NG’s Raven ES-05 radar to gain another 40 degrees of scanning ability to either side of the aircraft’s nose. This is in addition to the 60 degrees AESA radar sets typically provide (120 degrees combined).
> 
> Enjoy your day
> 
> 
> LoL did you said THUNDER?
> 
> 
> For RAFALE, soon, You will see a total number of RAFALEs will cross 100 for Navy + IAF



I posted a link to this earlier, but your short term memory seems to be failing.
This is not the Gripen radar.


----------



## ziaulislam

X_Killer said:


> @A.P. Richelieu
> Saab has no GaN based AESA for fighter jets under its own brand "Saab"
> 
> The below link is from Saab's OFFICIAL website.
> http://saab.com/region/india/about-.../2015/selex-es-raven-aesa-radar-on-gripen-ng/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also you can go through the third-party source
> http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sa...has-an-awesome-way-to-make-its-1743963539/amp
> It states that it adds a repositioner to Raven AESA. This system, which is called a repositioner, is ingenious as it allows the Gripen NG’s Raven ES-05 radar to gain another 40 degrees of scanning ability to either side of the aircraft’s nose. This is in addition to the 60 degrees AESA radar sets typically provide (120 degrees combined).
> 
> Enjoy your day
> 
> 
> LoL did you said THUNDER?
> 
> 
> For RAFALE, soon, You will see a total number of RAFALEs will cross 100 for Navy + IAF


so, at what cost..?
operational costs..?

unless you are india new fiance minister, last i check india has said no rafale anytime soon.

navy might get them. after all india is the world fourth biggest economy(while in 130s /capita), largest population in the world and with largest poor population in the world


----------



## surya kiran

@A.P. Richelieu @Taygibay @X_Killer @randomradio 

GaN tech development and fabrication comes under the Indian Institute of Science. Not DRDO. They have been at it for quite sometime. If I am not mistaken they had something in place in 2015. I neither have the inclination nor the drive to provide you with articles. If you know anybody in IISc, would suggest you to check with them.

"He has helped establish a semi-production scale growth facility that now consistently produces GaN-based transistors on Si wafers comparable with the best in the world. The material production is so consistent that CeNSE has now started providing these wafers to researchers all over the country. Efforts are on to build packaged discrete devices and systems around these structures. This will help create an entire ecosystem of GaN based electronics at IISc—from materials to devices to systems."

The R&D in GaN in India is advancing outside the purview of the DRDO.

http://www.cense.iisc.ac.in/research/gan-technology

http://www.cense.iisc.ac.in/research/cvd-reactor-galium-nitride-gan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

surya kiran said:


> @A.P. Richelieu @Taygibay @X_Killer @randomradio
> 
> GaN tech development and fabrication comes under the Indian Institute of Science. Not DRDO. They have been at it for quite sometime. If I am not mistaken they had something in place in 2015. I neither have the inclination nor the drive to provide you with articles. If you know anybody in IISc, would suggest you to check with them.
> 
> "He has helped establish a semi-production scale growth facility that now consistently produces GaN-based transistors on Si wafers comparable with the best in the world. The material production is so consistent that CeNSE has now started providing these wafers to researchers all over the country. Efforts are on to build packaged discrete devices and systems around these structures. This will help create an entire ecosystem of GaN based electronics at IISc—from materials to devices to systems."
> 
> The R&D in GaN in India is advancing outside the purview of the DRDO.
> 
> http://www.cense.iisc.ac.in/research/gan-technology
> 
> http://www.cense.iisc.ac.in/research/cvd-reactor-galium-nitride-gan



Thanks, that confirms that it still early days for GaN in India.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> If You accept a GaAs AESA fighter radar, the obviously SAAB does not have that.
> What I meant was the Israelis do not have an advantage if a GaN is desired.



The biggest advantage is having an operational radar. Switching GaAs to GaN is easy. It's only a retrofit.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Thanks, that comfirms that it still early days for GaN in India.



The production facility has already been sanctioned. How is that early days? The IISc has been delivering GaN modules for research since 2015.

By the end of next year, the facility will start delivering GaN modules for large scale programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

*For those who want to know the content composition of Saab GRIPEN may get an idea from this pic.



*



ziaulislam said:


> so, at what cost..?
> operational costs..?
> 
> unless you are india new fiance minister, last i check india has said no rafale anytime soon.


More RAFALEs will be announced by end of 2019
Don't you ever think that why India paid about 3 billion USD for customisation for just 36 jets?
Think about it...


ziaulislam said:


> navy might get them. after all india is the world fourth biggest economy(while in 130s /capita), largest population in the world and with largest poor population in the world


Do you want that I'll post the data of your country?
Just stop this nonsense..


----------



## Dai Toruko

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Meanwhile, the idea that the US has denied ToT on F-16 is now proven *FALSE*.
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-report-on-f-16-tech-transfer-to-indi-440209/
> =========
> "A recent report claiming the US denied critical F-16 technology to the government of India is erroneous, the US Air Force and F-16 manufacturer Lockheed Martin say."
> ...
> "Any media reports claiming the US has denied or approved the transfer of F-16 technology to India are simply not true,” Lockheed says. “The government of India is still determining its single-engine fighter requirements and government-to-government discussions between India and the USs are ongoing. No decisions have been made yet regarding technology transfer.”
> =========
> So the question was _if the US has approved ToT for F-16_, and the answer was no.
> 
> Using broken logic, Indian keyboard warriors believed this meant that the US had denied ToT.
> End Result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Separate thread started for unknown reasons.
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/lock...-technology-transfer-is-still-ongoing.512012/



Indian state behaves like a beggar.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> The biggest advantage is having an operational radar. Switching GaAs to GaN is easy. It's only a retrofit.
> 
> The production facility has already been sanctioned. How is that early days? The IISc has been delivering GaN modules for research since 2015.
> 
> By the end of next year, the facility will start delivering GaN modules for large scale programs.


SAAB has had operational AESA radar for a long time (EriEye) and Pulse-Doppler fighter radar.
The source have been provided in this thread shows that IISc has been providing *wafers*,
and are trying to package the *dies*, so that they are actually useful.
That is very different from a *power module*, needed for a radar.

GaN transistors are notoriously difficult to work with, and if the power module is
not designed correctly it might self-destruct.
It can take several years to fix such problems.


What India can do now are GaN transistors in small quantities.
Before the production facility is up and running, you do not know the yield,
and do not know the price.
What happens if it cost $1M to produce a power module due to terrible yield?
The radar would cost $700M. Exaggerating of course , to show the problem.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB has had operational AESA radar for a long time (EriEye) and Pulse-Doppler fighter radar.
> The source have been provided in this thread shows that IISc has been providing *wafers*,
> and are trying to package the *dies*, so that they are actually useful.
> That is very different from a *power module*, needed for a radar.



So have we, so have the Israelis.

These are digital radars.











Then you may already know of our recently inducted AEW&C.





We have plenty of AESA experience. We have reached a point where we can now compete with the Europeans in radar technology.

That's also why there was an anonymous complaint sent to the Indian MoD to have Uttam participate in the LCA's radar program.



> What India can do now are GaN transistors in small quantities.
> Before the production facility is up and running, you do not know the yield,
> and do not know the price.



No. We are expanding on an existing production line. I don't know the exact numbers, but we may be expanding from a 3000 or 5000 modules per year to 100k to 200k modules per year capacity.



> What happens if it cost $1M to produce a power module due to terrible yield?
> The radar would cost $700M. Exaggerating of course , to show the problem.



We won't be establishing a foundry if we didn't know what we were doing. The fact is we have a massive enough market to ensure the stuff we make will be cheap.

The foundry will take care of demands from the civilian sector as well.


----------



## omarrk

PARIKRAMA said:


> *Make In India - Fighter Jet musings - News, Developments, Updates - F16,F18, Gripen, Any other (F35,LSA, etc)*
> 
> *All except Rafale Jet deal. Thats for the Rafale Sticky Only.*
> 
> *Pls dont open any more thread pertaining to this topic. All are requested to post it in this one main thread.*
> 
> @WAJsal @waz @Oscar
> Request you for this sticky in order to collate all news, developments, updates under 1 place and also lead to a continuity for all such discussions
> 
> Threads on this topic from 1st of June 2016 onwards
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/in-sweden-parrikar-to-negotiate-gripen-deal.448765/
> https://defence.pk/threads/indias-d...tiating-gripen-fighter-deal-in-sweden.448736/
> https://defence.pk/threads/gripen-e-beyond-hype-“reality-is-much-stormier-much-murkier-much-scarier”.439492/
> https://defence.pk/threads/gripen-mii-production-deal-signed.434392/
> https://defence.pk/threads/us-links...ect-to-manufacture-fighter-plan.448251/unread
> https://defence.pk/threads/pentagon-backs-proposal-to-give-us-fighter-jets-‘make-in-india’-tag.447731/
> https://defence.pk/threads/india-us...engine-under-make-in-india-initiative.448632/
> https://defence.pk/threads/india-no...-production-of-f16-fighter-jets.448639/unread
> https://defence.pk/threads/india-ke...combat-aircraft-manufacturing-project.448638/
> https://defence.pk/threads/parrikar-trip-to-bofors-land.448586/
> https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed...ndia-from-india-exported-to-the-world.443136/
> https://defence.pk/threads/the-f-16-offer-to-india-—-india-might-refuse-it-but-pakistan-can’t-ignore-it.446934/
> https://defence.pk/threads/is-parrikars-”-sasta-aur-tikau-”-logic-behind-india’s-f-16-interest-p.447647/
> https://defence.pk/threads/india-could-become-next-hub-for-f-16-jets-in-a-blow-to-pakistan.445573/
> https://defence.pk/threads/f-16v-vs-gripen-e-clear-winner-is-f-16v.444991/unread
> https://defence.pk/threads/india-rejects-saabs-offer-to-develop-tejas-mk1a-aircraft.443907/unread
> https://defence.pk/threads/f-16s-may-replace-india’s-obsolete-fleet-as-rafale-deal-stalling.443110/
> https://defence.pk/threads/if-iaf-selects-f-16-we-will-make-it-in-india.442766/
> https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed...-potential-for-made-in-india-f16-jets.442658/
> https://defence.pk/threads/why-india-should-consider-lockheed-martins-f-16-offer.441731/
> https://defence.pk/threads/pentagon-to-offer-f-35-to-india-in-upcoming-tech-transfer-talks.440757/
> https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed-martin-to-offer-f-35-to-india.440688/
> https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed...partner-to-make-fighter-jets-in-india.439476/
> https://defence.pk/threads/in-exclusive-deal-india-to-get-‘most-advanced’-f-16-fighter-jets-by-2019-20.438848/
> https://defence.pk/threads/gripen-mii-production-deal-signed.434392/
> https://defence.pk/threads/us-wants-indias-fighter-jet-order-dangles-f-35.6368/
> https://defence.pk/threads/lockheed-raises-pitch-for-f-16s.438257/
> https://defence.pk/threads/make-in-...ghter-jets-set-to-take-off-next-month.437057/
> https://defence.pk/threads/made-in-india’-f-16s-on-radar-thanks-to-fdi.435934/
> https://defence.pk/threads/f-16s-on-radar-made-in-india’.435962/
> https://defence.pk/threads/can-gripen-e-and-lca-tejas-co-exist-in-indian-air-force.435137/
> https://defence.pk/threads/saab-offers-to-create-aerospace-system-under-make-in-india.435078/
> https://defence.pk/threads/saab-adds-gan-aesa-co-dev-to-make-in-india-gripen-pitch.434318/
> https://defence.pk/threads/air-chief-marshal-raha-to-visit-sweden-lca-mk2-aka-gripen-in.433861/
> 
> ++++
> *This thread in senior sections is a latest discussion on probabilities and for exercise purposes to comprehend different views.*
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/indian-airforce-mmrca-lwf-alternate-discussion.448646/
> 
> ++++
> 
> *All members are requested to use this thread only.*
> *In case any thread is missed pls request to merge it here.*
> 
> Tagging all
> @Abingdonboy @anant_s @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Vergennes @randomradio @Ankit Kumar 002 @MilSpec @Koovie @Echo_419 @Dash @hellfire @ito @SR-91 @AMCA @DesiGuy1403 @ranjeet @hellfire @fsayed @SpArK @AUSTERLITZ @nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair @TejasMk3@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @egodoc222 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @Spectre@litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs @GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina@SvenSvensonov @-xXx- @Perpendicular @proud_indian @Mustang06 @Param @Local_Legend @Ali Zadi @hellfire @egodoc222 @CorporateAffairs @Major Shaitan Singh @jha @SmilingBuddha @#hydra# @danish_vij @[Bregs] @Skillrex @Hephaestus @SR-91 @Techy @litefire @R!CK @zebra7 @dev_moh @DesiGuy1403 @itachii @nik141993 @Marxist @Glorino @noksss @jbgt90 @Skull and Bones @Kraitcorp @Crixus @waz @WAJsal @Oscar @AugenBlick @Star Wars @GuardianRED @arp2041 @Aero https://defence.pk/members/bregs.148509/ @others @Armani @ashok321 @kahonapyarhai


Break up of India on the way.


----------



## X_Killer

Dai Toruko said:


> Indian state behaves like a beggar.


I have something better for you.





Ya must take it for a sortie over India
Enjoy your flight 

Have a great day

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

X_Killer said:


> moreover, PDF is not the actual stage to have such informations. You may sign-up IDF for more credible information.





X_Killer said:


> You'll get better understanding about these facts on Indian Defense forums whereas you're trying to find them of this biased Pakistani Defense forum, where anyone can be banned anytime.



I recall reading on IDF that both PDF & IDF have the same management but I agree that Indian members get banned more often on PDF than IDF. Most members of IDF are former members of PDF.



X_Killer said:


> Joe Shearer
> PROFESSIONAL, Male, from Hyderabad
> Messages: 13,802 Ratings: +89 / 23,119 / -0
> And this guys is a false-flagger and a Bangladeshi not Indian.
> Check out, one of his reply.
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/harsh-mander-commits-sedition.446516/



I am not sure if @Joe Shearer is a Bangladeshi or not but his family was closely associated with Bangladeshi politicians.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...useyn-shaheed-suhrawardy.414367/#post-8013050

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...useyn-shaheed-suhrawardy.414367/#post-8014223

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...useyn-shaheed-suhrawardy.414367/#post-8014387


----------



## Ultima Thule

StraightShooter said:


> I recall reading on IDF that both PDF & IDF have the same management but I agree that Indian members get banned more often on PDF than IDF. Most members of IDF are former members of PDF.


so why you are here go IDF you guys always trolled at PDF go to hell


----------



## StraightShooter

pakistanipower said:


> you guys always trolled at PDF



I never troll.


----------



## Ultima Thule

StraightShooter said:


> I never troll.


You and your countrymem always troll on PDF


StraightShooter said:


> I never troll.


----------



## Incog_nito

I am sure that IAF is going with Grippen....


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> No. We are expanding on an existing production line. I don't know the exact numbers, but we may be expanding from a 3000 or 5000 modules per year to 100k to 200k modules per year capacity.
> 
> We won't be establishing a foundry if we didn't know what we were doing. The fact is we have a massive enough market to ensure the stuff we make will be cheap.
> 
> The foundry will take care of demands from the civilian sector as well.



This is a wafer. This is what IISc is producing.





This is what they are *planning to do*, according to your sources.




Before You have packaged die, the stuff is very hard to use.

In order to build a radar transceiver for AESA, you need a power module.
A GaN power module is hard to design, to be reliable.
It can take several years to design a power module and get it in production
once you have packaged die.






When You have a real system, You may suddenly discover some corner case,
which will require a redesign of the wafer, starting a new cycle.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Oxair Online said:


> I am sure that IAF is going with Grippen....


Anything is possible in an infinite universe.
Personally, I think it has a fair chance, but since the decision will be taken after the election,
a new government might have other ideas than the current.

Some factors speaking for Gripen are:
IAF appears to favour it according to some Indian professor, whose name escapes me.

Uses the same engine as planned for Tejas Mk 2/AMCA GE-414.
GE has promised MII production of GE-414.
India is working on Kaveri as a GE-414 replacement. This might allow Kaveri in Gripen E as well.

Gripen is actively developed and will be so for the foreseeable future.
Cost will be shared with all Gripen Users.
F-16 will be in a cash cow status for LM, and is unlikely to get further development,
so India will have to design all upgrades themselves.
Among things in the works is the possibility to control (stealthy) drones that can detect
adversaries without any active sensor on the Gripen fighter.
This may allow stealth adversaries to be detected earlier than the Gripen.

The F-16 total cost of ownership is higher due to higher CPFH even if it is slightly cheaper to buy.

The approved weaponry of Gripen is better aligned with Indias plans than that of F-16.
New weapons are much easier to Integrate on Gripen, than on F-16, and can in many cases be done by India without involvement of SAAB.

SAAB is the leader in GaN AESA fighter radar, and so far it appears to be way ahead of anyone else. This is valuable technology for ToT that can short-cut an India GaN AESA radar development by a number of years.

Pakistan is well trained in F-16, so they should know which weaknesses to exploit.
The F-16 Block 52 is more nimble than the Block 60 which the Block 70 F-16IN is based on.
The Block 70 of should be much better on BVR combat of course.

Flying the same type, increases the risk of friendly kills.

Gripen pilots have noticed that adversaries have problems detecting them, due to
a combination of low RCS ad EW capability.

Gripen is a fighter built for network centric warfare, allowing a Gripen act an AWACS
for another three Gripen.

The Gripen Man Machine interface offloads the pilot in a much smarter way, than the
old fashioned interface of the F-16.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Skull and Bones

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Anything is possible in an infinite universe.
> Personally, I think it has a fair chance, but since the decision will be taken after the election,
> a new government might have other ideas than the current.
> 
> Some factors speaking for Gripen are:
> IAF appears to favour it according to some Indian professor, whose name escapes me.
> 
> Uses the same engine as planned for Tejas Mk 2/AMCA GE-414.
> GE has promised MII production of GE-414.
> India is working on Kaveri as a GE-414 replacement. This might allow Kaveri in Gripen E as well.
> 
> Gripen is actively developed and will be so for the foreseeable future.
> Cost will be shared with all Gripen Users.
> F-16 will be in a cash cow status for LM, and is unlikely to get further development,
> so India will have to design all upgrades themselves.
> 
> The F-16 total cost of ownership is higher due to higher CPFH even if it is slightly cheaper to buy.
> 
> The approved weaponry of Gripen is better aligned with Indias plans than that of F-16.
> New weapons are much easier to Integrate on Gripen, than on F-16, and can in many cases be done by India without involvement of SAAB.
> 
> SAAB is the leader in GaN AESA fighter radar, and so far it appears to be way ahead of anyone else. This is valuable technology for ToT that can short-cut an India GaN AESA radar development by a number of years.
> 
> Pakistan is well trained in F-16, so they should know which weaknesses to exploit.
> The F-16 Block 52 is more nimble than the Block 60 which the Block 70 F-16IN is based on.
> The Block 70 of should be much better on BVR combat of course.
> 
> Flying the same type, increases the risk of friendly kills.
> 
> Gripen pilots have noticed that adversaries have problems detecting them, due to
> a combination of low RCS ad EW capability.
> 
> Gripen is a fighter built for network centric warfare, allowing a Gripen act an AWACS
> for another three Gripen.
> 
> The Gripen Man Machine interface offloads the pilot in a much smarter way, than the
> old fashioned interface of the F-16.



Valid points raised.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

Everybody has right to Share his/her speculations about their (Nation's) jet but when it comes to India. IAF wants to raise the Indigenous content and fighters in its inventory to reduce the "IMPORTED AIR FORCE" tag.

Tejas MK2 when compared to GRIPEN E will have many similarities. Hence, ADA thinks that GRIPEN E might create a void and pose a Threat for MK2 development.

All in all, I want to say that SE jet tender is not Officially raised and everybody should have to wait for something Official because as of now, SE jet tender is dependent on Tejas development. Government recently asked ADA to equip LCA with latest developed AESA, EW suite and some other techs with a strict timelines.

As far as 2019 elections are concerned, present Government will be re-elected according to the present scenario.


----------



## BON PLAN

O.P.D said:


> IAF better keep buying su30mki , there is no other visible solution on sight at present.....
> 18 mki and 16 tejas yearly will makeup well to the depleting squ numbers....
> 
> better not to venture into any other project which might take time , considering the present international as well as national war situation....


Problem is that Tejas is a point defense fighter, with a air to ground second capacity, but with short legs and small weapon load. Su30 is a heavy air dominance fighter, not made for deep and silence penetration.
You need another plane.


----------



## X_Killer

BON PLAN said:


> Problem is that Tejas is a point defense fighter, with a air to ground second capacity, but with short legs and small weapon load. Su30 is a heavy air dominance fighter, not made for deep and silence penetration.
> You need another plane.


Tejas is designed to replace oldies like mig-23, mig-21..
And Tejas is much more than what is expected from it and it is quite cheaper too.

For deep penetrations, FGFA And RAFALEs will be their to take care of it. Isn't it?


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Based on that, and the cost of Rafale, it lost...
> As I said, not enough bang for the bucks.


REALITY IS THAT GRIPEN IS NICE FOR COUNTRY IN PEACE OR WITHOUT CREDIBLE AIR OPPONENT... it is the case of Switzerland, Brazil. Before for south africa, and some european country mainly relying on NATO for other stuff than air policy.
All the others need a more serious plane.

A high rank swiss air force top brass said few feek ago that in case of a war, the guy with the best plane is the one returning alive to its base (at same level of training).

Gripen is a nice light plane, with the quality of a light plane : affordable (not so far...), and the default : less potent.

Switzerland has only one war to win : economic. For the rest Gripen is enough. Even a KAI Golden Eagle F150 is enough.... and more affordable.



X_Killer said:


> Tejas is designed to replace oldies like mig-23, mig-21..
> And Tejas is much more than what is expected from it and it is quite cheaper too.
> 
> For deep penetrations, FGFA And RAFALEs will be their to take care of it. Isn't it?


Deep penetration by Tejas ? I don't think so. Too light.
Rafale is made from the beginning to ba able to made deep strike and to take car of it simultaneously, without help (it's why Dassault called the plane omni role )


----------



## Taygibay

X_Killer said:


> ELTA EL/W-2090 is left, buddy



Yeah, I meant fighters obviously but should have specified.



surya kiran said:


> The R&D in GaN in India is advancing outside the purview of the DRDO.



Yes mate, at R&D you are correct but IIRC, LRDE is
in charge of integration for mil use and products.

Good days to you and yours, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> REALITY IS THAT GRIPEN IS NICE FOR COUNTRY IN PEACE OR WITHOUT CREDIBLE AIR OPPONENT... it is the case of Switzerland, Brazil. Before for south africa, and some european country mainly relying on NATO for other stuff than air policy.
> All the others need a more serious plane.
> 
> A high rank swiss air force top brass said few feek ago that in case of a war, the guy with the best plane is the one returning alive to its base (at same level of training).
> 
> Gripen is a nice light plane, with the quality of a light plane : affordable (not so far...), and the default : less potent.
> 
> Switzerland has only one war to win : economic. For the rest Gripen is enough. Even a KAI Golden Eagle F150 is enough.... and more affordable.
> 
> 
> Deep penetration by Tejas ? I don't think so. Too light.
> Rafale is made from the beginning to ba able to made deep strike and to take car of it simultaneously, without help (it's why Dassault called the plane omni role )



Since the Rafale is much more expensive to fly, it is likely that a Gripen pilot gets more
training than a Rafale pilot, assuming the same budget.

Rafale has somewhat longer range than the Gripen, and a few more weapon stations.
That does not neccessary make Rafale the winner in a fight.
The Gripen radar positioner gives a significant advantage with proper tactics.
The AWACS feature also may allow for unexpected losses.

And here is British expert Justin Bronk's comment on the Gripen C vs the Typhoon. Again the *electronic warfare capabilities are highlighted*.
"Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive."

https://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35-versus-typhoon-analysis-from-rusis-justin-bronk/

When I visited SAAB last year, I asked about the Gripen E EW capabilities vs Spectra,
and they claimed that the Gripen E EW capabilities are superior to that of Rafale.

By the way: JAS-39 Gripen is Jakt, Attack, Spaning-39 or Fighter, Strike, Reconnaisance-39.
Gripen was omnirole 20 years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

BON PLAN said:


> Deep penetration by Tejas ? I don't think so. Too light.


Buddy, please let me know , where I claim Tejas for deep penetration ops.


X_Killer said:


> Tejas is designed to replace oldies like mig-23, mig-21..
> And Tejas is much more than what is expected from it and it is quite cheaper too.
> 
> For deep penetrations, FGFA And RAFALEs will be their to take care of it. Isn't it?



AFAIK, old migs are also not intended for deep penetration ops. Isn't it?


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Since the Rafale is much more expensive to fly, it is likely that a Gripen pilot gets more
> training than a Rafale pilot, assuming the same budget.
> 
> Rafale has somewhat longer range than the Gripen, and a few more weapon stations.
> That does not neccessary make Rafale the winner in a fight.
> The Gripen radar positioner gives a significant advantage with proper tactics.
> The AWACS feature also may allow for unexpected losses.
> 
> And here is British expert Justin Bronk's comment on the Gripen C vs the Typhoon. Again the *electronic warfare capabilities are highlighted*.
> "Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive."
> 
> https://hushkit.net/2016/03/17/su-35-versus-typhoon-analysis-from-rusis-justin-bronk/
> 
> When I visited SAAB last year, I asked about the Gripen E EW capabilities vs Spectra,
> and they claimed that the Gripen E EW capabilities are superior to that of Rafale.
> 
> By the way: JAS-39 Gripen is Jakt, Attack, Spaning-39 or Fighter, Strike, Reconnaisance-39.
> Gripen was omnirole 20 years ago.


Gripen is highly agile. It use the same close canard coupled delta config than Rafale. It is more clever than the EF formula.
EW capacity ? Never heard so many thing about that. It's clear that EF is not a reference in the domain.
But if Gripen is efficient to slow down the opponent ability to watch it, what about Spectra?
At the beginning of Spectra it was said of electronic stealth.... 25% of the Rafale developpment costs were (and is) spent in Spectra. And it's also so classified that there is today an iron wall about the real capacity of Spectra (the sole system able to fly above a S300 during a MACE exercise, when the dedicated F16CJ were detected...)


----------



## X_Killer

Dassault Rafale, the Stealth fighter you never knew it was.

Rafale is officially said to have a frontal RCS of about 0.1m2 and comes under the category of Low observable (LO) aircraft. But with the aid of SPECTRA which can perform “active cancellation”—receiving a radar signal and mimicking the aircraft’s echo exactly one-half wavelength out of phase so the radar sees almost nothing, the RCS is reduced to about 0.06m2.

But it doesn’t stop there. Dassault has admitted that a new upgrade package is almost ready for operations which would further decrease the RCS of Rafale to that of a Sparrow! Called DEDIRA (Demonstrateur de Discrétion Rafale / Descreet Rafale Demonstrator) it aims to improve the SPECTRA suite on the F3R version of Rafale. This program is linked with another one called INCAS (Intégration de Nouvelles Capacités à Spectra) which deals with the integration of GaN modules in RBE2 and SPECTRA suite along with GaN modules incorporated ‘smart-skins’ for all-passive day/night and all weather long-range detection and targeting capability involving all passive sensors available to sensor fusion.
The DEDIRA program will further improve the active stealth aspect of SPECTRA to bring down the frontal RCS of Rafale close to 0.0006m2. For reference, the unofficial frontal RCS of Raptor is 0.0001m2 without active cancellation, which is a Very Low observable (VLO) aircraft. DEDIRA is already integrated on a test Rafale numbered B301.






http://tejasmrca.weebly.com/military-aviation/dassault-rafale

Those who underestimating RAFALE and claiming GRIPEN-E which is istill need to be matured, should learn about other jets.

*GRIPEN HISTORY*
The basic design published in its initial phase of GRIPEN





As the Eurofighter program developed, BAe helped SAAB work on the p.106 design for Sweden to have its independent fighter based on separate needs and design requirements.










The Gripen's Ferranti-Ericsson PS-05/A X-band pulse Doppler radar has three times the processing power of the Viggen's PS-46/A radar, but only 60% of its volume and weight. The PS-05/A has all-altitude look-down capability, resistance to jamming, and provides a number of operating modes. Air-to-air modes include:
*Long range search and track. 
*Multiple target (up to ten) track while scan. 
*Short range, wide angle search and track. 
*Automatic gun and missile fire control.

Air-to-ground modes include:
*Search and track. 
*Ground and sea target track while scan. 
*High resolution mapping. 
*Air-to-surface ranging.

*GRIPEN -E*
With 39-8 being used mainly for airframe and general flight control tests, a second prototype (39-9) will be used as a tactical systems testbed, while the third and final single-seat prototype (39-10) will fly as a production-standard airframe. The twin-seat Gripen NG demonstrator (39-7) that provided much of the risk mitigation for the Gripen E will continue to serve as a general test platform throughout the flight trials effort.

As previously highlighted by Saab, the Gripen E's enhancements over the earlier C/D models can be categorised in terms of survivability, sensors, general systems, payload, communications, performance, range, avionics, and human-machine interface/sensor fusion.
Survivability improvements include a reduced radar cross-section (though the extent of this is classified); a multifunctional electronic warfare system; enhanced radar warning receivers; enhanced intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance functionality and threat geo-location; multi-threat handling; as well as directional jamming and electronic countermeasures.

The enhanced sensors are primarily focused around the Selex ES Raven active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and the Selex ES Skyward-G infrared search-and-track system. General system improvements for Gripen Einclude increased power and cooling for the AESA radar and electronic warfare systems. The increased payload comes from the two added fuselage pylon stations, two wingtip stations, and the integration of additional stores such as the Rafael Litening G4 advanced targeting pod and the RecceLite reconnaissance pod. Also, enhanced weapon systems such as stand-off munitions might be integrated.

Communication improvements for Gripen E include encryption and resistance to jamming, as well as a dedicated radio for a tactical air unit datalink, or 'fighter link'. The aircraft's enhanced performance is the result of swapping the current General Electric GE F404 engine for the more powerful F414G (to be designated F414-GE-39E for Gripen E), and the additional 1,100 kg in internal fuel will increase its radius of operation (depending on mission profile and loadout) from an estimated 432 n miles to 700 n miles.
The Gripen E's new avionic system is based on the ARINC-653 standard software interface, and the open-architecture/commercial off-the-shelf components

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> Gripen is highly agile. It use the same close canard coupled delta config than Rafale. It is more clever than the EF formula.
> EW capacity ? Never heard so many thing about that. It's clear that EF is not a reference in the domain.
> But if Gripen is efficient to slow down the opponent ability to watch it, what about Spectra?
> At the beginning of Spectra it was said of electronic stealth.... 25% of the Rafale developpment costs were (and is) spent in Spectra. And it's also so classified that there is today an iron wall about the real capacity of Spectra (the sole system able to fly above a S300 during a MACE exercise, when the dedicated F16CJ were detected...)



SAAB claims that their EW is better, but as no public information is available,
we are not able to accept or reject that statement.
We are also not able to decide which has an advantage in a fight.
For India, it is important to be superior to JF-17 and F-16, as well as J-xx.
It is less important to be superior to each other.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB claims that their EW is better, but as no public information is available,
> we are not able to accept or reject that statement.
> We are also not able to decide which has an advantage in a fight.
> For India, it is important to be superior to JF-17 and F-16, as well as J-xx.
> It is less important to be superior to each other.


LCA Mk1A superior over jf-17 and FGFA & RAFALEs will take care of all j-xx and f-16s. Su-30MKI already has an advantage over f-16C/D.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> This is a wafer. This is what IISc is producing.
> View attachment 418691
> 
> 
> This is what they are *planning to do*, according to your sources.
> View attachment 418692
> 
> Before You have packaged die, the stuff is very hard to use.
> 
> In order to build a radar transceiver for AESA, you need a power module.
> A GaN power module is hard to design, to be reliable.
> It can take several years to design a power module and get it in production
> once you have packaged die.
> 
> View attachment 418693
> 
> 
> When You have a real system, You may suddenly discover some corner case,
> which will require a redesign of the wafer, starting a new cycle.



And I'm telling you we have already done it. That's why we are "expanding" an existing production line.

Are you saying we are building a production line without having the product first? You are a weird fellow.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> And I'm telling you we have already done it. That's why we are "expanding" an existing production line.
> 
> Are you saying we are building a production line without having the product first? You are a weird fellow.


Your sources indicate that You can produce GaN *transistors* on wafers.
Nothing more.
They also says that they want to develop methods to package the dies from the wafer.
Without packaged die, how can you have the power modules?


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Your sources indicate that You can produce GaN *transistors* on wafers.
> Nothing more.
> They also says that they want to develop methods to package the dies from the wafer.
> Without packaged die, how can you have the power modules?



No, the wafers are what they have shown, nothing more. As I said, you don't build a production unit if you don't have a product.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> No, the wafers are what they have shown, nothing more. As I said, you don't build a production unit if you don't have a product.



GaN transistors are products.
There are plenty of companies that manufacture and sell power transistors without manufacturing and selling power modules.


----------



## BON PLAN

X_Killer said:


> *GRIPEN HISTORY*
> The basic design published in its initial phase of GRIPEN



hi hi hi .... a single engine Eurofighter ?



A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB claims that their EW is better, but as no public information is available,
> we are not able to accept or reject that statement.
> We are also not able to decide which has an advantage in a fight.
> For India, it is important to be superior to JF-17 and F-16, as well as J-xx.
> It is less important to be superior to each other.


Thales has a very long history in EW, developped for the french deterrence planes.

I doubt Saab match Thales. Honnestly.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> GaN transistors are products.
> There are plenty of companies that manufacture and sell power transistors without manufacturing and selling power modules.
> 
> View attachment 418833



Who on earth creates a full fledged facility just to create transistors only?


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> GaN transistors are products.
> There are plenty of companies that manufacture and sell power transistors without manufacturing and selling power modules.
> 
> View attachment 418833


I was expecting for a Swedish Company but its Canadian.




BON PLAN said:


> hi hi hi .... a single engine Eurofighter ?


This shows that Saab didn't give birth to GRIPEN.
It is a BAe's p.106 concept.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> hi hi hi .... a single engine Eurofighter ?
> 
> 
> Thales has a very long history in EW, developped for the french deterrence planes.
> 
> I doubt Saab match Thales. Honnestly.


Then again,
FMV published RCS figures for Gripen A (now removed) which was 0,1 square meters.
FMV = Försvarets Materialverk = Defence Equipment Agency.
The government organisation which purchases and tests military equipment in Sweden.
Both Gripen C and Gripen E has seen improvements in RCS.



randomradio said:


> Who on earth creates a full fledged facility just to create transistors only?



Semiconductor companies.
Volume Wafer production requirements are very different from power module production
requirements, so it does not make sense to do both in the same foundry.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Semiconductor companies.
> Volume Wafer production requirements are very different from power module production
> requirements, so it does not make sense to do both in the same foundry.



If the core idea was to sell to semiconductor companies, then the govt would have built the facility along with a private company like they are planning to do with other fab technologies.

But this facility is wholly govt owned, like all military facilities are. This way profits won't be the primary driver for such a facility. It is deemed a strategic sector.

You are free to believe what you want.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> If the core idea was to sell to semiconductor companies, then the govt would have built the facility along with a private company like they are planning to do with other fab technologies.
> 
> But this facility is wholly govt owned, like all military facilities are. This way profits won't be the primary driver for such a facility. It is deemed a strategic sector.
> 
> You are free to believe what you want.



No the core idea is to create something similar to a semiconductor company,
focusing producing GaN transistors for use by others.
At least this is what the sources You refer to have shown.
They are several years from producing in volume, if the funding was approved last month.
The building for such a foundry needs to be designed and built according to
very special specifications, in order to meet the requirement for extreme cleanliness.
It is not possible to take an existing building, not built with this in mind.

There maybe others in India working on GaN power modules, and maybe they
have a focus on AESA radars, but that has not been shown in any of your sources,
and googling using obvious search criteria results in nothing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> No the core idea is to create something similar to a semiconductor company,
> focusing producing GaN transistors for use by others.
> At least this is what the sources You refer to have shown.
> They are several years from producing in volume, if the funding was approved last month.
> The building for such a foundry needs to be designed and built according to
> very special specifications, in order to meet the requirement for extreme cleanliness.
> It is not possible to take an existing building, not built with this in mind.



So a strategic facility has been built for profit. Great. First time for India. Probably will never happen again in the future either. All because you said so.

http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...or-production-of-wonder-nano-material/754727/
_According to Indian Express reports, the proposed foundry is supposed to be developed around an *existing facility* for producing gallium nitride transistors on silicon wafers_



> There maybe others in India working on GaN power modules, and maybe they
> have a focus on AESA radars, but that has not been shown in any of your sources,
> and googling using obvious search criteria results in nothing.



As a large country with a lot of future prospects, we will obviously have many companies involved in the R&D of future technologies.

But that in no way means the govt is spending $500M on a production line for fun. I don't think you know it, but the LCA production line is cheaper than this. The cost of development of the Kaveri engine is lesser. Even India's stealth UCAV program costs less than this foundry.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-theres-been-a-delay/articleshow/48282481.cms
Rs 2,101 crore spent on development of indigenous Kaveri engine 

3000Cr is a lot of money in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> So a strategic facility has been built for profit. Great. First time for India. Probably will never happen again in the future either. All because you said so.
> 
> http://www.financialexpress.com/ind...or-production-of-wonder-nano-material/754727/
> _According to Indian Express reports, the proposed foundry is supposed to be developed around an *existing facility* for producing gallium nitride transistors on silicon wafers_
> 
> 
> 
> As a large country with a lot of future prospects, we will obviously have many companies involved in the R&D of future technologies.
> 
> But that in no way means the govt is spending $500M on a production line for fun. I don't think you know it, but the LCA production line is cheaper than this. The cost of development of the Kaveri engine is lesser. Even India's stealth UCAV program costs less than this foundry.
> 
> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...-theres-been-a-delay/articleshow/48282481.cms
> Rs 2,101 crore spent on development of indigenous Kaveri engine
> 
> 3000Cr is a lot of money in India.



The intention of building the foundry is obviously that the products will be used in a vast number of applications, including power modules for GaN AESA radars.

If you look further down your source you will find:

In 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had inaugurated the CeNSE facility at the IISc which at this juncture is trying to create an ecosystem of GaN electronics, which includes devices, system and materials. CeNSE is already selling *GaN-based transistors* to researchers across the country.

*It does not say* that CeNSE sells *GaN based power modules* to researchers across the country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

We can't see no stealthy attributes in the Gripen C. Same for Gripen E, which is only a Scale 1,1 (+/-) of C model.
Air intakes are not designed to reduce RCS. And the small distance between air intakes and engine avoid, according to me, a "S" duct to prevent the engine to be seen by a radar in front.





It's only the small size of the plane that help to reduce the RCS.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> We can't see no stealthy attributes in the Gripen C. Same for Gripen E, which is only a Scale 1,1 (+/-) of C model.
> Air intakes are not designed to reduce RCS. And the small distance between air intakes and engine avoid, according to me, a "S" duct to prevent the engine to be seen by a radar in front.
> View attachment 418997
> 
> It's only the small size of the plane that help to reduce the RCS.



I read somewhere that SAAB has put a lot of attention to the RCS cause by finer details like rivets.
Perhaps SAAB are right that the EW unit is superior.
It is undeniable that it is difficult to detect.
Czech pilots have noted the same.
Since the stuff is classified we will not be able to deduce enough
to make a valid judgement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The intention of building the foundry is obviously that the products will be used in a vast number of applications, including power modules for GaN AESA radars.
> 
> If you look further down your source you will find:
> 
> In 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had inaugurated the CeNSE facility at the IISc which at this juncture is trying to create an ecosystem of GaN electronics, which includes devices, system and materials. CeNSE is already selling *GaN-based transistors* to researchers across the country.
> 
> *It does not say* that CeNSE sells *GaN based power modules* to researchers across the country.



Why should it say that? Why will CeNSE sell power modules to researchers? Researchers are the ones who create the power modules based on what CeNSE develops.

I don't think you have understood the implications of having a full scale foundry. It means we have these power modules that you speak of, and that means we can start manufacturing them. If we didn't have the means of using the transistors we fabricate, then there would be no need to scale up manufacturing.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> Why should it say that? Why will CeNSE sell power modules to researchers? Researchers are the ones who create the power modules based on what CeNSE develops.
> 
> I don't think you have understood the implications of having a full scale foundry. It means we have these power modules that you speak of, and that means we can start manufacturing them. If we didn't have the means of using the transistors we fabricate, then there would be no need to scale up manufacturing.



The implications of having a full scale foundry (which You will have earliest in a couple of years, since the funding was just approved) is that you will be able to produce transistors.
This is what You have provided source for.

It does not automatically follow that India has any design using GaN *right now*.
India may have such designs, but You have not shown any material that even hints
that it does.

We know that unpackaged GaN dies or wafers has been shipped to researchers in India.
We do not know what they have done with them, (if they have done anything at all).
Googling for GaN design in India does not turn up something useful.
Even if they have done something, it might be for a completely different application
than an AESA radar.

The logical explanation for the foundry is that India has the *intention* to use GaN.

You have not shown any source claiming India has any competence in SiC
(SiliconCarbide), a technology popular as base material for integrated power modules.

Until you provide a real source, with an Indian claiming to have mastered GaN in a Power Module,
You are wasting everybodys time.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The implications of having a full scale foundry (which You will have earliest in a couple of years, since the funding was just approved) is that you will be able to produce transistors.
> This is what You have provided source for.
> 
> It does not automatically follow that India has any design using GaN *right now*.
> India may have such designs, but You have not shown any material that even hints
> that it does.
> 
> We know that unpackaged GaN dies or wafers has been shipped to researchers in India.
> We do not know what they have done with them, (if they have done anything at all).
> Googling for GaN design in India does not turn up something useful.
> Even if they have done something, it might be for a completely different application
> than an AESA radar.
> 
> The logical explanation for the foundry is that India has the *intention* to use GaN.
> 
> You have not shown any source claiming India has any competence in SiC
> (SiliconCarbide), a technology popular as base material for integrated power modules.
> 
> Until you provide a real source, with an Indian claiming to have mastered GaN in a Power Module,
> You are wasting everybodys time.



Dude, you are the one wasting time here. Why will you get information about strategic facilities on Google?

We are building a $500M foundry already. That's all the proof you need.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu




----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> Dude, you are the one wasting time here. Why will you get information about strategic facilities on Google?
> 
> We are building a $500M foundry already. That's all the proof you need.



Oh, I can get information about your strategic facility.
It just does not support Your claim.

If You were right, there would be something mentioning SiC (SiliconCarbide)

The status of India is that India has approved funding one month ago.
Before any building is done, planning have to be completed.
The building is likely to take a couple of years to get running.
It may or may not run into hard to explain production problems.
Happens even for the top semiconductor companies.

During that time, the power modules have to be designed and prepared for production.
That is going to take years as well.

Once the foundry is running, the output of the foundry may deviate from the current output,
forcing a redesign of the module to be producable.
Once the module is fitted inside a radar, there could be more problems,
that could even force a redesign of the GaN transistors themselves.

Once the radar is fitted onto a fighter yet more problems may occur and so on, and so forth.

India, investing $500M, clearly plans to get there, but when is the question.

That is where SAABs offer and competence comes into play.
India could save quite some time in inducting GaN AESA radar.
The components would initially not be manufactured in India though.

A problem also occurs if it turns out that Indias foundry cannot achieve the same
yield as companies that has been in this business for 30-50 years.
Then the GaN tranistors will be more expensive, and that makes the end products
more expensive as well.


----------



## X_Killer

Here we have someone, who thinks that there is online one country which has all advance technologies are growing in its country i.e. Sweden

There is a word in Sanskrit which can define the same, "koop mandook " which refers to one who never go outside its limited surroundings.

Meanwhile, enjoy the awesome pics of possible contenders of SE jet tender





VS


----------



## BON PLAN

X_Killer said:


> Here we have someone, who thinks that there is online one country which has all advance technologies are growing in its country i.e. Sweden
> 
> There is a word in Sanskrit which can define the same, "koop mandook " which refers to one who never go outside its limited surroundings.
> 
> Meanwhile, enjoy the awesome pics of possible contenders of SE jet tender
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VS


You forget the winner plane ....

Indian Tejas !!!


----------



## X_Killer

BON PLAN said:


> You forget the winner planer ....
> 
> Indian Tejas !!!


Thats why I said possible contenders because as of now SE jet tender is not Officially raised.
And completely depends on the post FOC Mk1A success (specially with more Indigenous content including Uttam , DARE EW suite etc)

Tejas will decide the fate of SE JET render

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Oh, I can get information about your strategic facility.
> It just does not support Your claim.
> 
> If You were right, there would be something mentioning SiC (SiliconCarbide)
> 
> The status of India is that India has approved funding one month ago.
> Before any building is done, planning have to be completed.
> The building is likely to take a couple of years to get running.
> It may or may not run into hard to explain production problems.
> Happens even for the top semiconductor companies.
> 
> During that time, the power modules have to be designed and prepared for production.
> That is going to take years as well.
> 
> Once the foundry is running, the output of the foundry may deviate from the current output,
> forcing a redesign of the module to be producable.
> Once the module is fitted inside a radar, there could be more problems,
> that could even force a redesign of the GaN transistors themselves.
> 
> Once the radar is fitted onto a fighter yet more problems may occur and so on, and so forth.
> 
> India, investing $500M, clearly plans to get there, but when is the question.
> 
> That is where SAABs offer and competence comes into play.
> India could save quite some time in inducting GaN AESA radar.
> The components would initially not be manufactured in India though.
> 
> A problem also occurs if it turns out that Indias foundry cannot achieve the same
> yield as companies that has been in this business for 30-50 years.
> Then the GaN tranistors will be more expensive, and that makes the end products
> more expensive as well.



You do realize this facility is expanding over an already existing facility right?

You don't build a full production line unless you have solved all the problems you mentioned in the first place. No one builds a full production line unless you have something that requires a full production line.

New expanded production line = We can mass produce stuff. This is common sense.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> You do realize this facility is expanding over an already existing facility right?
> 
> You don't build a full production line unless you have solved all the problems you mentioned in the first place. No one builds a full production line unless you have something that requires a full production line.
> 
> New expanded production line = We can mass produce stuff. This is common sense.



In semiconductors You actually do that.
You build the fab in advance and try to plan it to be ready when Your design is ready.
Intel does not design a processor in a new process, and waits until it is fully working
before starting to build the fab.
Sometime you build a fab, but only populate it partly,
simply because your existing fabs are not good enough for next process.
You cannot even experiment in the old fab.

There are plenty of examples where a semiconductor device has been in production for years,
and suddenly the yield drops to nothing.

Semiconductors is unlike most business. You can never guarantee any output.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> In semiconductors You actually do that.
> You build the fab in advance and try to plan it to be ready when Your design is ready.
> Intel does not design a processor in a new process, and waits until it is fully working
> before starting to build the fab.
> Sometime you build a fab, but only populate it partly,
> simply because your existing fabs are not good enough for next process.
> You cannot even experiment in the old fab.
> 
> There are plenty of examples where a semiconductor device has been in production for years,
> and suddenly the yield drops to nothing.
> 
> Semiconductors is unlike most business. You can never guarantee any output.



No you don't. Who told you that?

You don't build a production line until you have a product in any industry. In semiconductors, you build a very small scale facility which you can use to test whatever you make. And then you scale up. This is what's happening in India now.

A foundry is extremely expensive. You want it to start producing from day one if you want to make a profit 10 years down the line. If you aren't, then you don't make a foundry in the first place.

Dude, this is simple economics. Where's the common sense? Why will you build a facility that can produce 100 billion transistors if you only want 1 billion for R&D work? Who will pay for the excess capacity? You?

You are wasting my time. I'm giving up.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> No you don't. Who told you that?
> 
> You don't build a production line until you have a product in any industry. In semiconductors, you build a very small scale facility which you can use to test whatever you make. And then you scale up. This is what's happening in India now.
> 
> A foundry is extremely expensive. You want it to start producing from day one if you want to make a profit 10 years down the line. If you aren't, then you don't make a foundry in the first place.
> 
> Dude, this is simple economics. Where's the common sense? Why will you build a facility that can produce 100 billion transistors if you only want 1 billion for R&D work? Who will pay for the excess capacity? You?
> 
> You are wasting my time. I'm giving up.



You build a fab once you believe you have a viable product.
Sometimes that is incorrect.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> You build a fab once you believe you have a viable product.
> Sometimes that is incorrect.



We don't have a fab yet for exactly that reason. It's not viable because we don't have a product.

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329516
_"JP Associates has withdrawn its proposal of semiconductor plant. They have said that it is *not commercially viable* to set up this plant at present," Aruna Sharma, secretary of the DeitY (Department of Electronics and IT) of the ministry of communications & information technology, government of India told reporters on the sidelines of a Qualcomm event in New Delhi._

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

randomradio said:


> We don't have a fab yet for exactly that reason. It's not viable because we don't have a product.
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329516
> _"JP Associates has withdrawn its proposal of semiconductor plant. They have said that it is *not commercially viable* to set up this plant at present," Aruna Sharma, secretary of the DeitY (Department of Electronics and IT) of the ministry of communications & information technology, government of India told reporters on the sidelines of a Qualcomm event in New Delhi._



it is a chicken and egg problem

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

wiseone2 said:


> it is a chicken and egg problem



AMD wants to make India a manufacturing hub using a rival fab plant by Hindustan Semiconductor. So JP's competitors have a product, but JP doesn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

Cricket Semiconductors agreed to invest 1 billion USD in Madhya Pradesh to setup SC wafer fab.

Links For reference : 
https://www.cricketsemiconductor.com/why-india/the-opportunity-in-india/
http://m.economictimes.com/tech/har...lant/articleshow/46232269.cms?intenttarget=no

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Anything is possible in an infinite universe.
> Personally, I think it has a fair chance, but since the decision will be taken after the election,
> a new government might have other ideas than the current.
> 
> Some factors speaking for Gripen are:
> IAF appears to favour it according to some Indian professor, whose name escapes me.
> 
> Uses the same engine as planned for Tejas Mk 2/AMCA GE-414.
> GE has promised MII production of GE-414.
> India is working on Kaveri as a GE-414 replacement. This might allow Kaveri in Gripen E as well.
> 
> Gripen is actively developed and will be so for the foreseeable future.
> Cost will be shared with all Gripen Users.
> F-16 will be in a cash cow status for LM, and is unlikely to get further development,
> so India will have to design all upgrades themselves.
> Among things in the works is the possibility to control (stealthy) drones that can detect
> adversaries without any active sensor on the Gripen fighter.
> This may allow stealth adversaries to be detected earlier than the Gripen.
> 
> The F-16 total cost of ownership is higher due to higher CPFH even if it is slightly cheaper to buy.
> 
> The approved weaponry of Gripen is better aligned with Indias plans than that of F-16.
> New weapons are much easier to Integrate on Gripen, than on F-16, and can in many cases be done by India without involvement of SAAB.
> 
> SAAB is the leader in GaN AESA fighter radar, and so far it appears to be way ahead of anyone else. This is valuable technology for ToT that can short-cut an India GaN AESA radar development by a number of years.
> 
> Pakistan is well trained in F-16, so they should know which weaknesses to exploit.
> The F-16 Block 52 is more nimble than the Block 60 which the Block 70 F-16IN is based on.
> The Block 70 of should be much better on BVR combat of course.
> 
> Flying the same type, increases the risk of friendly kills.
> 
> Gripen pilots have noticed that adversaries have problems detecting them, due to
> a combination of low RCS ad EW capability.
> 
> Gripen is a fighter built for network centric warfare, allowing a Gripen act an AWACS
> for another three Gripen.
> 
> The Gripen Man Machine interface offloads the pilot in a much smarter way, than the
> old fashioned interface of the F-16.


So how many Gripens are planned?


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Oxair Online said:


> So how many Gripens are planned?


About 250 Gripen A-D have been built so far, and there are orders for 96 Gripen E-F.
Over time, it is expected that Brazil will have two more batches adding 60-70 aircraft.
SAAB is actively selling to Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, India, Botswana, Colombia, Austria.
An India order would be for 100-200 Gripen E-F, and dwarf everything else.
The others summed up, are close to 100 Gripen C-D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

The F-16 Yaw Departure problem.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The F-16 Yaw Departure problem.


Enjoy the show:





Problems sometimes occurred, it doesn't mean that the whole Product is bad.



Oxair Online said:


> So how many Gripens are planned?


As far as Indian market is concerned, GRIPEN starts with a high thurst but as of now, it positioned behind f-16.


----------



## X_Killer

*India line will build 3-4 F-16s every month, claims Lockheed Martin*
*Says early decision would let India build F-16s for Bahrain and Indonesia*
Ajai Shukla  | New Delhi August 22, 2017 Last Updated at 21:38 IST


















Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest defence vendor, which is pitching strongly to sell the Indian Air Force (IAF) its new F-16 Block 70 fighter, told Business Standard on Tuesday that, if India chose its fighter, an Indian production line would churn out three-to-four F-16s every month. “We want to create the capacity to build three or more aircraft per month; we could do four. It depends upon how many aircraft India needs and when it will buy those”, said Randy Howard, who markets the F-16 globally for Lockheed Martin. For the IAF, which is making do ...
http://www.business-standard.com/ar...th-claims-lockheed-martin-117082201366_1.html


----------



## BON PLAN

*A new Rafale order soon ?*

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/08/21/iaf-to-get-another-36-rafale-combat-aircraft/

******************************************************************************



X_Killer said:


> *India line will build 3-4 F-16s every month, claims Lockheed Martin*
> *Says early decision would let India build F-16s for Bahrain and Indonesia*
> Ajai Shukla | New Delhi August 22, 2017 Last Updated at 21:38 IST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest defence vendor, which is pitching strongly to sell the Indian Air Force (IAF) its new F-16 Block 70 fighter, told Business Standard on Tuesday that, if India chose its fighter, an Indian production line would churn out three-to-four F-16s every month. “We want to create the capacity to build three or more aircraft per month; we could do four. It depends upon how many aircraft India needs and when it will buy those”, said Randy Howard, who markets the F-16 globally for Lockheed Martin. For the IAF, which is making do ...
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...th-claims-lockheed-martin-117082201366_1.html


Lost battle for F16.
Too old, too late, too Trump.


----------



## MULUBJA

One thing is very sure, If anything comes, they have to come with TOT and make in India. tejas itself offers a huge potential to be an excellent multi role fighter. SOme changes are required to be made and if they are made, Tejas shall be a nightmare for enemies with exceptional T/W ratio and state of art electronics.


----------



## BON PLAN

MULUBJA said:


> One thing is very sure, If anything comes, they have to come with TOT and make in India. tejas itself offers a huge potential to be an excellent multi role fighter. SOme changes are required to be made and if they are made, Tejas shall be a nightmare for enemies with exceptional T/W ratio and state of art electronics.


Tejas may become a nice fighter, or a light air to ground straffer, but not a truly multi role fighter.
It is too light for that. 
It was developped as a point defense fighter to replace Mig21, not as a multirole fighter, needed to be bigger.

Exceptionnal T/W ratio ? explain me what is exceptionnal in its.


----------



## X_Killer

BON PLAN said:


> *A new Rafale order soon ?*
> 
> http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/08/21/iaf-to-get-another-36-rafale-combat-aircraft/
> 
> ******************************************************************************
> 
> 
> Lost battle for F16.
> Too old, too late, too Trump.


If SE jet tender will occur than F-16 will be selected to strengthen strategic relationships. (As per present situations)
But if more LCA & RAFALE will be ordered than there is no need of SE jet tender.



MULUBJA said:


> One thing is very sure, If anything comes, they have to come with TOT and make in India. tejas itself offers a huge potential to be an excellent multi role fighter. SOme changes are required to be made and if they are made, Tejas shall be a nightmare for enemies with exceptional T/W ratio and state of art electronics.


LCA is a nice Aircraft to perform point Defense , along with this , it can also perform other roles with comparatively lower ranges and load capacity.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Enjoy the show:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problems sometimes occurred, it doesn't mean that the whole Product is bad.



There is a big difference between a problem on the fourth flight of the prototype,
which was fixed by a S/W update, and a problem that will exist on production F-16INs
if choosen.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> There is a big difference between a problem on the fourth flight of the prototype,
> which was fixed by a S/W update, and a problem that will exist on production F-16INs
> if choosen.


Why you feel so much insecurity?
Please share the data for number of crashes per flight hour for both fighters. You'll get your answer.

Cheers!


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Why you feel so much insecurity?
> Please share the data for number of crashes per flight hour for both fighters. You'll get your answer.
> 
> Cheers!



When You are bringing up crashes of during the first test flight, and compare
that with a known deficiency of an aircraft that has gone through several upgrades
after many years in service, I would say You are insecure.

With just six crashes since it entered service 24 years ago, the number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours is hardly relevant.

You have:

Pilot flying into vortex at low altitude, plane reacts violently, pilot gets a warning and ejects a moment before the plane recovers. Pilot Error.
Pilot makes a steep climb at low speed, and plane enters deep stall. Pilot not trained to handle deep stalls. Pilot Error.
Pilot gets ejected because G-suit inflates and releases ejection handle. The pilot had extremely muscular legs. Problem fixed.
Pilot presses both accelerator and brakes during landing, overshoots. Pilot Error.
Landing gear partly retracted after takeoff. Belly landing. Mechanical Error. Unknown if due to bad maintenance.
Pilot flies into the ground during flight show. Pilot Error? Lost orientation? No report.
At the same time You have accidents where F-16 is colliding with other planes.
Doing a comparision between a collision and pilot losing direction hardly give you anything of interest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> When You are bringing up crashes of during the first test flight, and compare
> that with a known deficiency of an aircraft that has gone through several upgrades
> after many years in service, I would say You are insecure.
> 
> With just six crashes since it entered service 24 years ago, the number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours is hardly relevant.
> 
> You have:
> 
> Pilot flying into vortex at low altitude, plane reacts violently, pilot gets a warning and ejects a moment before the plane recovers. Pilot Error.
> Pilot makes a steep climb at low speed, and plane enters deep stall. Pilot not trained to handle deep stalls. Pilot Error.
> Pilot gets ejected because G-suit inflates and releases ejection handle. The pilot had extremely muscular legs. Problem fixed.
> Pilot presses both accelerator and brakes during landing, overshoots. Pilot Error.
> Landing gear partly retracted after takeoff. Belly landing. Mechanical Error. Unknown if due to bad maintenance.
> Pilot flies into the ground during flight show. Pilot Error? Lost orientation? No report.
> At the same time You have accidents where F-16 is colliding with other planes.
> Doing a comparision between a collision and pilot losing direction hardly give you anything of interest.


I have a open source data (collected from various sources) for you:

For F-16
First flight : 1974
Introduction: 1978
Total duration since first flight : 43 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 4638
Total number of accidents till now: 651 ( by July 2017)
Out of which 348 Aircrafts cross the Operational age of 30 years
Number of combat hours: more than 200,000 hours
Number of combat kills : about 36 are known
So average number of accidents per year per Aircraft : 0.0031
If we exclude the crashed of obsolete Aircrafts: 0.0015

For GRIPEN
First flight : 1988
Introduction: 1997
Total duration since first flight: 29 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 249
Total number of accidents till now: 11 ( by July 2017)
Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0
Number of combat hours: 2000 hrs (while guarding no-fly zone over Libya in 2011)
Number of combat kills : 0

Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.0015

____________________________&_____________________________
NOTE: Comparison not for serious reasons 

For LCA ( I'm comparing it to make the environment lighter)
First flight : 2001
Introduction: 1997
Total duration since first flight: 16 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 21
Total number of accidents till now: 0 ( by July 2017)
Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0


Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.00


----------



## MULUBJA

BON PLAN said:


> Tejas may become a nice fighter, or a light air to ground straffer, but not a truly multi role fighter.
> It is too light for that.
> It was developped as a point defense fighter to replace Mig21, not as a multirole fighter, needed to be bigger.
> 
> Exceptionnal T/W ratio ? explain me what is exceptionnal in its.



I will explain it to you. With its current rate it has a very good T/W ratio. With weight going down by 8% and 10% more powerful engine coming in, it would up by 19% which will have a big positive impact on the performance of the plane and it will outclass anything in the category with even planes like F 16, and Gripen shall be left much behind in this criterion and no need to mention JF 17 or J10.

It is capable of carrying about 2 times the weight of Mig 21 so that gives it a multi role capability provided other things are put in place which actually are there. It is tested for swing role capability. Yes, I would agree with you that it will not have the multi role capabilities of twin engine plane like Eurofighter and Rafale but it will have some good multi role capability.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> I have a open source data (collected from various sources) for you:
> 
> For F-16
> First flight : 1974
> Introduction: 1978
> Total duration since first flight : 43 years.
> Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 4638
> Total number of accidents till now: 651 ( by July 2017)
> Out of which 348 Aircrafts cross the Operational age of 30 years
> Number of combat hours: more than 200,000 hours
> Number of combat kills : about 36 are known
> So average number of accidents per year per Aircraft : 0.0031
> If we exclude the crashed of obsolete Aircrafts: 0.0015
> 
> For GRIPEN
> First flight : 1988
> Introduction: 1997
> Total duration since first flight: 29 years.
> Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 249
> Total number of accidents till now: 11 ( by July 2017)
> Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0
> Number of combat hours: 2000 hrs (while guarding no-fly zone over Libya in 2011)
> Number of combat kills : 0
> 
> Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.0015
> 
> ____________________________&_____________________________
> NOTE: Comparison not for serious reasons
> 
> For LCA ( I'm comparing it to make the environment lighter)
> First flight : 2001
> Introduction: 1997
> Total duration since first flight: 16 years.
> Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 21
> Total number of accidents till now: 0 ( by July 2017)
> Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0
> 
> 
> Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.00



As I said, this comparision does not give any information which is relevant for
a decision which airplane to select.

You could add that 14% of the F-16 force has crashed, but only 2% of the Gripen force.
That still does not make it relevant, until you understand why.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/08/the-indian-navys-hunt-for-new-carrier.html

*THE INDIAN NAVY’S HUNT FOR A NEW CARRIER FIGHTER HITS ROUGH SEAS*

*Angad Singh explains why the Indian Navy faces difficulties as it begins its search for new carrier fighters.*
At the annual Navy Day press conference, held on December 02, 2016, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba told media that the Indian Navy had elected not to field the naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), and would look abroad for new fighters. For the less well informed, this was a stunning volte-face from the Service that has unstintingly backed domestic procurement programmes and has contributed considerable funding to the development of an indigenous carrier fighter.
To the slightly more clued in, however, the announcement had been a long time coming. Navy officers – from operational naval aviators to flag officers – have privately expressed reservations about the Naval LCA for a long time.

*The Trouble With The LCA*
*




*
The present N-LCA prototypes (the Navy never adopted the ‘Tejas’ moniker for their program) use the same GE F404 afterburning turbofan engine as the IAF Tejas, but incorporate, among other modifications, a strengthened undercarriage and fuselage, tail-hooks for carrier landings, leading-edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs) at the wing roots for additional lift and control authority at low speeds, and extensive usage of new corrosion-resistant materials for sea-based operation.
The LCA’s well-documented weight and power issues have only been magnified in maritime garb, where structural changes have added further weight penalties. Proposals to re-engine both variants of the LCA with higher-thrust GE F414 engines were put forward as early as 2007, but when the MoD doubled down on the F404-engined LCA Tejas Mk.1A for the IAF last year, all but abandoning the new engine programme (or at least pushing it back significantly), the Navy was forced to re-consider its own fighter plans. However, even as Admiral Lanba nixed the operational future of the N-LCA, he stressed that the service would continue to support the development of a home-grown carrier fighter as it evaluated foreign options.
Comments from senior flag officers after Admiral Lanba’s announcement indicate that apart from the usual credibility concerns regarding the ability of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) being able to develop and deliver a fighter by the promised deadlines, the principal worry was that the over-weight and under-powered land-based LCA would take some serious fettling to safely fly from the unforgiving environs of a carrier flight deck. Poor ‘bolter’ (go-around, where the aircraft has to accelerate back into the air after missing all three wires on the carrier’s deck) performance at typical landing weights and speeds was repeatedly cited – although it should be noted that this has yet to be physically tested and is among the last (and most risky) test points in the flight envelope certification process.
Navy sources later indicated that the Service was hoping to acquire aircraft that would be able to operate off the STOBAR Project 71 Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-1, to be commissioned as INS Vikrant) under construction at Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), as well as the planned CATOBAR IAC-2 (which remains un-funded by the MoD). A month after the controversial announcement, even as furious debate raged over the decision to drop the N-LCA, the Navy issued a Request For Information (RFI) for 57 ‘Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters’ (MRCBF).
The RFI indicates that the MRCBF is to be day, night and all-weather capable, and will be employed for Air Defence (AD), Air-to-Surface Operations, Buddy Refuelling, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare (EW). The document is generally exploratory in nature, seeking details of available fighters worldwide, in order to frame appropriate qualitative requirements to be issued with the eventual Request For Proposals (RFP). Crucially, the RFI also indicates that technology transfer and licence production of the fighters in India will be preferred, with aircraft deliveries expected to commence within three years of contract signature and be completed within a further three years (a rate of 19 deliveries per year).
Of the three in-production types likely to be offered, at least two (Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Dassault’s Rafale) can meet this build rate. The maximum build rate at Russia’s RSK-MiG, which delivered 45 MiG-29K/KUBs to the Indian Navy at the rate of about six per year, remains unclear. In the days following the RFI, commentary in news media seemed to indicate that the Western fighters were front-runners for the MRCBF requirement.

*Why MRCBF?*
*



*
*SAAB Gripen single engine fighter. Gripen Maritime is the carrier borne version*
IAC-1 was designed to operate the MiG-29K and Naval LCA, yet the decision to evaluate a broad field for MRCBF instead of simply expanding the MiG-29K fleet to account for the lack of N-LCA of appears rooted in an unstated acceptance that the STOBAR MiG-29K, while certainly more potent than anything fielded before, is essentially a technological cul-de-sac. Acquiring more such aircraft, with 25-year/6,000-hour service lives for carriers projected to enter service from the mid-2020s onward is seen as a retrograde step when more capable (or at least CATOBAR-compatible, and therefore ‘future proof’) aircraft could be sought instead. In addition, it is understood through Government audit reports that the MiG-29K is far from a trouble-free asset, suffering from significant structural and reliability issues. Having essentially financed the development of the modern-spec MiG-29K and now stuck ironing out the in-service kinks, the Indian Navy is simply reluctant to acquire more Fulcrums with the same problems as opposed to more capable and reliable fighters.
It is for this reason that the MRCBF RFI specifically demands information regarding the ability of any proposed aircraft to operate off the STOBAR IAC-1 (Vikrant) with its ski-jump and Svetlana arresting system, as well as the planned CATOBAR IAC-2 which could use C-13 series steam catapults or electro-magnetic catapults (EMALS) for launch and Mark 7 Mod3 or Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for recovery. Without explicitly spelling it out, MRCBF is a programme intended to account for the removal of the N-LCA from the Navy’s plans in the near term, and supplant the MiG-29K in the longer term.

*The Contenders*
*



*
*A U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) during Exercise Malabar in October 2015 | Photo: Angad Singh*

Boeing’s Super Hornet has been in contention as an Indian Navy carrier fighter for the better part of a decade. The fighter was briefly considered for the INS Vikramaditya in the late 2000s, with Boeing even going to the trouble of simulating ski-jump take-offs, discovering “that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” Landing was not expected to be a problem since the Proletarsky Zavod ‘Svetlana’ three-wire aircraft arresting complex on Vikramaditya (also installed on IAC-1) is configured to halt aircraft at up to 20 tonne landing weights and typical carrier approach speeds with maximum deceleration forces not exceeding 5g, broadly similar to American arresting systems to which the Super Hornet is certified. The most mature carrier fighter in contention for the MRCBF requirement, the Super Hornet also has an edge when it comes to armament, and is certified to employ the widest range of air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-ship weapons.
Dassault have also run STOBAR simulations with the Rafale M, albeit revealing far fewer details regarding the results than Boeing. On the weapons front, the Rafale will have MBDA’s Meteor BVRAAM integrated at time of delivery, giving it a significant boost in the air-to-air stakes, even if the type does not boast the wide variety of guided and unguided weapons that the Super Hornet can show-off. Importantly, for a carrier fighter operating with limited organic tanking support, the Rafale has significantly greater range and endurance than the Super Hornet, an advantage that is extended with more stores mounted, since the Super Hornet’s canted pylons dramatically increase aerodynamic drag in flight.
The MiG-29K, though not favoured by Navy for this round, is probably the easiest pick on technical grounds. It is by now a familiar asset, warts and all, and is a drop fit on IAC-1, that carrier having been designed to host the Fulcrum from the outset. However, it lacks the electronically-scanned radars (AESAs) of the two Western fighters, and further development of the type is far from assured given the parlous state of Russian carrier aviation and the aerospace industry as a whole.
SAAB has offered the Gripen Maritime (formerly the Sea Gripen), based on its new Gripen E shore-based fighter, and would likely offer a broadly similar weapons package and kinematic performance. Since the proposal is still on the drawing board, however, it is impossible to guess at much more detail.
The Navy has no easy options. Beyond the Navy’s reluctance to acquire more MiG-29Ks, the type faces a significant hurdle if the Navy elects to firm up around CATOBAR-compatibility so that the MRCBF can operate not just from IAC-1, but also future Indian carriers. It is not feasible for RSK-MiG to offer CATOBAR certification with any catapult-launch system under consideration given the military sanctions that would preclude any co-operation between US catapult makers and the Russian military industry.
The Super Hornet will be EMALS/AAG certified from the outset, as well as compatible with legacy launch/recovery systems, but will require a full round of certification for STOBAR operations, given that it is intended, at least initially, to operate solely from a STOBAR carrier. The Rafale M would similarly need to be fully STOBAR certified, but would need a second round of trials with EMALS/AAG should the Indian Navy select those systems for IAC-2, which would add to the Navy’s cost burden either up-front or further down the road (depending on when they elect to carry out the certification).

*The Show Stopper*
*Despite recent reports that the two Western MRCBF competitors could operate from INS Vikramaditya in addition to the Indian Navy’s future carriers, this is simply not possible*. The converted Soviet-era ‘aircraft carrying cruiser’ has two aircraft elevators that are located within the flight deck, instead of on the deck-edges, and both are too small to accommodate either the Super Hornet or the Rafale. The larger forward lift, beside the carrier’s superstructure, is 18.8 x 9.9 metres, while the Super Hornet’s wings fold to just under 10 metres and the Rafale’s wings, slightly less than 11 metres wide, do not fold at all. The aft lift is narrower, with an 8.6-metre width that is barely able to fit the MiG-29K’s 7.5-metre folded span. The Naval LCA, with a wingspan of a little over eight metres, would certainly have fit the forward lift if not the aft one – the Navy prefers for aircraft carrier elevators to be sufficiently larger than the aircraft they will carry for ease of aircraft handling and movement.
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. *While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.*
Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.
Whatever the final form of the eventual MRCBF RFP, and whatever the proposals that arrive in response, it is clear now that the process for procuring the Navy’s next carrier fighter will be far from straightforward. None of the aircraft on offer can be operated by the Indian Navy without significant expenses for non-recurring engineering, modification and certification that will have to be amortised over a relatively small 57-aircraft requirement. This will drive the cost of the overall programme up, and certainly make induction of new aircraft in time to fly off IAC-1 in 2023 all but impossible. If the Navy elects to modify the deck-edge lifts on IAC-1, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, it could push the carrier programme back enough to allow it to sync up with likely MRCBF procurement time lines, but further postponements in commissioning and operationalising the already-delayed carrier are not likely to go down well with the MoD and broader national leadership.

_*Mr. Angad Singh is one of India's premier photographers, many of his work (with great courtesy) has been published on this portal*_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> As I said, this comparision does not give any information which is relevant for
> a decision which airplane to select.
> 
> You could add that 14% of the F-16 force has crashed, but only 2% of the Gripen force.
> That still does not make it relevant, until you understand why.


Military career of Gripen can't be compared to those of the Soldier F16.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> Military career of Gripen can't be compared to those of the Soldier F16.


I just did...
As I said, the comparision is useless.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> As I said, this comparision does not give any information which is relevant for
> a decision which airplane to select.
> 
> You could add that 14% of the F-16 force has crashed, but only 2% of the Gripen force.
> That still does not make it relevant, until you understand why.


I cleared all conditions. both f-16 and gripen has similar crash rate ( with age of less than 20years)

as per your biased parameter, I will vote for LCA Tejas which has crash rate of "0" (Zero)


----------



## Incog_nito

X_Killer said:


> Enjoy the show:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problems sometimes occurred, it doesn't mean that the whole Product is bad.
> 
> 
> As far as Indian market is concerned, GRIPEN starts with a high thurst but as of now, it positioned behind f-16.


This is an old video. Grippen is a very good aircraft. But, give some real inside information on F-16 deal with IAF. I am not sure. But does F-16 for IAF will be bigger than Block-60?

IAF might not be in trouble at all. They have open option with Rafael M and may be French might come up with a dual seat Rafael M too and also F-18E/F are there too.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> About 250 Gripen A-D have been built so far, and there are orders for 96 Gripen E-F.
> Over time, it is expected that Brazil will have two more batches adding 60-70 aircraft.
> SAAB is actively selling to Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, India, Botswana, Colombia, Austria.
> An India order would be for 100-200 Gripen E-F, and dwarf everything else.
> The others summed up, are close to 100 Gripen C-D.


India might be looking towards F-16s, according to members comments. But I think they should look towards Grippen.


----------



## X_Killer

Oxair Online said:


> This is an old video. Grippen is a very good aircraft. But, give some real inside information on F-16 deal with IAF. I am not sure. But does F-16 for IAF will be bigger than Block-60?


Who said Gripen is bad Aircraft? 
it is a very good aircraft but I'm defending the Claim of best aircraft.
F-16 block-70 has no outer structural change and no change in size as well. The only part which makes it most modern among previous blocks is the "latest/advanced avionics and systems".

F-16/Gripen are called to showoff their modern/upgraded capability claims.


Oxair Online said:


> IAF might not be in trouble at all. They have open option with Rafael M and may be French might come up with a dual seat Rafael M too and also F-18E/F are there too.


Situation will be more cleared with the live STOBAR trials. And most likely RAFALE-M will be there to serve for IN.


Oxair Online said:


> India might be looking towards F-16s, according to members comments. But I think they should look towards Grippen.


there are more chances that Single engine jet tender will be scrapped n favour of more FGFA + Rafales + LCAs and less chances that SE jet tender would stay alive.

If SE jet tender will be saved than both have almost 50-50 % chances.
Newer generation jet but made partnership with Adani group which has no aviation manufacturing experience but on the otherside F-16 is also good but form partnership with TASL which has a lot of exp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> I cleared all conditions. both f-16 and gripen has similar crash rate ( with age of less than 20years)
> 
> as per your biased parameter, I will vote for LCA Tejas which has crash rate of "0" (Zero)



It is well known in the I.T. industry that garbage in results in garbage out.
With six crashes, you do not have enough statistical material.
Out of those six crashes you have probably four pilot errors.
You have one defect which only occurs if a pilot has exceptionally muscular legs. This has been fixed.
Lastly, a failure in the undercarriage, which might or might not be related to service by the ground crew.

Why would these crashes affect Indias decision?
Why do You compare these crashes with air collisions?
Why do You see these crashes as equal to problems which are inherent to the aircraft,
which will enter a spin spontaneously under certain normal conditions.



X_Killer said:


> Who said Gripen is bad Aircraft?
> it is a very good aircraft but I'm defending the Claim of best aircraft.
> F-16 block-70 has no outer structural change and no change in size as well. The only part which makes it most modern among previous blocks is the "latest/advanced avionics and systems".
> 
> F-16/Gripen are called to showoff their modern/upgraded capability claims.
> 
> Situation will be more cleared with the live STOBAR trials. And most likely RAFALE-M will be there to serve for IN.
> 
> there are more chances that Single engine jet tender will be scrapped n favour of more FGFA + Rafales + LCAs and less chances that SE jet tender would stay alive.
> 
> If SE jet tender will be saved than both have almost 50-50 % chances.
> Newer generation jet but made partnership with Adani group which has no aviation manufacturing experience but on the otherside F-16 is also good but form partnership with TASL which has a lot of exp.



Meanwhile neither F/A-18 nor Rafale are useable on Indias carriers because they
are too large for the elevators...
And India is considering scrapping the FGFA to get 36 more Rafales, not the SE project.
France will not accept production in India for such low numbers.



Oxair Online said:


> India might be looking towards F-16s, according to members comments. But I think they should look towards Grippen.



Noone knows the outcome. IAF will do an evaluation, but before that can be acted on,
India might have a new government, which may have a very different idea
on what needs to be done.
Modi killed MMRCA once he reached power.

Those "confident" members are generally producing hot air, but not much more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

X_Killer said:


> Who said Gripen is bad Aircraft?
> it is a very good aircraft but I'm defending the Claim of best aircraft.
> F-16 block-70 has no outer structural change and no change in size as well. The only part which makes it most modern among previous blocks is the "latest/advanced avionics and systems".
> 
> F-16/Gripen are called to showoff their modern/upgraded capability claims.
> 
> Situation will be more cleared with the live STOBAR trials. And most likely RAFALE-M will be there to serve for IN.
> 
> there are more chances that Single engine jet tender will be scrapped n favour of more FGFA + Rafales + LCAs and less chances that SE jet tender would stay alive.
> 
> If SE jet tender will be saved than both have almost 50-50 % chances.
> Newer generation jet but made partnership with Adani group which has no aviation manufacturing experience but on the otherside F-16 is also good but form partnership with TASL which has a lot of exp.


You are absolutely right. In my views, IAF might be looking for 36 more Rafaels to add and there are rumours of IAF buying used Malaysian MiG-29s. Moreover, IAF can also get M-2000s from France with upgrades like they are getting some used Jaguars. This will keep the fleet up and be running. 

FGFA, MCA, and LCA will arrive soon! But I think Russia is also keen to sell MiG-35 to IAF too...


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Oxair Online said:


> You are absolutely right. In my views, IAF might be looking for 36 more Rafaels to add and there are rumours of IAF buying used Malaysian MiG-29s. Moreover, IAF can also get M-2000s from France with upgrades like they are getting some used Jaguars. This will keep the fleet up and be running.
> 
> FGFA, MCA, and LCA will arrive soon! But I think Russia is also keen to sell MiG-35 to IAF too...



Looks more wrong than right. More Rafales may be coming, but at the expense of FGFA.

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/08/adding-36-more-rafales-will-prove-to-be.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> With six crashes, you do not have enough statistical material.
> Out of those six crashes you have probably four pilot errors.


By the way, Gripen met with 10 crashes.
And f-16 pilots are not god , they too made mistakes.




A.P. Richelieu said:


> Meanwhile neither F/A-18 nor Rafale are useable on Indias carriers because they
> are too large for the elevators...


For your Kind info, F/A-18 already have folded wings and it easily fits on elevators with its folded wings. 
for rafale, Dassault promised to give folded wing config when selected. It can easily achieve in max 2.5 - 3 months.
Its very obvious that Gripen will not be there because it has single engine config (go through the tender doc)


A.P. Richelieu said:


> And India is considering scrapping the FGFA to get 36 more Rafales, not the SE project.
> France will not accept production in India for such low numbers.


Now, This is known as HOT AIR



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Noone knows the outcome. IAF will do an evaluation, but before that can be acted on,
> Those "confident" members are generally producing hot air, but not much more.


I'm only talking on facts and with unbiased view. Both LM & Saab are same for me.
you may mark my words and quote me if you find any SE jet deal before 2019.



> India might have a new government, which may have a very different idea
> on what needs to be done.


Don't worry there will be no change in government before 2024


Good Day


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

before we say india buy this india buy that. big question must ask is india having money to buy?




X_Killer said:


> By the way, Gripen met with 10 crashes.
> And f-16 pilots are not god , they too made mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> For your Kind info, F/A-18 already have folded wings and it easily fits on elevators with its folded wings.
> for rafale, Dassault promised to give folded wing config when selected. It can easily achieve in max 2.5 - 3 months.
> Its very obvious that Gripen will not be there because it has single engine config (go through the tender doc)
> 
> Now, This is known as HOT AIR
> 
> 
> I'm only talking on facts and with unbiased view. Both LM & Saab are same for me.
> you may mark my words and quote me if you find any SE jet deal before 2019.
> 
> 
> Don't worry there will be no change in government before 2024
> 
> 
> Good Day


how you critisize other plane when we indians can't make tejas fly? we need to buy what is cheap. no?


----------



## X_Killer

Oxair Online said:


> You are absolutely right. In my views, IAF might be looking for 36 more Rafaels to add and there are rumours of IAF buying used Malaysian MiG-29s. Moreover, IAF can also get M-2000s from France with upgrades like they are getting some used Jaguars. This will keep the fleet up and be running.


IAF is getting french jags for logistics purpose only and have no plan for second hand Mirage 2K. 
There are bargaining talks for malaysian mig-29 for which India have to provide the Logistics and services for Malaysian Sukhois. Results of talks will be cleared soon. 


Oxair Online said:


> FGFA, MCA, and LCA will arrive soon! But I think Russia is also keen to sell MiG-35 to IAF too...


FGFA is planned to induct in IAF by 2023 onwards and LCA is under production buildup to churn out all jet at 16 units per year. AMCA would make it first flight by 2024 possibly or it might be delayed.



Dark Lord Forever said:


> before we say india buy this india buy that. big question must ask is india having money to buy?
> 
> how you critisize other plane when we indians can't make tejas fly? we need to buy what is cheap. no?


1st. you should go through the Indian defense budget to get the details about the funds.
2nd. As I said before, None of the aircraft is bad. But one may be less capable than other , when compared to each other. 
3rd. Who said Tejas is not flying? Do you know, LCA is technically more capable than its counterpart resides to western border which even can't guide LGBs.
4th.We need to buy what is economic , effective as well as efficient.


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

X_Killer said:


> 1st. you should go through the Indian defense budget to get the details about the funds.
> 2nd. As I said before, None of the aircraft is bad. But one may be less capable than other , when compared to each other.
> 3rd. Who said Tejas is not flying? Do you know, LCA is technically more capable than its counterpart resides to western border which even can't guide LGBs.
> 4th.We need to buy what is economic , effective as well as efficient.


i only told about money because people on other forum are saying big issue with money so we can't buy more rafale or pakfa. i won't name that forum but you must know.

tejas is having issue and was grounded 1 year ago. now no sign of FOC. so not good for flying. if it flys we can't produce more than 4 planes in 1 year so not useful in war.

we need economic so tejas is perfect but need to fix it.


----------



## Hulk

Dark Lord Forever said:


> i only told about money because people on other forum are saying big issue with money so we can't buy more rafale or pakfa. i won't name that forum but you must know.
> 
> tejas is having issue and was grounded 1 year ago. now no sign of FOC. so not good for flying. if it flys we can't produce more than 4 planes in 1 year so not useful in war.
> 
> we need economic so tejas is perfect but need to fix it.


For someone who does not even know that Tejas is flying it already is having many SP variants and nearing FOC. Do you think such ignorant people even deserve a response. We encourage such trolls who have no other intention but to troll by responding to their stupidity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

Hulk said:


> For someone who does not even know that Tejaj is flying it already is having many SP variants and nearing FOC. Do you think such ignorant people even deserve a response. We encourage such trolls who have no other intention but to troll by responding to their stupidity.


it is not tejaj but tejas or teja.

i know it can fly. everyone knows this we have seen photos. when i say it can't fly it means it can't fly for air force. in other words it is not flyworthy. tejas can't fly with full load weapons because no FOC. so what is good flying a plane empty? only burden.


----------



## X_Killer

Dark Lord Forever said:


> i only told about money because people on other forum are saying big issue with money so we can't buy more rafale or pakfa. i won't name that forum but you must know.


Do you know the standalone cost of 36 Rafales and possible cost of FGFA deal?


Dark Lord Forever said:


> tejas is having issue and was grounded 1 year ago.


tejas performed @ aero india in feb'17




On 15 aug, I saw 3 LCAs in formation at Bangalore.


Dark Lord Forever said:


> now no sign of FOC. so not good for flying. if it flys we can't produce more than 4 planes in 1 year so not useful in war.


At present, we are churning out LCA at 8 units per year and by end of 2018 it would raise to 16 units per year.
And before making any comment on it , you have to know that the primary role of LCA is point defense.


Dark Lord Forever said:


> we need economic so tejas is perfect but need to fix it.


Tejas is already fine and now HAL is testing our Indigenously developed Uttam AESA and DARE's EW duite that is why FOC is postponed to 2018

*NOTE: Don't make false comments*



Dark Lord Forever said:


> it is not tejaj but tejas or teja.
> 
> i know it can fly. everyone knows this we have seen photos. when i say it can't fly it means it can't fly for air force. in other words it is not flyworthy. tejas can't fly with full load weapons because no FOC. so what is good flying a plane empty? only burden.


Do you know none of the chinese jets have neither IOC nor FOC including JF-17.
Tejas tested more than enough firepower that can easily burn enemies ***.


Tejas Firing Python 5





Tejas successfully tested Derby BVR





Tejas Launching LGB and R73





Tejas with full weapon load












More images


----------



## Hulk

Dark Lord Forever said:


> it is not tejaj but tejas or teja.
> 
> i know it can fly. everyone knows this we have seen photos. when i say it can't fly it means it can't fly for air force. in other words it is not flyworthy. tejas can't fly with full load weapons because no FOC. so what is good flying a plane empty? only burden.


Thanks for pointing the typo, I fixed it. You remain a troll to me with no idea what you are talking. Worst you do not even have your flags right. I still don't discuss with trolls.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> By the way, Gripen met with 10 crashes.
> And f-16 pilots are not god , they too made mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> For your Kind info, F/A-18 already have folded wings and it easily fits on elevators with its folded wings.
> for rafale, Dassault promised to give folded wing config when selected. It can easily achieve in max 2.5 - 3 months.
> Its very obvious that Gripen will not be there because it has single engine config (go through the tender doc)
> 
> Now, This is known as HOT AIR
> 
> 
> I'm only talking on facts and with unbiased view. Both LM & Saab are same for me.
> you may mark my words and quote me if you find any SE jet deal before 2019.
> 
> 
> Don't worry there will be no change in government before 2024
> 
> 
> Good Day



As You do not read, I repeat the article.

*Despite recent reports that the two Western MRCBF competitors could operate from INS Vikramaditya in addition to the Indian Navy’s future carriers, this is simply not possible*. The converted Soviet-era ‘aircraft carrying cruiser’ has two aircraft elevators that are located within the flight deck, instead of on the deck-edges, and both are too small to accommodate either the Super Hornet or the Rafale. The larger forward lift, beside the carrier’s superstructure, is 18.8 x 9.9 metres, while the Super Hornet’s wings fold to just under 10 metres and the Rafale’s wings, slightly less than 11 metres wide, do not fold at all. The aft lift is narrower, with an 8.6-metre width that is barely able to fit the MiG-29K’s 7.5-metre folded span. The Naval LCA, with a wingspan of a little over eight metres, would certainly have fit the forward lift if not the aft one – the Navy prefers for aircraft carrier elevators to be sufficiently larger than the aircraft they will carry for ease of aircraft handling and movement.
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. *While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.*

So no, the folding wings of the Super Hornet are about 10 meters wide.
You claim that this will fit in an 8,6 m wide elevator.

My guess is that You invented the idea that Dassault can create folding wings for the Rafale
in a few months. You are pretty careless with facts.

You also reject articles in India as Hot Air, while you make claim after claim without any basis.
Published a link where IAF announced the possible replacement of FGFA with Rafale.
Much more meat than anything you dream up.


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

X_Killer said:


> Do you know the standalone cost of 36 Rafales and possible cost of FGFA deal?
> 
> tejas performed @ aero india in feb'17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 aug, I saw 3 LCAs in formation at Bangalore.
> 
> At present, we are churning out LCA at 8 units per year and by end of 2018 it would raise to 16 units per year.
> And before making any comment on it , you have to know that the primary role of LCA is point defense.


No india only has 4 tejas now. and will have 2 more this year. i confirm this from other defence forum. so no 8 per year is not true. only 4 per year is happening.



> Tejas is already fine and now HAL is testing our Indigenously developed Uttam AESA and DARE's EW duite that is why FOC is postponed to 2018


they are saying FOC next year since 2010. it is 7 years still no FOC. next year is not coming.



> *NOTE: Don't make false comments*


I am expert on this things.



> Do you know none of the chinese jets have neither IOC nor FOC including JF-17.
> Tejas tested more than enough firepower that can easily burn enemies ***.


because chinese make evrything in blocks. it is constantly upgrading planes. tejas is not like this. so please don't compare. also remember there are hundres and hundreds JF17 flying with pakistani air force but only 4 in indian air force. so please don't compare great chinese planes with pethetic indian tejas.



> Tejas Firing Python 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tejas successfully tested Derby BVR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tejas Launching LGB and R73
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tejas with full weapon load
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More images


all trials. not final configuration. weapons trials are failing so no FOC. or something big wrong with tejas. 

so in short tejas is not flyworthy for airforce. tejas is only face saving project of india. so this is why india buying rafale.



Hulk said:


> Thanks for pointing the typo, I fixed it. You remain a troll to me with no idea what you are talking. Worst you do not even have your flags right. I still don't discuss with trolls.


you are speaking with expert in this filed.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> As You do not read, I repeat the article.
> 
> *Despite recent reports that the two Western MRCBF competitors could operate from INS Vikramaditya in addition to the Indian Navy’s future carriers, this is simply not possible*. The converted Soviet-era ‘aircraft carrying cruiser’ has two aircraft elevators that are located within the flight deck, instead of on the deck-edges, and both are too small to accommodate either the Super Hornet or the Rafale. The larger forward lift, beside the carrier’s superstructure, is 18.8 x 9.9 metres, while the Super Hornet’s wings fold to just under 10 metres and the Rafale’s wings, slightly less than 11 metres wide, do not fold at all. The aft lift is narrower, with an 8.6-metre width that is barely able to fit the MiG-29K’s 7.5-metre folded span. The Naval LCA, with a wingspan of a little over eight metres, would certainly have fit the forward lift if not the aft one – the Navy prefers for aircraft carrier elevators to be sufficiently larger than the aircraft they will carry for ease of aircraft handling and movement.
> The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. *While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.*
> 
> So no, the folding wings of the Super Hornet are about 10 meters wide.
> You claim that this will fit in an 8,6 m wide elevator.
> 
> My guess is that You invented the idea that Dassault can create folding wings for the Rafale
> in a few months. You are pretty careless with facts.
> 
> You also reject articles in India as Hot Air, while you make claim after claim without any basis.
> Published a link where IAF announced the possible replacement of FGFA with Rafale.
> Much more meat than anything you dream up.


F/A-18 is only 8.38 m with folded wings, rest you can calculate whether it can fit on 8.6m elevator ramp or not.

F/A-18 C/D external dimesions





http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm

further modification can be made on user request..



Dark Lord Forever said:


> No india only has 4 tejas now. and will have 2 more this year. i confirm this from other defence forum. so no 8 per year is not true. only 4 per year is happening.


IAF got its 5 SP variants and overall 21 air frames are airborne as of now


Dark Lord Forever said:


> they are saying FOC next year since 2010. it is 7 years still no FOC. next year is not coming.


you will feel the heat as LCA got its FOC


Dark Lord Forever said:


> I am expert on this things.


 expert with Zero aviation knowledge.


Dark Lord Forever said:


> because chinese make evrything in blocks. it is constantly upgrading planes. tejas is not like this. so please don't compare. also remember there are hundres and hundreds JF17 flying with pakistani air force but only 4 in indian air force. so please don't compare great chinese planes with pethetic indian tejas.


LOL, blind believer. 
and a False Flagger too.


Dark Lord Forever said:


> all trials. not final configuration. weapons trials are failing so no FOC. or something big wrong with tejas.
> 
> so in short tejas is not flyworthy for airforce. tejas is only face saving project of india. so this is why india buying rafale.


FOC is delayed due to aerial trials of Gsh-23 and IFR.
And don't mix-up rafale and tejas. both belong to different categories.


Dark Lord Forever said:


> you are speaking with expert in this filed.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> F/A-18 is only 8.38 m with folded wings, rest you can calculate whether it can fit on 8.6m elevator ramp or not.
> 
> F/A-18 C/D external dimesions
> View attachment 421495
> 
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm
> 
> further modification can be made on user request..
> 
> 
> IAF got its 5 SP variants and overall 21 air frames are airborne as of now
> 
> you will feel the heat as LCA got its FOC
> 
> expert with Zero aviation knowledge.
> 
> LOL, blind believer.
> and a False Flagger too.
> 
> FOC is delayed due to aerial trials of Gsh-23 and IFR.
> And don't mix-up rafale and tejas. both belong to different categories.



And India is offered a derivative of the F/A-18E (or F) Super Hornet.
You are either incompetent of dishonest (or both)

How are You going to fit a 9,32 meters wide aircraft in an 8,6 meter wide elevator?


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> How are You going to fit a 9,32 meters wide aircraft in an 8,6 meter wide elevator?


*The lifts on Vikky are 18.91x8.65 and 18.91x9.96m*. *The lifts on IAC-1 are 14x10m*.
Now You must recalculate your dimensions again...

also you have to know that rear lift is only used to for helicopter and ammunition lifting.

More over , MRCBFs are intended for IAC-1





























Also you must go through the following points in Dassault proposal for MRCBF

IN Rafale-M Proposal has seen an offering of massive Indian specific customizations and a part of it is towards integration of Rafale M in existing carriers as well
IN Rafale M deal in the hindsight is also a bit costly due to customizations as mentioned above, weapon sets and it does not carry any maintenance package
The absence of Maintenance package indicates the fact the package will be signed later with a LOCAL entity.
The cover note (signed by Trappier) and presentations talks about the commanality with IAF Rafales and Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited in a position to meet all opex and service requirements.
Also, As I said before (I think you missed this line)



X_Killer said:


> further modification can be made on user request..


----------



## ejaz007

*India to announce road map for single-engine fighter program*
By: Vivek Raghuvanshi   14 hours ago

NEW DELHI — To accelerate the Make in India initiative under the strategic partnership model, the ruling National Democratic Alliance will formally issue a request for information next month to Lockheed Martin of the U.S. and Saab of Sweden to manufacture single-engine fighters in collaboration with a private company in the India.

The Ministry of Defence will float a request for information, or RFI, to Lockheed Martin for its F-16 Block 70 and Saab for its Gripen E next month, a senior MoD official said.

Under the new strategic partnership, or SP, model the two companies will be asked to submit offers of the single-engine fighters’ air power capabilities, the offer for India-specific technology transfer, indigenous solutions for the program and the offer for building an ecosystem for the program in the country, said a senior Indian Air force official.

“We have chosen both F-16 Block 70 and Gripen E because both single-engine fighters are fully upgraded, fully tested and are in full use,” the IAF official added.

Both Lockheed Martin and Saab will be given three months to respond to the RFI, which will then be evaluated by an IAF expert committee and the final selection will be made early next year, the IAF official added.

Likewise, an expression of interest, or EOI, will be issued to domestic companies in the next three to four months, who will, in turn, tie-up with overseas original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, to build around 120 single engine fighters, initially costing around $18 billion under the strategic partnership model, an MoD official noted.

India’s ruling NDA government unveiled the SP policy in May, which allows major private defense companies to be nominated as entities to manufacture major defense platforms in partnership with OEMs.

Under this policy, nominated private entities will build submarines, helicopters, single-engine fighters and armored vehicles and battle tanks in India in the next 20 years.

Sign up for our Daily News Roundup - The top Defense News stories of the day

An MoD official explained, “This is a very important and complex program, and the government, therefore, will have to prepare a full proof policy so that it moves forward without any glitches and cost overruns, keeping in mind that the Indian Air Force gets the latest single-engine fighters for the next 30 to 35 years.”

We aim to ink the contract in the next three to four years and will ensure that India-specific single-engine fighter will start to be produced in the country by a private company in the next eight years, he added.

After evaluation of the EOI offer from private companies, the MoD will select two or three private players to build single-engine fighters in India.

A request of proposal or tender will be issued in the next 16 months to the selected private player who will, in turn, will tie-up with selected foreign OEMs to manufacture this fighter in India.

Both Indian players and foreign OEMs will be free to forge either a joint venture or equity partnership to execute this program in India.

A CEO of a private defense company who requested not to be named said: “This is indeed a very encouraging move by the government, because both private players and foreign OEMs were apprehensive about this program as no time frame was spelled out by the MoD.”

http://www.defensenews.com/air/2017...e-road-map-for-single-engine-fighter-program/


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

ejaz007 said:


> “We have chosen both F-16 Block 70 and Gripen E because both single-engine fighters are fully upgraded, fully tested and are in full use,” the IAF official added.



Not really true, Gripen E has a fully qualified S/W suite.
Production has started, but will only be delivered in 2019.
Hardly in full use though.



ejaz007 said:


> We aim to ink the contract in the next three to four years and will ensure that India-specific single-engine fighter will start to be produced in the country by a private company in the next eight years, he added.


Should fit Gripen E schedules nicely.
The F-16 production line may have to be mothballed for a number of years,
and parts may obsoleted with no orders.




ejaz007 said:


> After evaluation of the EOI offer from private companies, the MoD will select two or three private players to build single-engine fighters in India.



I guess Tata will be bidding for Gripen E production as well.




ejaz007 said:


> A request of proposal or tender will be issued in the next 16 months to the selected private player who will, in turn, will tie-up with selected foreign OEMs to manufacture this fighter in India.


It really looks like the SE tender will be cancelled...


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> *The lifts on Vikky are 18.91x8.65 and 18.91x9.96m*. *The lifts on IAC-1 are 14x10m*.
> Now You must recalculate your dimensions again...
> 
> also you have to know that rear lift is only used to for helicopter and ammunition lifting.
> 
> More over , MRCBFs are intended for IAC-1
> 
> Also you must go through the following points in Dassault proposal for MRCBF
> 
> IN Rafale-M Proposal has seen an offering of massive Indian specific customizations and a part of it is towards integration of Rafale M in existing carriers as well
> IN Rafale M deal in the hindsight is also a bit costly due to customizations as mentioned above, weapon sets and it does not carry any maintenance package
> The absence of Maintenance package indicates the fact the package will be signed later with a LOCAL entity.
> The cover note (signed by Trappier) and presentations talks about the commanality with IAF Rafales and Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited in a position to meet all opex and service requirements.


The article on this problem says that IN wants a margin to simplify operations.
The lifts on IAC-1 were originally designed for MiG-29K (7,5m) and Tejas (8,2m).
They provide a margin vs the 10 m elevator.

At 9,32 meter, the Hornet has an uncomfortable small margin, and the Rafale (11,0m)
wont work at all. Whether India accepts the small margin of the SH, is open for debate.

The Rafale will need a redesign, and most likely the Hornet as well, or IAC-1 needs to be redesigned.

Gripen M needs a stronger undercarriage, and a tail hook, but will provide a margin without a wing redesign.
Folding wings is not obviously a smaller design change.

Since IN seems reluctant to go with a SE design, Gripen M is still a dark horse.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Rafale will need a redesign, and most likely the Hornet as well, or IAC-1 needs to be redesigned.


As I said before both Dassault and Boeing both agreed for user required modification in their submitted proposals.
IN already mentioned that fighter jet should be compatible with IN's carrier's STOBAR, lift and future possible CATOBAR.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen M needs a stronger undercarriage, and a tail hook, but will provide a margin without a wing redesign.


MRCBF mentioned that they want a twin engine fighter, hence Gripen is obvously out of the tender. It is very similar to MMRCA competition when F-16 and gripen rejected due to single engine configuration.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> I guess Tata will be bidding for Gripen E production as well.


Nope, Saab already agreed with Adani Group and TATA has signed for LM f-16.



ejaz007 said:


> A request of proposal or tender will be issued in the next 16 months to the selected private player who will, in turn, will tie-up with selected foreign OEMs to manufacture this fighter in India.


An official RFI will be issued by november'17 and if all wil go well than RFP will be issued within 1 year of RFI.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> As I said before both Dassault and Boeing both agreed for user required modification in their submitted proposals.
> IN already mentioned that fighter jet should be compatible with IN's carrier's STOBAR, lift and future possible CATOBAR.
> 
> MRCBF mentioned that they want a twin engine fighter, hence Gripen is obvously out of the tender. It is very similar to MMRCA competition when F-16 and gripen rejected due to single engine configuration.
> 
> 
> Nope, Saab already agreed with Adani Group and TATA has signed for LM f-16.
> 
> 
> An official RFI will be issued by november'17 and if all wil go well than RFP will be issued within 1 year of RFI.



Yes, having to modify the aircraft, makes them on par with Gripen.

As for two engine aircraft, they may continue with this, or they will change their mind.
MMRCA was dropped, and India is going SE instead.
There are bound to be different camps, and there may be an election before the decision.
Until there is a decsion, or a short list, there is no need to speculate.

India has asked private companies to provide info how they would handle this.
If India wants Gripen, produced by Tata, I am sure that is what would happen regardless
of deals.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Yes, having to modify the aircraft, makes them on par with Gripen.
> 
> As for two engine aircraft, they may continue with this, or they will change their mind.
> MMRCA was dropped, and India is going SE instead.
> There are bound to be different camps, and there may be an election before the decision.
> Until there is a decsion, or a short list, there is no need to speculate.
> 
> India has asked private companies to provide info how they would handle this.
> If India wants Gripen, produced by Tata, I am sure that is what would happen regardless
> of deals.


Do you even know why Indian Navy want two engine configuration for carrier borne fighters ?

gripen can be selected only if saab manage to fit twin engine on it. which is not possible. 
so, don't dream.


----------



## TheBlackCoat

AUGUST 29, 2017 / 10:01 AM / 8 HOURS AGO
*Lockheed offers to export F-16 jets from proposed India facility*

Sanjeev Miglani

3 MIN READ


NEW DELHI, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin is closing in on an international deal for F-16 fighter planes, and has offered to eventually build all the jets at a proposed plant in India if it wins a bigger order to supply the Indian Air Force, a top executive said.

The U.S. defence giant and Sweden‘s Saab are in a two horse-race to equip the Indian military with at least 100 single-engine jets that have to be produced locally under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make-in-India’ plan.

Randall L. Howard, who leads F-16 business development, said Lockheed is offering to make India the sole F-16 production centre, so eventually it will make the planes not just for India, but also for other countries.

Lockheed is closing its F-16 production line at Forth Worth, Texas and will supply new orders from a new facility at Greenville, South Carolina. But the plan was to eventually build the planes in India, Howard told Reuters.


“Our next customer, which we believe to be very soon ... we will produce those aircraft out of that (Greenville) facility,” he said. “As you look beyond that, the opportunity for India is to then move all of that into India and that’s what’s being proposed ... to have a single production line in India that would service the new production requirements of global demand, the global market.”

India’s government is set to issue a formal request to Lockheed and Saab over the next few days to provide information about their plans to design, develop and produce combat jets in India, a government official said.

The planes will be produced under a new ’strategic partnership’ policy under which the foreign aircraft maker will collaborate with an Indian firm to develop a world-class indigenous aeronautical base that India has struggled to build for decades.

Lockheed has picked Tata Advanced Systems as its local partner, while Saab has not yet announced its Indian collaborator to produce the Gripen E aircraft that it has offered to the air force.

*Howard said the plan to relocate the F-16 plant to India enjoyed the support of the U.S. government after initial concerns it would conflict with President Donald Trump’s ’America First’ campaign under which he has pressed for companies to invest in the United States and create jobs.*

Howard said winning the Indian contract worth billions of dollars will protect thousands of jobs at Lockheed in the United States as well as at dozens of components suppliers, since the Indian facility will come up gradually.

“We will start with an assembly, you can’t go from ground zero, from a standing stop to full production in a week. You have to phase it in.”

India’s Air Force is running short of hundreds of aircraft as its indigenous Light Combat Aircraft programme is dogged by delays and quality issues.

Modi’s government last year cleared the purchase of 36 Rafale combat jets from France’s Dassault Aviation, scaling back a plan to buy 126 planes, leaving the Air Force scrambling for replacements. (Reporting by Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Ian Geoghegan)

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-harvey-idUSKCN1B7083

*http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/0...16-for-iaf-and-f-18-for-indian-navy-pub-72706*

*The Americans Are Back: F-16 for the IAF and F/A-18 for the Indian Navy*
Source: Getty
ASHLEY J. TELLIS

August 02, 2017
Force
*Summary: *Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters.
Related Topics

South Asia
India

Defense and Security
Military
Foreign Policy


*Related Media and Tools*

FULL TEXT
7
During the last year, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Navy (IN) confirmed what must have been the worst kept secret in New Delhi: that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, for all its achievements, was unsuitable as a strike-fighter for their near-term modernisation requirements.






*Ashley J. Tellis*
Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs

More from this author...
Strategic Affairs Expert Says India’s Extremism Could Cost Goodwill
Protecting an Investment
With Trump, Best to Focus on Bilateral Ties, Not Global Issues
Where the IAF was concerned, the request for information (RFI) for a new single-engine fighter issued in the United States, Russia, and Sweden in October 2016 marked a further twist in its long-running saga to complete the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition that first began in 2001. After the aborted competition led to an off-the-shelf purchase of just 36 Rafales in 2015 — instead of the 126 aircraft originally intended — the question of how the IAF would overcome the deficit of the 90 remaining fighters was still unanswered. There were some in India who argued that the IAF should jettison the MMRCA requirement altogether and fill out the remainder of the force with more Su-30s at the high-end and additional Tejas fighters at the low-end.

Given the shortcomings of the Tejas — some, but not all, of which can be rectified — it is not surprising that the IAF finally threw in the towel and decided to seek an advanced foreign fighter to satisfy its MMRCA requirements, even if only partially. That the 90 aircraft now considered for acquisition will be single-engined suggests that this segment of the IAF may eventually end up bifurcated. The single-engine platform, which hopefully will be announced in the next year or so, will complement the 83 Tejas fighters already approved for procurement: together serving as replacements for the retiring MiG-21s in the IAF inventory. Because the 90 future selectees and the 123 Tejas aircraft that will eventually be acquired will still not suffice as one-to-one replacements for the MiG-21s, it is possible that the IAF may consider acquiring additional medium-weight twin-engined Western fighters down the line, if and when finances permit, in order to further strengthen the IAF for counter-air operations involving China and preserve the three-tier force that the service has sought to maintain more recently.

Obviously, there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about a three-tier force structure in the abstract. If the foreign single-engine fighter met the multirole requirement effectively, the IAF could simply expand its numbers to maintain a larger component that straddles the light- and medium- weight categories, as this new acquisition would in any case bring more to the air superiority campaign than a defensive counter-air fighter like the Tejas ever could.

The Indian Navy, in contrast, has moved in a different direction from what appeared to be initially contemplated. Although the navy has been the strongest supporter of India’s indigenous defence development efforts, the sea service too finally rejected the naval version of the Tejas that was originally intended for deployment aboard the INS Vikrant — Indian Aircraft Carrier-1 (IAC-1) — currently under construction. This decision is eminently sensible given the navy’s special requirements: because an aircraft carrier hosts a relatively small number of combat aircraft aboard a single-engine fighter is a risky proposition at even the best of times. The technological and operational limitations of the Tejas only implied that these risks would be magnified, even if it were to be deployed merely as a second-string complement to a more advanced strike-fighter, such as the MiG-29K, which has been bedevilled by serious serviceability problems of its own. Consequently, the IN has prudently chosen to seek a new advanced twin-engine fighter that hopefully will populate the entire combat air wing on the INS Vikrant and possibly the follow- on vessel (IAC-2) as well.

Both the IAF and the IN have thus ended up similarly: although the former, seeking a twin-engined airplane originally, has now settled for a single-engine combatant, and the latter, investing in a single-engine fighter initially, is now exploring a twin-engined aircraft, both have decided to look abroad rather than at home for good reason. A direct purchase of the aircraft finally selected, however, is not on the cards. Thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on ‘Make in India,’ the final winners in both the IAF’s and the IN’s competitions will be decided not simply on operational excellence and costs — the traditional criteria that dominated fighter selections hitherto — but equally on how best they leaven India’s domestic manufacturing capabilities. And the traditional Indian interest in using its defence acquisitions to strengthen its strategic partnerships abroad still remains unchanged; if anything, these geopolitical imperatives have only intensified since Modi took office.

The renewal of a global search to supply India with advanced fighters has unexpectedly pushed the United States back into the game after both its entrants, the F-16IN Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, were ejected from the previous round of the MMRCA competition. Because the IAF’s new RFI specifies a single-engine platform, however, the only two aircraft capable of satisfying this requirement are Lockheed Martin’s venerable F-16, offered to India in its latest and most sophisticated Block 70 variant, and Saab’s Gripen, which has been offered in a new, larger, and more impressive E variant that flew for the first time on 15 June 2017. The IN’s requirement for a twin-engined naval fighter has similarly left only two contestants in the race — Dassault’s Rafale, the previous selectee in the IAF’s MMRCA competition, and Boeing’s Super Hornet, the principal strike-fighter on the US Navy’s aircraft carriers today.

The return of Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70 Fighting Falcon and Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet into the IAF’s and IN’s competitions respectively has irked some Indian commentators, such as Bharat Karnad, who view them as examples of ‘technologically obsolete weaponry.’ This criticism is misplaced and fails to appreciate what makes combat fighters effective.

*TRICOLOUR ROUNDELS ON A FALCON?*
Starting with the IAF race first, the F-16 is a storied fighter that has been in continual production since 1976 with over 4,500 aircraft built since. Although designed initially as a light fighter for within- visual-range combat, it has evolved into a formidable multirole platform over time, all the while remaining one of the most agile air combatants ever produced by the United States (US). Today, the F-16 in the US Air Force (USAF), for example, is employed for all-weather counter-air operations: these include both beyond- and within-visual-range air-to-air engagements as well as anti- surface strike (including specialised missions such as the suppression of enemy air defences).

That the F-16’s basic airframe has evolved only modestly over the years has proven to be completely irrelevant where manoeuvring superiority is concerned. This is evinced in the fact that, although the aircraft first flew in 1974, its sustained and instantaneous turn performance (when flying without its conformal fuel tanks) at both low and high altitudes is virtually identical to that of the Gripen and its thrust-to-weight ratio is unambiguously superior — not bad for an aircraft that was designed almost 15 years earlier! It would be surprising if the Gripen E, with its heavier airframe in comparison to its predecessor and its lower-thrust engine in comparison to the F-16, could improve upon this feat dramatically.

Success in modern air combat today, however, is not simply a matter of manoeuvring performance, even though the F-16 is fully the Gripen’s peer in this regard. Rather, the aircraft’s sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, and weapons make an enormous difference — as do pilot training, doctrine, and the concepts of employment. If pilot training is excluded from the comparison, it is in the other realms that the F-16 has undergone a truly transformative metamorphosis over time, making it a worthy competitor to the Gripen in both the air-to-air and the anti-surface warfare regimes.

The F-16’s primary sensor, the AN/ APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Active (AESA) radar, for example, employs fifth-generation AESA radar technology that is derived from the advanced radars developed for the F-22 and the F-35. The F-16’s electronic warfare systems will be sophisticated Israeli systems, selected in accord with IAF preferences, and its weapons are more or less comparable to those of the Gripen E (and are, in fact, interchangeable should India require it). The Gripen’s information management capabilities are undoubtedly exquisite, but whether they are superior in an operational context to those of the F-16 is not obvious. At any rate, the F-16’s larger weapons load and, when used, its conformal fuel tanks give it a larger radius of action in comparison to the Gripen E, which makes it more attractive for theatre strike operations involving China.

None of this derogates from the Gripen E’s technological excellence, which is conspicuous, but it does indicate that the F-16 is at no particular disadvantage to its Swedish competitor where its combat capabilities are concerned. Its age in particular has posed no special impediment as its avionics and weapons — the capabilities that really matter, given that its aerodynamic characteristics are already superlative — have been continuously modernised, as required by the complex operating environment facing its principal and most demanding customer, the US Air Force (USAF). Parenthetically, it may be noted here that the F-16 Block 70 offered to India is so dramatically superior to the version in Pakistan’s employ as to defy serious comparison.

Given the difficult financial constraints facing the IAF today, the unit flyaway and life cycle costs of the two aircraft will be critical factors affecting the Indian decision. Unfortunately, good comparative data on these issues is hard to come by. The original Gripen had a well-deserved reputation for having low operating costs (the F-16’s being somewhat higher), but whether this will be equally true for the Gripen E is as yet unclear. In any case, the price at which the F-16 and the Gripen E are being offered to India today is publicly unknown; suffice it to say that, the closer they are in price, the more attractive the F-16 would be to the Modi government, given its other advantages for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India strategic partnership.

It is in these latter arenas that the F-16’s advantages over the Gripen E are most pronounced. Because Lockheed Martin is transitioning toward the manufacture of the F-35 in the United States, the company has committed to transferring the entire F-16 production line to India, should this aircraft be selected in the IAF’s single engine fighter competition. The transfer of the line would enable Lockheed Martin and its Indian partner, Tata Advanced Systems, to complete the final assembly of the aircraft in India along with manufacturing of its various structural components, while eventually shifting towards the fabrication of some of its combat system components as well.

While Saab is certain to table a similar offer, sweetening the pot with financing in addition to technology transfer, the Lockheed Martin-Tata joint venture promises to advance Modi’s employment generation objectives far more ambitiously because it would integrate India into the global aviation supply chain at a level that Saab cannot match. Beyond supporting the IAF’s own F-16s, all future F-16 sales globally — including to the four-six countries that are currently exploring new acquisitions — could occur from production in Indian plants. Furthermore, India would become a critical node in supporting the 3,200 F-16s still in service in 25 countries (including the 950-odd F-16s that will remain in US Air Force (USAF) service for another two decades), in contrast to becoming a supplier for a much smaller market — at best 200-300 Gripens in some six or seven countries — were it to select the Gripen E eventually. The advantages of the F-16’s global popularity, and its still expanding market, are thus obvious for India.

The gains to a deepened US-India relationship are no less consequential. At a time when President Donald J. Trump seeks transactional benefits to the US from all its foreign partnerships, an Indian purchase of American F-16s would go far in protecting its bilateral ties with the US — still the most important power in the international system — without compromising the IAF’s capabilities. New Delhi’s selection of the Gripen E would obviously strengthen the IAF in similar ways, but a strategic partnership with Sweden is meaningless in the face of the problems posed by China’s rising assertiveness in Asia.

The significant proportion of US technologies in the Gripen further complicates matters: it has been estimated that between 40 to 50 per cent of the original version’s components are of American origin, meaning that the US license regime would apply even if India purchased the Swedish aircraft. This fact diminishes the attractiveness of the Gripen where political considerations are concerned, because New Delhi would end up substantially buying American but without getting the requisite credit. In any event, Saab appears to be attempting to replace the Gripen’s American components with other substitutes, but the success of this effort and its impact of the aircraft’s effectiveness are thus far unclear.

On balance, therefore, whether India finally chooses the F-16 Block 70 or the Gripen E, the IAF comes out ahead because both aircraft are indisputably superior to the Tejas in manoeuvring performance, sensors, electronic warfare and information management systems, weapons load, and in radius of action. There are marginal differences in operational capability between the F-16 and the Gripen, some favouring the former and some the latter, with the F-16 having an indisputable advantage in range and in the weight of the payload carried. Both aircraft will continue to evolve in the areas that really matter for air superiority over the long term — sensors for passive and active detection, advanced fire and forget weaponry, cooperative targeting using off-board data, and fire control systems for air and ground operations — and therefore, Indian interests would be well served by choosing either airplane for its air force. Both the F-16 Block 70 and the Gripen E are highly capable multirole fighters, and, as a result, the Indian government will be confronted by the difficult dilemma of juggling operational effectiveness and cost on one hand with the benefits for defence industrial cooperation and deepening the US-India partnership on the other hand. Pulling off such a balancing act cannot be easy, but New Delhi is better off being spoilt for choice than having to cope with skimpiness.

*SUPER HORNETS AT SEA?*
If the F-16 is the worthwhile revenant in the IAF’s single engine competition, Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet actually has an upper hand in the IN’s search for a twin-engined fighter for its future aircraft carriers. The fleet’s requirements here are complicated by the fact that the aircraft selected as its primary strike-fighter must be capable of operating from both the INS Vikrant, the ski jump equipped short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) carrier currently being built in Cochin, as well as from its future large deck catapult take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carriers, such as the IAC-2, which will begin construction at some point in the future.

The IN has concluded that the Tejas is unsuitable for either vessel because, despite the structural improvements made to the test airframe in support of carrier operations, the final product did not meet the standard of acceptability at a time when Indian naval aviation is preparing to meet formidable adversaries, such as China, in the Indian Ocean.

Being able to successfully defend against — and overcome — Chinese aircraft carriers with their deployed air wings consisting of Su-33/J-15s, and possibly indigenous J-20s and J-31s in the future, should constitute the real metric for judging the acceptability of a given strike-fighter for the IN’s prospective carriers. This implies that rather than obsessing over some arcane detail pertaining to the increased tensile strength of the Tejas’ undercarriage or the extent of the nose droop improvements intended to expand its pilot’s vision, its worth as the mainstay of Indian carrier aviation must be judged by its effectiveness as a combat system rather than merely by its aerodynamic viability.

Obviously, achieving success on the latter count is a precondition for satisfying the former. But the challenge facing the IN here is that the indigenous Tejas is hopelessly behind the times relative to the threat that it faces from more mature opponents in the here and now — adversaries whose war-fighting performance is now steadily being expanded even as the Indian test-bed struggles to become merely a worthwhile flying platform for carrier operations.

Given this asymmetry, it is not surprising that the IN has chosen to look for an advanced strike-fighter from abroad right away, partly because it cannot wait in hope that the Tejas Mark 2 will eventually make the cut as an effective strike-fighter for the Vikrant. If it is to have a combat aircraft manufactured in India and ready for operations by the time this carrier enters the fleet in 2021, the selection and procurement processes will have to be completed by early 2018 at the latest. Given the development timelines associated with the Tejas Mark 2 thus far, it would be simply miraculous if the aircraft could be certified as combat ready, let alone superior to its likely adversaries, by that date.

Because an aircraft carrier has only a small number of aircraft, the qualitative superiority of both aircraft and pilot are critical, while maintainability — meaning the reliability of the airframe and its combat subsystems as well as the ease of diagnostics and repair — contributes towards the ability to turn an aircraft around quickly for repeated sorties, thus making it a vital combat multiplier, particularly for small- or medium-sized air wings. Of the foreign contestants in the IN’s search list, neither the Swedish Sea Gripen — as yet only a notional alternative — nor the Russian MiG-29K have demonstrated the capacity for both ski jump and catapult launches, and the Sea Gripen additionally fails to meet the RFI’s requirement that it must already be in service in its country of origin. Consequently, only the French Rafale and the American F/A-18 Super Hornet remain as plausible contenders and each offers India the opportunity to dominate the adversaries it is likely to face in the Indian Ocean.

But the two rivals are not evenly matched. The Rafale, unlike the Super Hornet, does not have fully foldable wings and, hence, cannot use the Vikrant’s elevators without major modifications that would add to its already high unit costs. The IAF’s Rafale came out at close to USD160 million per copy and the naval variant, of which less than 50 have been produced, is likely to be even more expensive. But cost aside, the Rafale’s lack of fully folding wings implies that fewer aircraft can be spotted on the carrier’s flight deck, a disadvantage when more aircraft there mean faster cyclic operations and by extension greater combat capability. And its maintenance requirements and operating costs are much more substantial than that of the Super Hornet.

Beyond these issues, even when both aircraft are compared one-on-one, the F/A-18 E/F compares favourably with the Rafale. The Super Hornet’s organic sensors and its capacity for integration with the E-2D airborne early warning aircraft, which is likely to be eventually deployed by the IN ashore and most likely on board the IAC-2, are unparalleled. The F/A-18 E/F’s primary sensor, the APG-79 AESA radar, has no peer among fourth-generation combat aircraft, and its huge detection and electronic attack advantages ensure first look-first shot opportunities that even sophisticated rivals often cannot match. Its advanced electronic warfare suites, one area where the Rafale’s capabilities are indeed comparable, make it exceptionally survivable in a variety of war-fighting environments, while its ability to swing effortlessly between air-to-air and air-to-surface missions make it just as versatile as its French competitor — but in a much cheaper platform.

To make a long story short, the F/A- 18 E/F Super Hornet has been designed for standoff air superiority as well as for flexible multirole operations and for that reason will remain the US Navy’s workhorse strike-fighter well into 2040, if not beyond. Both the Super Hornet and the Rafale are superb strike-fighters, but the IN is likely to find the F/A- 18 E/F better suited as the primary aviation battery for both its STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers. The cost advantages of the Super Hornet are considerable and, when considerations relating to defence industrial cooperation and deepening strategic partnerships are taken into account, it also does just as well as, if not better, than the Rafale on both counts. Because Boeing already has major production activities underway in India, including a joint venture with Tata that fabricates the fuselage for the Apache attack helicopter, as well as Indian suppliers that already manufacture components for US and international F/A-18s, such as Sasmoss, Rossell Techsys, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the selection of the Super Hornet by the IN would yield expanded partnerships with Indian industry for the manufacture of its airframe sections, wings and control surfaces, parts of its engines, and various other subsystems.

These activities, which would result in the transfer of proprietary knowhow, advanced manufacturing technologies, and industrial fabrication processes, would help to nurture a production complex that can oversee the delivery of an advanced weapon system that the US has never before sold to India. Developing such an infrastructure would not only create high technology jobs dispersed throughout India, but it would build indigenous proficiency that could aid in the development and manufacture of other civilian and military technologies. Even as these benefits come to fruition, India would position itself to support the nearly 600 F/A-18s that are in operation globally. It would also open the door to possible co-development and co-manufacturing of components for the Advanced F/A-18 Block III, with its conformal fuel tanks, enclosed weapons pod, and an enhanced General Electric 414 engine that could serve as a common power plant for the Super Hornet, Tejas, and eventually the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft concurrently. These kinds of benefits would obviously not be comparably available with the Rafale because of its smaller global market.

The deepening of the US-Indian strategic partnership would also be an obvious consequence of an Indian decision to purchase the Super Hornet for its prospective aircraft carriers. The same would be true for India’s partnership with France were the IN to settle for the Rafale. But important though this latter political affiliation is for New Delhi, the twists and turns in the earlier MMRCA endgame demonstrated how the extraordinarily high costs of French equipment made it difficult for India to fuel its strategic partnership with France through large defence transactions. In this instance, therefore, the case for the IN selecting the Super Hornet is persuasive because it would bring combat capabilities on par with the Rafale but at much lower cost while simultaneously enhancing India’s industrial base and strengthening its partnership with Washington.

*TAKING THE LONG VIEW*
There is little doubt that India has good options as it moves forward to fulfil its air force and naval requirements for an advanced strike-fighter. In both cases though, there will be challenging tradeoffs to be made as the government of India juggles the operational excellence of the various contenders, their unit and lifecycle costs, their contributions to leavening India’s defence industry, and their capacity to deepen the country’s strategic partnerships.

When these variables are assessed synoptically, the American offerings prove to be remarkably competitive — not entirely a surprise, even if the circumstances that permitted their re-entry were not initially anticipated. In any event, India should treat the winners chosen in both the IAF and IN competitions merely as ‘interim’ acquisitions despite the fact that these aircraft will be in service for several decades. Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters — a technology area where, at least to date, American suppliers dominate in the international marketplace. Perhaps that is one more reason for giving Lockheed Martin and Boeing serious consideration in the current competition.

This article was originally published in FORCE.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Do you even know why Indian Navy want two engine configuration for carrier borne fighters ?
> 
> gripen can be selected only if saab manage to fit twin engine on it. which is not possible.
> so, don't dream.



The Tejas is underpowered, so it cannot takeoff with the expected weapons/fuel load.
So far, there is not a single loss of Gripen due to engine failure, even though birdstrike occur.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Tejas is underpowered, so it cannot takeoff with the expected weapons/fuel load.
> So far, there is not a single loss of Gripen due to engine failure, even though birdstrike occur.


Do you know the definition of Technology demonstrator?
That was only a TD after that PV, LSP and SP , thats the process of manufacturing.

And IN want two engines as a caution of engine failure during carrier operations and Saab is a zero in developing carrier borne fighter and even behind ADA . ADA developed a working prototype where as Gripen is only a paper plane.
rest you can understand only if you choose to be *unbiased*.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> Do you know the definition of Technology demonstrator?
> That was only a TD after that PV, LSP and SP , thats the process of manufacturing.
> 
> And IN want two engines as a caution of engine failure during carrier operations and Saab is a zero in developing carrier borne fighter and even behind ADA . ADA developed a working prototype where as Gripen is only a paper plane.
> rest you can understand only if you choose to be *unbiased*.



Modern Western Jet Engines are much more reliable.
That is why the US Navy is getting single engine F-35, instead of dual engine fighters.
No Gripen has been lost due to engine failure.
I can understand that a pilot used to flying Russian jets may be concerned though.

SAAB is very experienced in STOL. Carrier operation is not magic.
Rafale M/Super Hornet compatible with IAC-1 are also paper planes.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Modern Western Jet Engines are much more reliable.
> That is why the US Navy is getting single engine F-35, instead of dual engine fighters.
> No Gripen has been lost due to engine failure.
> I can understand that a pilot used to flying Russian jets may be concerned though.
> 
> SAAB is very experienced in STOL. Carrier operation is not magic.
> Rafale M/Super Hornet compatible with IAC-1 are also paper planes.


You will be happy to see GRIPEN rejected only because of a single engine fighter.

You tried hard by veering off from the topic many timed by pulling out the lift size, NLCA TD and IAF SE jet tender but finally you failed to stick with one topic. So, I request you to take a chill pill and enjoy the Indian show...

Good Day...


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

X_Killer said:


> You will be happy to see GRIPEN rejected only because of a single engine fighter.
> 
> You tried hard by veering off from the topic many timed by pulling out the lift size, NLCA TD and IAF SE jet tender but finally you failed to stick with one topic. So, I request you to take a chill pill and enjoy the Indian show...
> 
> Good Day...



The topic is the selection criteria for Indias fighter tenders, so lifts, single engine, NLCA is all part of that.
I already consider the Gripen M a dark horse in the IN tender,
but neither a Rafale nor a Super Hornet is a straightforward decision.
I would only be annoyed if IN make the selection because of the type of non-rational thinking that you excel on.

Here is the opinion of a USAF pilot.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9347

_Salute! 

I am compelled to weigh in here. 

Much of my data are from personal experience. 

When I got to the Viper, I found that our motors were NOT the exact replica of the Eagle motors. We had BUC and our components were tested to a higher standard than for jets with two motors. Hmmmmm. 

Turns out that fatalities are not related to single-engine versus multi-engine as much as they are related to human screw-ups. 

I went thru two periods where my jets were grounded and we did taxi drills to keep all the hydraulic seals supple, etc.(A-7D and F-16A). Both were related to motor problems that we eventually fixed. Both involved a high rate of jet losses, but no pilot losses. I don't recall any pilot dead due to an engine failure in any jet I ever flew. 

The F-106 was a single-seat, single-engine jet that had about the lowest loss rate of any plane ever built. The Thud also had a very low loss rate except for their decimation over North Vietnam. 

The single-engine jets are lots cheaper and go further for a pound of JP-4 than any twin-engine fighter ever built. I have flown both types and will swear to it. 

Some folks want the "security" that the extra motor seems to offer. True, if you want to bail out 100 miles from the carrier or over enemy territory, seems to make sense. But I'll tell ya. The Thuds were not eliminated because their motors failed - THEY WERE SHOT DOWN!!! 

If you get a Alkali or Alamo or Aphid or Guideline or Strella or .... up your butt, won't make no difference if you have one motor, or two, or four. 


The F-18, as with the Viper, has had more fatalities due to pilot error than having to do with the motors. The Blue Angel prang this year will likely be due to gee-loc. Nothing to do with motors. Same for most of the Viper accidents I saw firsthand at Hill between 1979 and 1984. Last five were 100% pilot error - all fatalities, and it was a sad last 18 months of my career. 

Guess we can find a website someplace with all the stats and comparisons. But for now, I'll go with the single-seat, single-engine jets unless the mission requires two or more folks. _


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Saab to tie-up with Adani to build Gripen fighter in India*

http://smartinvestor.business-stand...uild_Gripen_fighter_in_India.htm#.Wac_29GeyhA

The battle lines are becoming clear in the globally watched, multi-billion dollar contest to build 100-200 single-engine fighters in India for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

Business Standard learns that, on Friday, Swedish defence and aerospace major, Saab, will announce a partnership with the Adani group to manufacture defence equipment in India, including Saab’s new Gripen E single-engine, medium fighter if that is chosen by the IAF.

On June 19, at the Paris Air Show, US defence giant Lockheed Martin had signed an agreement with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) to jointly build the F-16 Block 70 in India, if the IAF selects the fighter.

Neither the Lockheed-Tata, nor the forthcoming Saab-Adani combines have any assurance yet that their fighter would be chosen. But both combines are positioning themselves and signalling that intent to New Delhi.

Just as Ratan Tata personally attended the signing of the agreement in Paris, Saab’s president and chief executive, Hakan Buskhe, is flying into Delhi from Sweden to make the announcement along with Adani executives.

The competing combines are far ahead of New Delhi, which has not yet initiated procurement by sending vendors a “request for information" (RFI) or “request for proposals" (RFP). So far, the IAF has only sent out a one-page letter to foreign aerospace vendors, asking whether they are interested in building a single-engine fighter in India with an Indian private industry partner.

*Fight for contracts*

100-200 single-engine fighters to be made in India for the IAF Saab might build its new Gripen E, a single-engine, medium fighter, in IndiaLockheed Martin had also signed a deal with TASL to jointly build the F-16 Block 70 in IndiaThere is near a certainty that both Lockheed Martin and Saab will be selected as vendors

According to the defence ministry’s “strategic partner" (SP) policy, which will govern this procurement, the ministry is first required to prepare a short list of foreign vendors; and one of private Indian firms that are equipped to build such an aircraft. Then, the chosen companies are required to form partnerships and prepare proposals for evaluation by New Delhi.

While there is near certainty that both Lockheed Martin, with its F-16 Block 70, and Saab, with its Gripen E, would be selected as foreign vendors, there is less assurance that TASL or the Adani group would be designated as strategic partners.

After approving the strategic partnerships, the IAF would evaluate and choose one of the fighters.

Lockheed Martin has pitched aggressively, stating in a company release that transferring the world’s only F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas, to India “creates new manufacturing jobs in India, and positions Indian industry at the center of the most extensive fighter aircraft supply ecosystem in the world".

Saab projects an equal confidence, based on its argument that the Gripen E is the world’s most modern fighter and that Swedish industry would transfer technology far more generously to India than Washington would ever permit Lockheed Martin to.


----------



## X_Killer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> *Saab to tie-up with Adani to build Gripen fighter in India*
> 
> http://smartinvestor.business-stand...uild_Gripen_fighter_in_India.htm#.Wac_29GeyhA
> 
> The battle lines are becoming clear in the globally watched, multi-billion dollar contest to build 100-200 single-engine fighters in India for the Indian Air Force (IAF).
> 
> Business Standard learns that, on Friday, Swedish defence and aerospace major, Saab, will announce a partnership with the Adani group to manufacture defence equipment in India, including Saab’s new Gripen E single-engine, medium fighter if that is chosen by the IAF.
> 
> On June 19, at the Paris Air Show, US defence giant Lockheed Martin had signed an agreement with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) to jointly build the F-16 Block 70 in India, if the IAF selects the fighter.
> 
> Neither the Lockheed-Tata, nor the forthcoming Saab-Adani combines have any assurance yet that their fighter would be chosen. But both combines are positioning themselves and signalling that intent to New Delhi.
> 
> Just as Ratan Tata personally attended the signing of the agreement in Paris, Saab’s president and chief executive, Hakan Buskhe, is flying into Delhi from Sweden to make the announcement along with Adani executives.
> 
> The competing combines are far ahead of New Delhi, which has not yet initiated procurement by sending vendors a “request for information" (RFI) or “request for proposals" (RFP). So far, the IAF has only sent out a one-page letter to foreign aerospace vendors, asking whether they are interested in building a single-engine fighter in India with an Indian private industry partner.
> 
> *Fight for contracts*
> 
> 100-200 single-engine fighters to be made in India for the IAF Saab might build its new Gripen E, a single-engine, medium fighter, in IndiaLockheed Martin had also signed a deal with TASL to jointly build the F-16 Block 70 in IndiaThere is near a certainty that both Lockheed Martin and Saab will be selected as vendors
> 
> According to the defence ministry’s “strategic partner" (SP) policy, which will govern this procurement, the ministry is first required to prepare a short list of foreign vendors; and one of private Indian firms that are equipped to build such an aircraft. Then, the chosen companies are required to form partnerships and prepare proposals for evaluation by New Delhi.
> 
> While there is near certainty that both Lockheed Martin, with its F-16 Block 70, and Saab, with its Gripen E, would be selected as foreign vendors, there is less assurance that TASL or the Adani group would be designated as strategic partners.
> 
> After approving the strategic partnerships, the IAF would evaluate and choose one of the fighters.
> 
> Lockheed Martin has pitched aggressively, stating in a company release that transferring the world’s only F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas, to India “creates new manufacturing jobs in India, and positions Indian industry at the center of the most extensive fighter aircraft supply ecosystem in the world".
> 
> Saab projects an equal confidence, based on its argument that the Gripen E is the world’s most modern fighter and that Swedish industry would transfer technology far more generously to India than Washington would ever permit Lockheed Martin to.


This is what I was claimed for but at that time you loved to have TASL as a partner. Remember...


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

A.P. Richelieu said:


> *Saab to tie-up with Adani to build Gripen fighter in India*
> 
> http://smartinvestor.business-stand...uild_Gripen_fighter_in_India.htm#.Wac_29GeyhA
> 
> The battle lines are becoming clear in the globally watched, multi-billion dollar contest to build 100-200 single-engine fighters in India for the Indian Air Force (IAF).
> 
> Business Standard learns that, on Friday, Swedish defence and aerospace major, Saab, will announce a partnership with the Adani group to manufacture defence equipment in India, including Saab’s new Gripen E single-engine, medium fighter if that is chosen by the IAF.
> 
> On June 19, at the Paris Air Show, US defence giant Lockheed Martin had signed an agreement with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) to jointly build the F-16 Block 70 in India, if the IAF selects the fighter.
> 
> Neither the Lockheed-Tata, nor the forthcoming Saab-Adani combines have any assurance yet that their fighter would be chosen. But both combines are positioning themselves and signalling that intent to New Delhi.
> 
> Just as Ratan Tata personally attended the signing of the agreement in Paris, Saab’s president and chief executive, Hakan Buskhe, is flying into Delhi from Sweden to make the announcement along with Adani executives.
> 
> The competing combines are far ahead of New Delhi, which has not yet initiated procurement by sending vendors a “request for information" (RFI) or “request for proposals" (RFP). So far, the IAF has only sent out a one-page letter to foreign aerospace vendors, asking whether they are interested in building a single-engine fighter in India with an Indian private industry partner.
> 
> *Fight for contracts*
> 
> 100-200 single-engine fighters to be made in India for the IAF Saab might build its new Gripen E, a single-engine, medium fighter, in IndiaLockheed Martin had also signed a deal with TASL to jointly build the F-16 Block 70 in IndiaThere is near a certainty that both Lockheed Martin and Saab will be selected as vendors
> 
> According to the defence ministry’s “strategic partner" (SP) policy, which will govern this procurement, the ministry is first required to prepare a short list of foreign vendors; and one of private Indian firms that are equipped to build such an aircraft. Then, the chosen companies are required to form partnerships and prepare proposals for evaluation by New Delhi.
> 
> While there is near certainty that both Lockheed Martin, with its F-16 Block 70, and Saab, with its Gripen E, would be selected as foreign vendors, there is less assurance that TASL or the Adani group would be designated as strategic partners.
> 
> After approving the strategic partnerships, the IAF would evaluate and choose one of the fighters.
> 
> Lockheed Martin has pitched aggressively, stating in a company release that transferring the world’s only F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas, to India “creates new manufacturing jobs in India, and positions Indian industry at the center of the most extensive fighter aircraft supply ecosystem in the world".
> 
> Saab projects an equal confidence, based on its argument that the Gripen E is the world’s most modern fighter and that Swedish industry would transfer technology far more generously to India than Washington would ever permit Lockheed Martin to.


we must not buy f16. we have tejas so why not make in big numbers? why go forign? if we want forign then go but no f16. it is junk plane. also pakistan too has f16. so double junk.

Gripen E is 100 times better then american junk 16


----------



## X_Killer

Dark Lord Forever said:


> Gripen E is 100 times better then american junk 16


will you please explain how?


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

X_Killer said:


> will you please explain how?


america is not trustfull

america giving money to pakistan

pakistan having american plans f16

america will not give tot

america plan is 40 year old

you want know more?


----------



## Skull and Bones

Just get some more Mig-29Ks for IAC 1, and focus on Rafale for follow on carriers and air force.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Skull and Bones said:


> Just get some more Mig-29Ks for IAC 1, and focus on Rafale for follow on carriers and air force.



IN is not exactly impressed with the MiG-29K.
It seems to need repair after almost every landing,


----------



## duhastmish

A.P. Richelieu said:


> IN is not exactly impressed with the MiG-29K.
> It seems to need repair after almost every landing,


Throw them a few dollars they will dance to any tune.

Problem is we are not rich. Can't afford multi country hardware
Why did they choose mig29 earlier ? Why doesn't Russia face same problem.

There is problem with maintaining the jets.

We must choose wise and cost effective as well.

If we don't have capacity to build one how can we maintain someone else's product with such assurance


----------



## TheBlackCoat

*http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-may-choose-swedish-gripens-or-f-16s-4823046/*

*Not more Rafales, IAF may choose Gripens or F-16s*
*The selection between these two single-engine fighter jets will be done using the Strategic Partnership (SP) model while there are no immediate plans to induct more twin-engine Rafale aircraft.*

Written by Sushant Singh | New Delhi | Updated: September 1, 2017 12:52 am




36 Rafale fighters will be inducted by 2023. IAF has 32 fighter squadrons against the required 42.
RELATED NEWS




Rafale deal: France rejects bank guarantee, awaits India’s reply



Taking Off



French have marginally reduced the price of Rafale planes: Govt sources
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has shortlisted American F-16 and Swedish Gripen fighter aircraft for induction into its fleet to make up the shortfall of fighter squadrons. The selection between these two single-engine fighter jets will be done using the Strategic Partnership (SP) model while there are no immediate plans to induct more twin-engine Rafale aircraft. “We are currently focused single-mindedly on the issue of procurement of single-engine fighters following the SP route,” a defence ministry official told The Indian Express. “Procurement of a twin-engine fighter is not on priority right now as the focus today is on procurement of single-engine fighters.”

The Defence Ministry had signed an order for 36 Rafale fighters with the French government last September, which will be inducted by 2023. There is a follow-up clause for buying another 36 fighters as part of the deal, which may be exercised at a later date.

The official said the Request for Information will be issued in a couple of months for approximately 100 single-engine fighters, out of which 18 will be brought to India in a fly-away condition. The rest will be manufactured under ‘Make in India’ and will include technology transfer as mandated in the SP Model.

The official confirmed only two aircraft available in the global market — F-16 and Gripen — meet IAF’s requirement criteria. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of F-16, and Saab, which manufactures Gripen, have shown their interest in bringing their production lines to India. Last year, they had submitted their proposals, which were studied by the IAF.


The IAF’s strength of 42 fighter squadrons “is the minimum strength necessary to dominate a two-front conflict’’, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa had told The Indian Express in June. The IAF has 32 fighter squadrons and is tasked with tackling a two-front collusive threat from China and Pakistan. The reduced numbers place a severe handicap akin to a cricket team playing with seven players instead of 11, Dhanoa had said.

Due to retirement of vintage aircraft, the numbers will be going down further by 2021. By then, 11 squadrons of Mig-21 and Mig-27, which are 35 to 45 years old, will be retiring from service.

To mitigate the shortfall, besides choosing between F-16 and Gripen, the ministry is keen on IAF acquiring the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), another single-engine fighter. The IAF has placed an order for two squadrons of Tejas LCA and is in the process of placing orders for four additional LCA squadrons. But Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s production line of Tejas is unable to provide the aircraft on time, making the shortfall critical.


----------



## X_Killer

Dark Lord Forever said:


> america is not trustfull
> 
> america giving money to pakistan
> 
> pakistan having american plans f16
> 
> america will not give tot
> 
> america plan is 40 year old
> 
> you want know more?


before making such comments, you have to know something about Strategic Relationships.
As of now, America is align more towards Indian than Pak.
For your query about ToT , whatever LM want to produce with TASL, they have to share its technology with its strategic partner ( which is the main requirement of SPM)


----------



## Taygibay

TheBlackCoat said:


> The Defence Ministry had signed an order for 36 Rafale fighters with the French government last September, which will be inducted by 2023. *There is a follow-up clause for buying another 36 fighters as part of the deal, which may be exercised at a later date.*



Nope, simply No!
The GtoG for the Rafale buy has an 18ACs option.
The second batch of 36 is a new buy from GoI to Fr.

When you quote a piece whose author can't correct
such a blatant error, assuming he's not giving us an
actual evidently wrong statement by the supposed
MoD official which would be worse, it's wasted BW.

Good day to you, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

X_Killer said:


> before making such comments, you have to know something about Strategic Relationships.
> As of now, America is align more towards Indian than Pak.
> For your query about ToT , whatever LM want to produce with TASL, they have to share its technology with its strategic partner ( which is the main requirement of SPM)


america will never support india aginst pakistan.
america knows pakistan power.
if pakistan put senction on america then america get stuck in afghanistan.
america is playing double game.
america is great satan.

f 16 is pakistan's speciiality. indian pilots will loose aginst pakistani f16 because pakistani pilot's long experience on f 16. pakistani airforce is very serious. indian airforce is mixed pickle airforce.

if india bys f 16 then indian mixed pickle airforce will loose.


----------



## Taygibay

Dark Lord Forever said:


> america will never support india aginst pakistan.
> Because its love for Pakistan is so sincere?
> america knows pakistan power.
> Which runs against your argument.
> if pakistan put senction on america then america get stuck in afghanistan.
> Pakistan? Sanctions? On what? And aren't you forgetting the UNSC veto?
> america is playing double game.
> Actually, so much so and for so long that we should say the US plays only one game,
> shouldn't we? Their own, which they intend to win of course but still, not double at all!
> america is great satan.
> Then there are countless Satanic minions, i.e. mid sized Satans as with mid-sized sedans.



Don't take it too personal  but that list was doubtful at best.
Have a great day in any case, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## X_Killer

Dark Lord Forever said:


> america will never support india aginst pakistan.


This is what US is doing in recent era


Dark Lord Forever said:


> america knows pakistan power.


They knows Pak's power hence, you tightens the Rules to release further financial aids


Dark Lord Forever said:


> if pakistan put senction on america then america get stuck in afghanistan.


There are already several sanctions on **** entities including some companies providing parts for nuclear programs, sanctions on **** future political leaders (Indian and US declared terrorists)


Dark Lord Forever said:


> america is playing double game.


India also know how to handle opposite poles together


Dark Lord Forever said:


> f 16 is pakistan's speciiality. indian pilots will loose aginst pakistani f16 because pakistani pilot's long experience on f 16. pakistani airforce is very serious. indian airforce is mixed pickle airforce.


I know the level of seriousness. If I elaborate it than PDF admins gets furious and put ban on me. Don't force me to reveal the seriousness.


Dark Lord Forever said:


> if india bys f 16 then indian mixed pickle airforce will loose.


IAF knows what they need and what they are procuring , don't take tension about it


----------



## Dark Lord Forever

X_Killer said:


> This is what US is doing in recent era


us policy is big fail. soon they will return to pakistan begging for friendship. and pakistan wil ask usa to put sanctions on india.



> They knows Pak's power hence, you tightens the Rules to release further financial aids


usa will stop ginving spare to mixed pickle airforce so mixed pickle airforce will cry and loose to pakistani superior airforce.



> There are already several sanctions on **** entities including some companies providing parts for nuclear programs, sanctions on **** future political leaders (Indian and US declared terrorists)


****???? make no sense.



> India also know how to handle opposite poles together


no big wrong. russia is now pakistan's iron brother. will give pakistan s400 and say no to india. indian forign policy is now a big fail. 

long live china-pakistan-russia allince.



> I know the level of seriousness. If I elaborate it than PDF admins gets furious and put ban on me. Don't force me to reveal the seriousness.


pakistani airforce is most lean and mean in asia. pakistan is now airforce power only second to china.



> IAF knows what they need and what they are procuring , don't take tension about it


mixed pickle airforce is confused. they daily change their mind. 1 day they say rafale. 2nd day f16. 3rd day gripen. 4th day pakfa. 5th day tejas. lol  mixed pickle airforce is having mental breakdown.


----------



## TheBlackCoat

*https://www.defensenews.com/global/.../1/17&utm_term=Editorial - Daily News Roundup*


*Mattis reportedly threatens Swedish defense cooperation over nuclear treaty*
By: Aaron Mehta   10 hours ago
Dagens Nyheterin reported this week that Swedish officials are upset by the letter, sent to Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist, which indicated defense industrial cooperation between the two nations could be endangered if Sweden signs onto the treaty, as is expected.

The report, translated into English for Defense News by Dagens Nyheterin security policy correspondent Mikael Holmström, said Mattis warned Hultqvist that signing the treaty could directly impact Sweden’s relationship with NATO.



Sweden is part of NATO’s so-called Gold Card program, which gives it privileged rights as a non-NATO member; that status is up for renewal in October. In addition, the letter stated that Sweden signing the nuclear ban would close the option of joining NATO in the future, according to Dagens Nyheterin.

The Swedish paper also cited a source raising fears that signing the nuclear agreement could impact defense industrial cooperation between Sweden and the U.S., including programs being worked on by Saab. Although not mentioned specifically, Saab is teamed with Boeing on a design for the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation trainer aircraft.

Pentagon spokesman Johnny Michael declined to comment on the letter itself, but said the U.S. “does have serious concerns with the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty, and strongly discourages states from signing or ratifying” as it contains provisions that “could potentially affect our ability to cooperate with parties to the treaty on issues of mutual interest. It also undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime.”

However, the U.S. “values its defense relationship with Sweden,” Michael added.

One hundred twenty-two countries agreed to endorse the treaty against nuclear weapons at the United Nations, which is up for a formal vote Sept. 20. Sweden was one of the nations that endorsed the treaty, and Foreign Minister Margot Wallström has previously stated Sweden intends to officially sign on. Hultqvist, for his part, is reportedly against signing the document.

Sign up for our Daily News Roundup - The top Defense News stories of the day
For more newsletters click here
The U.S. is a vocal critic of the nuclear weapons ban, due to its longstanding policy of nuclear deterrence, but Mattis reportedly threatening cooperation between the two nations over Sweden’s decision to sign the treaty surprised Jim Townsend, who spent eight years as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy and is now with the think tank Center for a New American Security.




*Interview: Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist*
Sweden’s minister of defense spoke with Defense News while in Washington for his first meeting with officials from the Trump administration.

By: Aaron Mehta
“You don’t use a threat to the bilateral relationship lightly; the impact on your own national security from actually using the leverage if you don’t get your way can be damaging. The cause had better be worth the risk,” Townsend said.

Townsend said it was not surprising the U.S. would push an ally on not signing the treaty, and he noted his office had expressed similar sentiments in the past. But adding a threat, as this letter reportedly did, strikes him as misguided.

“They are a close friend in a dangerous neighborhood, and so threatening that important relationship lacks some credibility. Do the Swedes really think we would downgrade our relationship to punish them for signing a nuclear ban treaty?” Townsend said. “However, if Sweden did join NATO, they would have to reverse their anti-nuke stance because NATO is a nuclear alliance and so Sweden as a NATO member would participate in the nuclear planning as well.”

Hultqvist, who is still under the threat of a no-confidence vote in Sweden over a security breach resulting from the Transport Agency’s outsourcing of an information technology database contract to IBM in 2015, told Defense News in a May interview that he was confident relations between his office and the Pentagon would remain strong under the Trump administration.

“I have no signals that anything has changed between the United States and Sweden. I think we have the same position we have had with all administrations,” he said May 17. “So I think there is stability in our relations. I am looking forward to discussing with him how to move forward and what we are going to do in the future.”

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

Dark Lord Forever said:


> us policy is big fail. soon they will return to pakistan begging for friendship. and pakistan wil ask usa to put sanctions on india.


DAY DREAMING 


Dark Lord Forever said:


> usa will stop ginving spare to mixed pickle airforce so mixed pickle airforce will cry and loose to pakistani superior airforce





Dark Lord Forever said:


> no big wrong. russia is now pakistan's iron brother. will give pakistan s400 and say no to india. indian forign policy is now a big fail.


Russia never cater beggars. They can't share any thing for free or even at compensated price because their economy is not strong enough. You guys can rely on sub standard chinese material


Dark Lord Forever said:


> *pakistani airforce is most lean and mean in asia.* pakistan is now airforce power only second to china.


consult a good psychiatrist on urgent basis. 


Dark Lord Forever said:


> mixed pickle airforce is confused. they daily change their mind. 1 day they say rafale. 2nd day f16. 3rd day gripen. 4th day pakfa. 5th day tejas. lol  mixed pickle airforce is having mental breakdown.


I don't know what is you level of understandings but it should be below average because you generally believe on journo articles and non-official sources.

buddy, at the end of the day, You made my day awesome 

@The Eagle 
He is a false flagger, look over it.

Good day to all.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage....-39c-gripen-versus-the-su-30mkkmk2-flanker-g/

JAS-39 GRIPEN, SU-30MKK FLANKER-G
*THE FLANKER-G KILLER: THE JAS-39C GRIPEN VERSUS THE SU-30MKK/MK2 FLANKER-G*
NOVEMBER 14, 2013 RHK111 31 COMMENTS


_Revised March 26, 2014. See bottom of the page for the complete revision history_

_**********_




A JAS-39C Gripen of the Czechoslovakian Air Force. Photo courtesy of Saab AB thru Flickr
Aside from the F-16C, another aircraft that the Philippine Air Force (PhAF) has its sights on for the Philippines’ main combat aircraft is the JAS-39 Gripen. An informal survey by the Philippine News Agency just a couple of months ago showed that most PhAF pilots preferred to have the Gripen to be the country’s next fighter aircraft.[1] We’ve already seen how the F-16C could fare against the SU-30MKK in my blog, “The F-16C Block 50/52+ Viper versus the SU-30MKK/MK2 Flanker-G“, let us now take a look at how the JAS-39 could fare against the same adversary.

‘Aircraft Backgrounds’
The JAS-39 is made by the Swedish company “Saab” and first entered service with the Swedish Air Force in 1997. It is described as a lightweight Multi Role Fighter (MRF) and 250 aircrafts have been built so far in service with 6 countries around the world. The JAS-39C is the latest mass produced version of the aircraft introduced into service in 2003 with improvements like better avionics, in-flight refuelling capability and an improved oxygen system for long-duration flights. The aircraft’s official name is “Gripen” which is the Swedish word for “Griffin”,[2] a mythical creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an Eagle.

The SU-30 is an improved version of the SU-27 Flanker made by the Russian Federation’s “Sukhoi Company” and entered service with the Russian Air Force in 1996. It is described as a heavy, long-range, all-weather strike fighter and around 400+ aircrafts have been built so far in service with 9 countries around the world. The SU-30MKK is the special export version to China of the SU-30 which went into the Chinese Air Force service in 2000. China ordered 76 aircraft which were delivered between 2000-2003, and in case of any war, it will be China’s main frontline aircraft as it is its most capable combat aircraft right now.

The SU-30MK2 is the maritime version of the SU-30MKK intended for use by China on its carrier fleet if ever they do get to finally field them. It differs from the SU-30MKK mainly because it uses Chinese-made avionics. China has 24 of these, first delivered in 2004. The official NATO code name for the SU-30MKK is the “Flanker-G”.[3]

‘Evaluation Notes’
For the “Maneuverability” and “Payload and Range” sections, the following considerations were made:
– Weights with 100% internal fuel was used to try to simulate the aircrafts going into combat with full internal fuel after dropping their External Fuel Tanks.
– The weights of the armaments were not included as the RATIOS and DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BOTH AIRCRAFTS will remain the same if they will be armed with the same type and same number of armaments.
– Data for each aircraft was derived from various websites at [3][4][5].

‘Manueverability’
For both aircraft’s maneuvering capability, I am looking at their LIMIT LOAD FACTOR*, WING LOADING* and POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO.* I would’ve wanted to take a look at more aspects like Stall Speed, Maximum Alpha, etc., but those data are hard to come by for both aircraft. Hence, these should suffice for now. Remember that a lower Wing Loading means the aircraft can turn tighter and vice-versa, and a higher Thrust-to-Weight Ratio means the aircraft can go faster going straight up or straight down and vice-versa.




* SUMMARY
– POSITIVE LIMIT LOAD FACTOR: Even for both aircraft.
– WING LOADING: Favors the Gripen C with its decisive 23% lower wing loading.
– THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO: Almost even for both aircrafts, with a minute advantage for the Flanker-G.

+++ Typical of its delta-wing design, the Gripen has a relatively large wing compared to its size and weight, and this translates to excellent turning ability especially in the horizontal plane. With its advantage in wing loading and the even numbers for the TTWR, a clear advantage for the Gripen C in terms of maneuverability.

‘Payload and Range’
For Range, I am using INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION (INTFF)* as a rough indicator how far each aircraft can go based on the internal fuel available to them.




* SUMMARY
– INTFF: Favors the Flanker-G by a huge 68%, indicating it can travel 68% farther for the same engine fuel efficiency.
– PAYLOAD: Also favors the Flanker-G as it can carry a commanding 57% (2,890 kg) more load than the Gripen C.

+++ Here the Flanker-G’s ability as an OFFENSIVE aircraft shines as it shows it can carry more load and carry it much farther than the Gripen C, making it an ideal strike aircraft to complement its air superiority role.




An SU-30MKK Flanker-G of China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force. Photo courtesy of the Top81.cn Website
‘Air Combat-related Avionics and Weapons’
Here I am comparing the capability of both aircrafts in terms of Within Visual Range (WVR) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air combat thru their Avionics and Weapons available to them. Just some notes, though:
– Radar Cross Section (RCS) data are for “clean” aircrafts, with no armaments or fuel tanks
– Tracking range is assumed to be 85% of the Detection Range
– Closing velocity of 3,000 kph (equally divided to each aircraft) used to compute for First Look, First Shot advantage
– Missile impact is based on the top speed of its main BVR missiles
– Radar Detection Ranges and RCS data were taken from these websites:[6][7][8][9]




* SUMMARY
– WVR COMBAT: Pretty even as both aircrafts have the avionics and weapons to be competitive in WVR combat
– BVR COMBAT: Favors the Gripen C as it can track the Flanker-G 30 km sooner than the Flanker-G can track the Gripen C, and allowing also for maximum BVR missile range it will give the Gripen C a First Look, First Shot advantage of 18 seconds over the Flanker. The Flanker-G though has the advantage of an IRST sensor which is useful in certain tactical situations.

+++ A very impressive result for the Gripen C, by virtue of its extremely low RCS and decent radar. The 9,900% difference in RCS is so large that the Flanker-G’s powerful radar is not able to make up for it.

+++The Flanker-G’s IRST is useful in a limited number of situations as it will enable the Flanker-G to sneak up on its opponents without using its radar (whose emissions can be detected) and fire the first shot if necessary. However it does have limitations, it has a much shorter range than the Flanker-G’s radar at only around 35 km for head on targets,[10] which can be further reduced under certain atmospheric conditions.

‘Stealth Characteristics’
While the good detection range of Gripen C’s PS-05A radar was a big factor in its BVR dominance over the Flanker-G, the even bigger factor is its stealth characteristics. While the Gripen per se was NOT designed as a Stealth aircraft, it was designed around the time when the first operational Stealth aircraft in the F-117 Nighthawk was publicly introduced (in 1988),[11] so the designers incorporated stealth designs into its basic structure without compromising performance, hence the Gripen ended up with such a low RCS of only 0.1m^2.

*The Gripen is already a small, compact fighter with low RCS, but computer modelling was used to optimize areas such as the curves of the aircraft and the engine intakes along with their inlet tubes to deflect radar waves. Special Radar Absorbing Materials were also used in key areas enabling the Gripen to lower its RCS even further and giving it excellent advantage against radar.*

On the other hand, the F-16 first entered service almost two decades earlier than the Gripen at a time when stealth technology was just at its infancy, hence no stealth aspect was incorporated into it initially. They did make improvements on the aircraft in the latter versions to reduce its RCS from 5 m^2 to 1.2 m^2,[12] but obviously improvements can only go so far without possibly compromising the structural integrity of the aircraft, hence it cannot match the stealth characteristics of the Gripen.

‘Recent Procurements’
In terms of cost, the South African Air Force (SAAF) was able to get the Gripen for USD 77 million per aircraft in 1999,[13] but the more recent purchase by Thailand of the same Gripen C costs them between USD 91-96.5 million.[14] The difference probably came from the fact that the Thailand deal included more weapons and a comprehensive logistical support while the SAAF deal reportedly did not involve any support package, with the assumption that money for logistical support would come in later as the aircraft was operating.

Note that half of SAAF’s Gripens are currently reportedly grounded as the expected money for support did not materialize. Any deal with the PhAF will likely end up closer to the prices of the Thailand deal than the prices of the SAAF deal. This would make it just about even compared to the USD 77-133 million price of the F-16C Block 50/52+.

‘Parting Shot’
*While the F-16C Block 50/52+ could only sort of break even with the SU-30MKK in terms of overall air combat performance, the Gripen C clearly trounces the Flanker-G in BVR and WVR avenues of air combat, at least theoretically.* However, if China does go out and buy the more formidable SU-35 Flanker-E, then that will shift the advantage back into China’s favor as the Flanker-E is a very capable aircraft that only an F-22 or F-35 will be able to match up with it one on one. This is because the Flanker-E’s Irbis-E radar has a fantastic 454 km detection range for a 5 m^2 RCS target, and also has a much lower RCS itself compared to the SU-30MKK.[15]

I feel a bit sorry for the Gripen, I feel it should’ve been more commercially successful and adopted by more countries than it is now instead of losing out in a couple of international fighter procurement contract competitions. The problem with the Gripen is that it doesn’t have the political clout of the American fighters, or the lower prices of the Russian aircrafts. And it doesn’t have the payload/radar range of the other European fighters like the Typhoon or the Rafale.

But I think it is ideal for a country like ours because first, we don’t really need an aircraft with a lot of range or payload as we will be using it mainly for defensive purposes. Second, its single engine means simpler logistical support, and third as we have seen above it is very capable even against the best of China’s CURRENT fighter aircrafts. And it is also quite popular with the PhAF pilots. *IMHO, the PhAF should forget about the F-16C for now, and focus on getting the Gripen C* (the “Flanker-G Killer”, LOL) as the MINIMUM main combat aircraft for the Philippines.




A JAS-39C Gripen of the South African Air Force. Photo courtesy of Saab AB thru Flickr
SOURCES:

^[1] Pilots eye Gripen fighter jet, http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/07/03/pilots-eye-gripen-fighter-jet/

^[2] Saab JAS-39 Gripen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

^[3] SU-30MKK, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKK

^[4] Fact file: Saab JAS39 C/D Gripen, http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.p...=article&id=522&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

^[5] Su-30MKK Specifications, http://sinodefence.com/su-30mkk/

^[6] Situation Awareness (Gripen’s PS-05A Radar Detection Range), http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm

^[7] Gripen Radar Cross Section, http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552

^[8] Which Fighter Plane is the No:1 in the Indian Subcontinent in the BVR(Beyond Visual Range) arena?, http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/bestfighter.html

^[9] Zhuk-MSE, http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/Zhuk-MSE_a001457003.aspx

^[10] OLS-35 IRST option for Su-30 family, http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html

^[11] Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk

^[12] Radar Cross Section (RCS), http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

^[13] SAAF has no Gripen support contract, http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31235&catid=74&Itemid=30

^[14] Air Force eyes six more Gripen jets, http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/369209/royal-thai-air-force-eyes-six-more-gripen-jets

^[15] SU-35, http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/

* GLOSSARY
–> LIMIT LOAD FACTOR = is the maximum amount of stress load on its structure an aircraft is rated for, and is expressed in number of “G”. The “stress load” refers to the ratio of the Lift of an aircraft to its weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_(aeronautics)

–> WING LOADING = is the amount of weight the wing supports during flight, and is expressed in weight per area, or in the metric system, kg/m^2. This is computed by: (Wing Area divided by Weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

–> THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO = means how much power the aircraft has compared to its weight, and is expressed by a simple number. This is computed by: (The maximum thrust of the aircraft’s engine divided by weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_to_weight_ratio

–> INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION = is the weight of the internal fuel the aircraft compared to its maximum take-off weight, and is expressed by a simple number. Formula used is: (Maximum internal fuel capacity divided by maximum take off weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction

_**********
Revision History:
* November 14, 2013: Originally posted
* March 26, 2014: Updated footnotes to latest standard; Added G-limit as criteria for maneuverability; Added details like Tracking Range, Missile Impact, First Look-First Shot Advantage, etc. to BVR combat criteria._

_**********_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taygibay

A.P. Richelieu said:


> (The _maximum_ thrust of the aircraft’s engine divided by weight)





A.P. Richelieu said:


> (Maximum internal fuel capacity divided by maximum take off weight)



As long as you provide a glossary,  BTW,
let's be precise and say that both ratios above
vary instantaneously in use all the time. Using
maximums is a simplification for the public.

As all simplifications, it is imprecise. Of two given
aircrafts, one could have a better TW ratio at a
certain speed below maximal which if it happens
to be the one most useful/used for its missions
as per the tactics book makes it better TW-wise
even if the other has a better maximal TW ratio.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> "... as the MINIMUM main combat aircraft for the Philippines.



Excellent conclusion!

And if you want more than the minimum . . .
you do what India did only faster, call DA 

Ah!Musings ...

Great day to you, Tay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StraightShooter

*Donald Trump administration backs sale of F-16, F-18 jets to India*
The Donald Trump administration has told Congress that it "strongly supports" the sale of F-18 and F-16 fighter jets to India and asserted that the proposals have the potential to take Indo-US defence ties to the next level.

PTI| Last Updated: Thursday, September 7, 2017 - 15:06







Washington: The Donald Trump administration has told Congress that it "strongly supports" the sale of F-18 and F-16 fighter jets to India and asserted that the proposals have the potential to take Indo-US defence ties to the next level.

Alice Wells, acting assistant secretary of state for the South and Central Asian Affairs, told a Congressional Subcommittee in a written submission that defence cooperation with India would be an important pillar in the bilateral relationship as it needs the country to be a net security provider in the Indo-Pacific region.

In this context, the Trump administration has informed the Congress that it "strongly supports" the sale of F-18 and F-16 fighter proposals put forward by Boeing and Lockheed Martin respectively.

These proposals have the potential to take India US defence relationship to the next level, the official said.

"The reason why defence cooperation with India is so vital to US interests is because we need India to be a net security provider in the Indo-Pacific," Wells said.

She highlighted that the region serves as the fulcrum of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world's 90,000 commercial vessels, many sailing under the US flag, and two-thirds of traded oil travelling through the region.

Wells is also scheduled to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on "Maintaining US Influence in South Asia: The FY 2018 Budget".

She said in her submission that the Indo-Asia Pacific region is also home to nearly half of the planet's population and some of the fastest growing economies on earth.

"Working with like-minded partners, India has the strategic and economic potential to uphold the international order that has served so much of humanity over the past seven decades. The investments we make in our security partnership now will pay dividends for decades to come," she said.

As fellow democracies, countering terrorism is the critical priority for both India and the United States, she asserted.

"India is situated in a dangerous neighbourhood, where terrorist attacks have killed both Indians and Americans alike. Joint training and capacity building are essential to expanding our counter terrorism cooperation," she said, citing the State Department Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) programme in which more than 1,100 Indian security personnel have received training from the US since 2009.

Wells said India is among America's most important strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific region.
"In the words of President Trump, the relationship between India and the United States has never been stronger, has never been better," she said in the testimony.

"The President's first meeting with Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi in June set a positive tone and ambitious agenda for strengthening bilateral ties, particularly in the areas of defence, energy and trade," she added.

Talking about the trade between the US and India in her written submission, Wells said the economic relationship has largely been on a positive trajectory and America needs to do more to balance the trade deficit between the two countries, which totalled nearly USD 30 billion last year.

"We are working closely with USTR and the Commerce Department to address the concerns of the US business community regarding India, including tariff and non-tariff barriers, subsidies, localisation policies, restrictions on investment, and intellectual property concerns that limit market access and impede US exporters and businesses from entering the Indian market," Wells said.

"Our bilateral trade has more than doubled in the last decade from USD 45 billion in 2006 to more than USD 114 billion in 2016. US exports to India support more than 260,000 American jobs across all 50 states," she said.

Last year alone, investment from Indian companies supported more than 52,000 jobs in the US, she added.

She said the Trump administration is committed to ensure that the trade relationship with India is fair and reciprocal, and continue to press India to further open its markets and create a level-playing field for US companies. 

http://zeenews.india.com/india/dona...-sale-of-f-16-f-18-jets-to-india-2040302.html


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Boeing flags inexperience of private sector 'strategic partners'*

In New Delhi on Thursday, the world’s largest aerospace corporation, The Boeing Company, openly expressed what many global arms vendors have complained about in private: The Indian private sector is not yet capable of manufacturing complex military aircraft under transfer of technology (ToT).






Pratyush Kumar, Boeing’s India chief, proposed that highly experience defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs) – like Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) – be coopted, since that is where aerospace expertise and experience lies in India.

Speaking “from the vantage point of a company that has been in the aerospace industry for 100 years, across the world,” Kumar in effect proposed a major reorientation of the defence ministry’s new Strategic Partner (SP) policy.

The policy aims at creating capable defence manufacturers in the private sector, to compete with the DPSUs and Ordnance Factories (OFs) that have historically dominated defence manufacture in India. The policy requires private firms chosen as SPs to enter technology partnerships with nominated global “original equipment manufacturers” (OEMs), and jointly bid for contracts to build aircraft, helicopters, submarines and armoured vehicles for the military.

But Kumar, speaking at a seminar organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies, the air force’s think tank, pointed out that successful examples of ToT-based manufacture involved “co-opting of public enterprise and private enterprise in a way that leveraged the investment made in the public enterprise for multiple decades”.

The Boeing chief said he “tried hard, and could not find a single example [of successfully building an aircraft under ToT] where it was just the brand new private enterprise with limited aerospace experience. Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil — look at multiple countries. In all cases, there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise.”



Other foreign companies are less forthright than Boeing. With two multi-billion dollar aircraft acquisitions already launched via the SP route — for single-engine fighter aircraft and helicopters — foreign OEMs have begun partnering Indian private firms. Lockheed Martin has partnered Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) and Saab has partnered the Adani Group, anticipating a tender for the single-engine fighter.

This although TASL has never assembled an aircraft, while the Adanis have never built a single aerospace component. Foreign OEMs resent having to partner novices, but comply quietly so as not to rock the boat, said a foreign executive based in India.

Boeing is more forthright, bolstered by the confidence of being the most successful arms vendor in India over the last decade. Since 2009, Boeing has sold India aircraft worth $12 billion. These include eight P-8I maritime aircraft in 2009, and then four in a follow-up order; ten C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft in 2011; and 15 Chinook CH-47F and 22 Apache AH-64E helicopters in 2015.

While these were all sales of ready-built aircraft, Boeing is perhaps anticipating having to “Make in India” with an SP in another forthcoming contract — the navy’s multi-billion dollar acquisition of 57 ship-borne fighters for its aircraft carriers. In that acquisition, for which a tender is awaited, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would possibly compete with Dassault’s Rafale-Marine; Saab’s Sea Gripen and an upgraded version of the Russian MiG-29K/KUB.

Aspiring Indian SPs, like TASL, admit that their role in an SP contract would remain “build to print”, i.e. manufacturing sub-assemblies and assemblies to blueprints provided by the OEM. Yet, it would provide a lucrative growth opportunity.

“The need of the hour is for the ministry of defence to go forward with the two very large aerospace orders [for] single engine fighter and helicopters. Frankly, in my mind, there is nothing else to it,” said TASL chief, Sukaran Singh, at the same seminar.

In contrast, HAL chief T Suvarna Raju talked up his engineers’ design skills and experience. Pointing to the range of helicopters HAL has designed ground-up – the Dhruv advanced light helicopter, Rudra armed helicopter, and the eponymous Light Combat Helicopter and Light Utility Helicopter – he declared: “Each component of our helicopters demonstrates the skill sets of HAL designers, of their capabilities and innovation efforts. Look at the carbon composite blades and the transmission system, composite body structure, glass cockpit and many more…” The air force, however, continues to back the SP policy. “The only way to sustain the momentum in the aerospace manufacturing space is to start manufacturing here and strategic partnership model is a step in the direction,” said Air Marshal Shirish Deo, the air force’s vice-chief. The SP policy has been in the making since 2014-15. It remains contested and a work in progress.




First Published: Fri, September 08 2017. 01:49 IST 

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...sector-strategic-partners-117090800051_1.html


----------



## Water Car Engineer

A.P. Richelieu said:


> *Boeing flags inexperience of private sector 'strategic partners'*
> 
> In New Delhi on Thursday, the world’s largest aerospace corporation, The Boeing Company, openly expressed what many global arms vendors have complained about in private: The Indian private sector is not yet capable of manufacturing complex military aircraft under transfer of technology (ToT).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pratyush Kumar, Boeing’s India chief, proposed that highly experience defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs) – like Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) – be coopted, since that is where aerospace expertise and experience lies in India.
> 
> Speaking “from the vantage point of a company that has been in the aerospace industry for 100 years, across the world,” Kumar in effect proposed a major reorientation of the defence ministry’s new Strategic Partner (SP) policy.
> 
> The policy aims at creating capable defence manufacturers in the private sector, to compete with the DPSUs and Ordnance Factories (OFs) that have historically dominated defence manufacture in India. The policy requires private firms chosen as SPs to enter technology partnerships with nominated global “original equipment manufacturers” (OEMs), and jointly bid for contracts to build aircraft, helicopters, submarines and armoured vehicles for the military.
> 
> But Kumar, speaking at a seminar organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies, the air force’s think tank, pointed out that successful examples of ToT-based manufacture involved “co-opting of public enterprise and private enterprise in a way that leveraged the investment made in the public enterprise for multiple decades”.
> 
> The Boeing chief said he “tried hard, and could not find a single example [of successfully building an aircraft under ToT] where it was just the brand new private enterprise with limited aerospace experience. Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil — look at multiple countries. In all cases, there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise.”
> 
> 
> 
> Other foreign companies are less forthright than Boeing. With two multi-billion dollar aircraft acquisitions already launched via the SP route — for single-engine fighter aircraft and helicopters — foreign OEMs have begun partnering Indian private firms. Lockheed Martin has partnered Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) and Saab has partnered the Adani Group, anticipating a tender for the single-engine fighter.
> 
> This although TASL has never assembled an aircraft, while the Adanis have never built a single aerospace component. Foreign OEMs resent having to partner novices, but comply quietly so as not to rock the boat, said a foreign executive based in India.
> 
> Boeing is more forthright, bolstered by the confidence of being the most successful arms vendor in India over the last decade. Since 2009, Boeing has sold India aircraft worth $12 billion. These include eight P-8I maritime aircraft in 2009, and then four in a follow-up order; ten C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft in 2011; and 15 Chinook CH-47F and 22 Apache AH-64E helicopters in 2015.
> 
> While these were all sales of ready-built aircraft, Boeing is perhaps anticipating having to “Make in India” with an SP in another forthcoming contract — the navy’s multi-billion dollar acquisition of 57 ship-borne fighters for its aircraft carriers. In that acquisition, for which a tender is awaited, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would possibly compete with Dassault’s Rafale-Marine; Saab’s Sea Gripen and an upgraded version of the Russian MiG-29K/KUB.
> 
> Aspiring Indian SPs, like TASL, admit that their role in an SP contract would remain “build to print”, i.e. manufacturing sub-assemblies and assemblies to blueprints provided by the OEM. Yet, it would provide a lucrative growth opportunity.
> 
> “The need of the hour is for the ministry of defence to go forward with the two very large aerospace orders [for] single engine fighter and helicopters. Frankly, in my mind, there is nothing else to it,” said TASL chief, Sukaran Singh, at the same seminar.
> 
> In contrast, HAL chief T Suvarna Raju talked up his engineers’ design skills and experience. Pointing to the range of helicopters HAL has designed ground-up – the Dhruv advanced light helicopter, Rudra armed helicopter, and the eponymous Light Combat Helicopter and Light Utility Helicopter – he declared: “Each component of our helicopters demonstrates the skill sets of HAL designers, of their capabilities and innovation efforts. Look at the carbon composite blades and the transmission system, composite body structure, glass cockpit and many more…” The air force, however, continues to back the SP policy. “The only way to sustain the momentum in the aerospace manufacturing space is to start manufacturing here and strategic partnership model is a step in the direction,” said Air Marshal Shirish Deo, the air force’s vice-chief. The SP policy has been in the making since 2014-15. It remains contested and a work in progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Published: Fri, September 08 2017. 01:49 IST
> 
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...sector-strategic-partners-117090800051_1.html




They wont be inexperienced soon. HAL was also, "inexperienced", when it started to assemble it's aeroplanes.

We're seeing eager private sector companies raise plants for small arms, ammunition, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, soon aero plants for helicopters, cargo planes, jet fighters. It's a good start, with the, "help", of outside OEM, they are, "helping", India produce it's MIC. The concept of the government companies can only do this or that is coming to an end. You'll see who is inexperienced in 15+ years out of TATAs, Adanis, Reliance, etc. and HAL.


----------



## Hindustani78

Madhumathi D.S. 
BENGALURU , September 09, 2017 00:59 IST
Updated: September 09, 2017 00:59 IST
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-trials-of-improved-saras/article19647155.ece


* The 14-seater light plane was grounded after 2009 mishap *

Saras, one of the first attempts at making small, short-haul planes in the country, is rolling on its wheels after eight years, warming up before it tests its wings again.

A modified prototype of the 14-seater transport aircraft started making low-speed taxi trials in early August. Air Force pilots have completed five runs of around 45 minutes each and will next move on to high-speed taxi tests, according to Jitendra Jadhav, Director, National Aerospace Laboratories, under the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR). 

Dr. Jadhav said, “We plan to fly the aircraft in the first week of October after the high speed taxi trials are completed. We made more than 10 modifications since the accident. The performance of the plane’s systems after the modification will be evaluated during the flights.”

About 25 flights are planned in the first set of the modified prototype, the PT1N, he recently told _The Hindu_. By the end of 2019, NAL plans to fly a production-standard version for air-worthiness certification.

Except for minimum maintenance engine runs, the 14-seater aircraft has not taxied or flown since one aircraft version crashed near Bengaluru in 2009 killing all three crew members. In February this year, the Minister of Science & Technology — in whose purview NAL and other CSIR labs fall — said the government was intent on completing the plane’s development and making it flight worthy.

The revival activities started with five ground-runs of its two Pratt & Whitney engines followed by the taxi trials. A few more LSTTs [low speed taxi trials] are due.

The 10-odd modifications were made to make it more pilot-friendly, agile, or easy to control; and to enable it to fly higher. The final Saras is planned to be able to cover 1,600 km at a maximum speed of 425 kmph, have a service ceiling of 9-10 km and fly continuously for five hours.

Dr. Jadhav outlined the roadmap: "After the trial flights, the design configuration of Saras is targeted to be frozen by March 2018 as production standard. By then we should have reduced the weight and drag issues. We would have made improvements in avionics, glass cockpit, environment control systems, cabin pressure control systems and a few changes in flight control systems. We then go in for funding [from the government] for two limited series production vehicles and a static specimen.

"The current plan is that we start flying the LSPs by December 2019 for final certification," he said.

When ready, Saras, initiated in 1999 as a civil light transport plane, will first get certified for military use. The Indian Air Force has indicated a need for 15 of them. A civil variant is to follow.

Full-scale production is scheduled to be taken up in 2020 at the Kanpur facility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd - where HAL produces its Dornier-228 transport aircraft. 

The project has used up around ₹ 500 crore. Dr. Jadhav said, "We need around ₹ 550-660 crore to produce two LSP versions. We will move the necessary papers after the first flight."


----------



## Hindustani78

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

BENGALURU: HAL Chairman and Managing Director T Suvarna Raju the company's order book of Rs 41,000 crore is very low for an aeronautical industry and hoped to book fresh orders soon.

"We do have an order book today of Rs 41,000 crore, which is very very low for an aeronautical industry," Raju said.

He said "We have to only produce about 35 Sukhoi-30 aeroplanes, that's in the next three years and then there is nothing else left for us unless we start booking orders." Stating that HAL is eagerly looking for 83 LCAs which has been cleared, Rajus said "otherwise there is no fixed wing aircraft production in the next five years to come." 

However, the basic trainer aircraft HTT-40 would start the stalling and spinning tests in the next 45 days and HAL would take a production decision by the beginning of next year, he said, adding that servicing contributes to about 20 per cent of HAL's turnover while the manufacturing line is depleting. 


Raju was speaking at the Air Chief Marshal LM Katre memorial Lecture organised by Air Force Association, Karnataka, in association with HAL and Aeronautical Society of India.

The lecture was delivered by the Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal B S Dhanoa.

Pointing out that HAL's two visionary projects Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) were conceptualized during Air Chief Marshal Katre's time, Raju said "today we are proud to state that LCA production line has started delivering the aircraft." 


He said "45 Squadron has five aircraft and by the end of this year it will have 11. HAL is investing Rs 1,200 crore to enhance capacity of LCA production from eight per year to 16." "In addition we have adopted a concept of contracting higher modules of the aircraft to the Indian Industry. If the industry starts delivering these modules like front fuselage, center fuselage and rear fuselage, it adds to the capacity of HAL of 16 aeroplanes per year, plus 8 so that we could deliver 24 LCA aircraft per year to the Indian Air Force," he added. 

Raju also said HAL is parallely working on other variants along with Aeronautical Development Agency and particular developments that are required by the customer- ease of maintenance modifications- refuelling probe and AESA radars.

"We are working on it... in the next 18 to 24 months we will be able to demonstrate to our customer on LCA and the product would be delivered in numbers," he added.

Noting that on the upgrades part Jaguar DARIN-III was close to its Final Operational Clearance (FOC), Raju said "may be this month we should be concluding that." HAL would also get AESA radars for the Jaguar fleet, which is being modified under DARIN-III, he said. 

On the Dornier 228 civilian aircraft, Raju said it had just flown last month and HAL would be ready give this either on a purchase or a dry lease from December onwards.

"We are having discussions with various operators for regional connectivity," he said.


----------



## Taygibay

defence.pk/pdf/threads/make-in-india-*fighter-jet*-musings-news-developments-updates-



Hindustani78 said:


> http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-trials-of-improved-saras/article19647155.ece
> 
> 
> * The 14-seater light plane was grounded after 2009 mishap *
> 
> Saras, one of the first attempts at making small, short-haul planes in the country, is rolling on its wheels after eight years, warming up before it tests its wings again. ... ETC



*Turboprop service aircraft.*

Glaring discrepancy wouldn't you say?
This post seems misplaced here; you
might want to look for or open a thread
about all Bharat indigenous projects.

But do keep up the good info work. 

Have a great day, Tay.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Taygibay said:


> defence.pk/pdf/threads/make-in-india-*fighter-jet*-musings-news-developments-updates-
> 
> 
> 
> *Turboprop service aircraft.*
> 
> Glaring discrepancy wouldn't you say?
> This post seems misplaced here; you
> might want to look for or open a thread
> about all Bharat indigenous projects.
> 
> But do keep up the good info work.
> 
> Have a great day, Tay.



@Hindustani78 opens all kinds of threads and quickly derails them himself with all kind of rubbish.
Noone else seems to be interested in his threads, but he keeps them alive by regular
postings of non related items.
Have no clue why.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/gripen-or-f-16-its-a-dogfight/article19653621.ece
*Gripen or F-16? It’s a dogfight*

*



*

*While the Tatas have tied up with Lockheed, SAAB is aligning with the Adani group*

After several dramatic twists and turns, as the Air Force looks at procuring a new single engine fighter, the Adani group is emerging as the dark horse that could end up manufacturing a large number of India’s future fighters.

The IAF is now working on issuing Request for Information (RFI) to the two single-engine fighter manufacturers available in the global market — Lockheed Martin for its F-16 and SAAB for its Gripen. While the Tata group has tied up with Lockheed Martin for possible manufacture of F-16s in India, SAAB last week announced a tie-up with the Adani group.

“*In the present scheme of things, Gripen enjoys a clear advantage because of its capabilities,” says an Air Force source*. While the F-16 is 50 years old, the Gripen is a four-and-a-half generation fighter of very recent vintage.

The IAF had sent out an informal request asking the two manufacturers details of their products. Based on the input and other analysis, the RFI would be issued under the Strategic Partnership model in a couple of months, officers said. The target would be to acquire at least 100 fighters in the first stage, but the demand is expected to go up further now.

The government will select the preferred aircraft and its Indian partner based on submissions. Once selected, the manufacturing plant for the selected fighter is to be set up in India, with the Indian partner holding the majority stake in the venture.

*MMRCA process in mess*

“By not taking a quick decision and dragging its feet, the government has messed up the MMRCA [Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft] process,” says Air Marshal (retired) M Matheswaran, who played a crucial role in drawing up the requirements and conceptualising its original tender in the early 2000s.

“[The] original MMRCA was not only to get fighters but also to get technology here in India. All those objectives have been defeated,” he said.

The IAF in 2001 projected a requirement for 126 fighters, to fill the gap between its future indigenous light combat aircraft and the heavy-weight Sukhoi-30 fighters.

Though the initial move was to buy more Mirage 2000 fighters, it evolved into the MMRCA global tender.

In January 2012, the twin-engine Rafale fighter was declared the winner, and finally negotiations began with its French manufacturers.

*Air Force sources point out that the only reason the government has now put out the present single-engine requirement is the cost.*

The purchase of 36 Rafale fighters from France not only surprised most military sources but also upset the financial projects for the fleet modernisation, sources say.

*Air Force sources point out that the requirement is now for over 200 fighters, and the Rafales are being limited to just 36.*


----------



## StraightShooter

A.P. Richelieu said:


> @Hindustani78 opens all kinds of threads and quickly derails them himself with all kind of rubbish.
> Noone else seems to be interested in his threads, but he keeps them alive by regular
> postings of non related items.
> Have no clue why.
> 
> *Gripen or F-16? It’s a dogfight*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *While the Tatas have tied up with Lockheed, SAAB is aligning with the Adani group*
> 
> After several dramatic twists and turns, as the Air Force looks at procuring a new single engine fighter, the Adani group is emerging as the dark horse that could end up manufacturing a large number of India’s future fighters.
> 
> The IAF is now working on issuing Request for Information (RFI) to the two single-engine fighter manufacturers available in the global market — Lockheed Martin for its F-16 and SAAB for its Gripen. While the Tata group has tied up with Lockheed Martin for possible manufacture of F-16s in India, SAAB last week announced a tie-up with the Adani group.
> 
> “*In the present scheme of things, Gripen enjoys a clear advantage because of its capabilities,” says an Air Force source*. While the F-16 is 50 years old, the Gripen is a four-and-a-half generation fighter of very recent vintage.
> 
> The IAF had sent out an informal request asking the two manufacturers details of their products. Based on the input and other analysis, the RFI would be issued under the Strategic Partnership model in a couple of months, officers said. The target would be to acquire at least 100 fighters in the first stage, but the demand is expected to go up further now.
> 
> The government will select the preferred aircraft and its Indian partner based on submissions. Once selected, the manufacturing plant for the selected fighter is to be set up in India, with the Indian partner holding the majority stake in the venture.
> 
> *MMRCA process in mess*
> 
> “By not taking a quick decision and dragging its feet, the government has messed up the MMRCA [Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft] process,” says Air Marshal (retired) M Matheswaran, who played a crucial role in drawing up the requirements and conceptualising its original tender in the early 2000s.
> 
> “[The] original MMRCA was not only to get fighters but also to get technology here in India. All those objectives have been defeated,” he said.
> 
> The IAF in 2001 projected a requirement for 126 fighters, to fill the gap between its future indigenous light combat aircraft and the heavy-weight Sukhoi-30 fighters.
> 
> Though the initial move was to buy more Mirage 2000 fighters, it evolved into the MMRCA global tender.
> 
> In January 2012, the twin-engine Rafale fighter was declared the winner, and finally negotiations began with its French manufacturers.
> 
> *Air Force sources point out that the only reason the government has now put out the present single-engine requirement is the cost.*
> 
> The purchase of 36 Rafale fighters from France not only surprised most military sources but also upset the financial projects for the fleet modernisation, sources say.
> 
> *Air Force sources point out that the requirement is now for over 200 fighters, and the Rafales are being limited to just 36.*




Both Ambanis and Adanis are close to Modi while TATAs are close to Sonia. So Gripen has a very good shot if the Single Engine Fighter decision is made under Modi while F-16s would have better chance if the decision is made under congress rule.



*Adani group the dark horse in fighter race*


Josy Joseph & Dinakar Peri
NEW DELHI,SEPTEMBER 09, 2017 20:59 IST
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 09, 2017 21:04 IST


SHARE ARTICLE
4
HANDOUT_E_MAIL


*Gripen, manufactured by SAAB, enjoys a clear advantage because of its capabilities, say sources*
After several dramatic twists and turns, as the Air Force looks at procuring a new single engine fighter, the Adani group is emerging as the dark horse that could end up manufacturing a large number of India’s future fighters.

The IAF is now working on issuing Request for Information (RFI) to the two single engine fighter manufacturers available in the global market — Lockheed Martin for its F-16 and SAAB for its Gripen. While the Tata group has tied up with Lockheed Martin for possible manufacture of F-16s in India, SAAB last week announced a tie up with the Adani group.

“In the present scheme of things, Gripen enjoys a clear advantage because of its capabilities,” says an Air Force source. While the F-16 is half-a-century old fighter, the Gripen is a four-and-half generation fighter that is of very recent vintage.

The IAF had sent out an informal request asking the two manufacturers details of their products. Based on the input and other analysis, the RFI would be issued under the Strategic Partnership model in a couple of months, officers said. The target would be to acquire at least 100 fighters in the first stage, but the demand is expected to go up further now.

The government will select the preferred aircraft and its Indian partner based on submissions. Once selected, the manufacturing plant for the selected fighter is to be set up in India, with the Indian partner holding the majority stake in the venture.

MMRCA process in mess
“By not taking a quick decision and dragging its feet, the government has messed up the MMRCA [Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft] process,” says Air Marshal (retired) M Matheswaran, who played a crucial role in drawing up the MMRCA requirements and conceptualising its original tender in the early 2000s. “[The] original MMRCA was not only to get fighters but also to get technology here in India. All those objectives have been defeated,” he said.

The IAF in 2001 projected a requirement for 126 fighters, to fill the gap between its future indigenous Light Combat Aircraft and the heavy-weight Sukhoi-30 fighters. Though the initial move was to buy more Mirage 2000 fighters, it evolved into the MMRCA global tender.

In January 2012, the twin-engine Rafale fighter was declared the winner, and finally negotiations began with its French manufacturers.

Air Force sources point out that the only reason why the government has now put out the present single engine requirement is the cost. The purchase of 36 Rafale fighters from France, in a surprise move during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit there in April 2015, and in place of the ongoing negotiations for 126 fighters, not only surprised most military sources but also upset the financial projects for the fleet modernisation, sources admit.

Air Force sources point out that the requirement is now over 200 fighters, and the Rafale fighters are being limited to just 36. “Is there a single private industry with aerospace capabilities to build a fighter, to absorb that level of technology? The answer is no,” one source points out.

Air Marshal Matheswaran points out that the proposed SP model for the manufacture of fighters could end up being a mere licence production model without any significant technology gains in India.

“You will end up creating an HAL [Hindustan Aeronautics Limited] from scratch. You could have got HAL to do this work at a better pace,” says Matheswaran, who led an official landmark study on India’s aerospace capabilities.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/adani-group-the-dark-horse-in-fighter-race/article19651738.ece

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## #hydra#

Don't know why we are not pushing mk2 tejas


----------



## ranadd

#hydra# said:


> Don't know why we are not pushing mk2 tejas



Because there are loads of money to be made.

You do get that right? You don't need to let a OEM win, just help him do a tender and make money. 

Silent Singh or Mudi kaka, Middle men and babus win.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## X_Killer

#hydra# said:


> Don't know why we are not pushing mk2 tejas


There will be no significant visible progress unless or until FOC For MK1 will be achieved.
Also FOC for mk1 will be achieved within first half of 2018 for sure.
Also you may hear a news with more orders by end of 2019.


----------



## ejaz007

*Enhancing India-US Defence Ties: Easier Said Than Done*
© AP Photo/ Aijaz Rahi
ASIA & PACIFIC
20:01 04.10.2017(updated 20:21 04.10.2017)Get short URL
142161
Analysts say American companies remain reluctant to share closely-guarded technology and may avoid “liability” when jointly producing military equipment with Indian counterparts; hence India has a long way to go before it gains access to cutting-edge defense technology.

New Delhi (Sputnik) — US Defense Secretary James Mattis’ New Delhi visit last week was the first time the top leaders of the two countries interacted at a high level following the announcement of President Donald Trump’s new South Asia policy.





© AP PHOTO/ MANISH SWARUP
India, US to Expand Defense Cooperation After Mattis' Visit - Minister
The visit was preceded by widespread speculation that the two countries would hammer a deal for greater cooperation in Afghanistan, albeit in military terms. Considering an earlier offer by the US to relocate its F-16 fighter jet production line to India, a weapons deal was also highly anticipated. However, the outcome of the visit was different. While the two countries agreed to enhance defense and strategic cooperation, the actual statement by India’s Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman focused on joint projects, in line with the Indian government’s ‘Make in India’ mission.


In her joint press briefing with Mattis, Sitharaman said: “I reiterated India’s deep interest in enhancing defense manufacturing in India under PM Modi’s Make-in-India initiative. I thank Secretary Mattis for his supportive position in this regard and look forward to working closely with him to realize joint projects.”

Experts in India are divided on whether such an agreement would indeed give India access to cutting-edge weapons technology. Harsh Pant, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation is of the opinion that the agreement for further expanding defense ties will shape the trajectory of India-US bilateral ties, given the fact that healthy growth has been recorded, with defense trade rising from $1 billion to over $15 billion in the span of about a decade.

“Both India and the US recognize the importance of expanding defense ties and its broader role in shaping the trajectory of bilateral ties. More importantly, the leadership on both sides is ready to invest in that. President Trump’s South Asia strategy brings India to the center stage of Washington’s Afghanistan policy. India and the US share similar concerns and views in areas like terrorism, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and other areas. The US is no longer coy about selling sensitive military technologies to India. New Delhi, too, is ready to diversify its sources of military hardware,” Harsh Pant told Sputnik.

He says that with both countries looking to explore joint production initiatives, defense ties are expected to improve further.

"Both India and the US, through the Defense Technology and Trade Initiatives, are looking to elevate the India-US defense relationship from a buyer-seller engagement to a partnership model, working to co-develop and produce key defense technologies," Pant adds.

However, another expert points out that it is too simplistic to assume that the US-India strategic partnership in cutting-edge defense technology would be smooth, especially when both sides want to augment domestic production capabilities to boost job creation. The case in point being: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make in India initiative and President Trump’s concept of America First.

“Sitharaman would know that the US doesn’t 'co-develop' weapons or transfer military technology developed at enormous cost. It prefers to sell weapons and keep the end-users on a tight leash,” M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former career diplomat, wrote in an op-ed article in The Tribune.
Bhadrakumar opines that “US firms want to retain control over technology” and avoid “liability” when jointly producing equipment with Indian counterparts, therefore “‘Make in India’ is fast becoming a nuisance.”

“The challenge for Indian diplomacy lies in differentiating the imperative needs of India’s military modernization (and the creation of a world-class defense industry) from the geopolitics swirling around the region,” he adds.

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201710041057932236-india-us-defense-ties/


----------



## wiseone2

Lockheed Martin is gearing up to shift production of new F-16s to its Greenville, South Carolina, facility, but is still eyeing a longer-term move to India if New Delhi agrees to buy at least 100 new aircraft. Discussions between Washington and New Delhi about moving the F-16 production line to India are ongoing, says Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of F-16 business development, dispelling rumors that the move to Greenville means the India deal is a no-go.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Eyeing jet deal, Saab offers full tech transfer to India*
Updated: Nov 22, 2017, 05.13 PM IST




The Gripen-E, an advanced version of the Gripen C/D, is a light single-engine multirole fighter aircraft fitted with advanced avionics.
NEW DELHI: Swedish defence giantSaab Group said today it would ensure "full" technology transfer of its Gripen-E fighter jet to India if the company gets the contract to supply a fleet of the single engine combat aircraft to Indian Air Force.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ch-transfer-to-india/articleshow/61754171.cms


----------



## Papa Dragon

A.P. Richelieu said:


> *Boeing flags inexperience of private sector 'strategic partners'*
> 
> In New Delhi on Thursday, the world’s largest aerospace corporation, The Boeing Company, openly expressed what many global arms vendors have complained about in private: The Indian private sector is not yet capable of manufacturing complex military aircraft under transfer of technology (ToT).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pratyush Kumar, Boeing’s India chief, proposed that highly experience defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs) – like Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) – be coopted, since that is where aerospace expertise and experience lies in India.
> 
> Speaking “from the vantage point of a company that has been in the aerospace industry for 100 years, across the world,” Kumar in effect proposed a major reorientation of the defence ministry’s new Strategic Partner (SP) policy.
> 
> The policy aims at creating capable defence manufacturers in the private sector, to compete with the DPSUs and Ordnance Factories (OFs) that have historically dominated defence manufacture in India. The policy requires private firms chosen as SPs to enter technology partnerships with nominated global “original equipment manufacturers” (OEMs), and jointly bid for contracts to build aircraft, helicopters, submarines and armoured vehicles for the military.
> 
> But Kumar, speaking at a seminar organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies, the air force’s think tank, pointed out that successful examples of ToT-based manufacture involved “co-opting of public enterprise and private enterprise in a way that leveraged the investment made in the public enterprise for multiple decades”.
> 
> The Boeing chief said he “tried hard, and could not find a single example [of successfully building an aircraft under ToT] where it was just the brand new private enterprise with limited aerospace experience. Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil — look at multiple countries. In all cases, there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise.”
> 
> 
> 
> Other foreign companies are less forthright than Boeing. With two multi-billion dollar aircraft acquisitions already launched via the SP route — for single-engine fighter aircraft and helicopters — foreign OEMs have begun partnering Indian private firms. Lockheed Martin has partnered Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) and Saab has partnered the Adani Group, anticipating a tender for the single-engine fighter.
> 
> This although TASL has never assembled an aircraft, while the Adanis have never built a single aerospace component. Foreign OEMs resent having to partner novices, but comply quietly so as not to rock the boat, said a foreign executive based in India.
> 
> Boeing is more forthright, bolstered by the confidence of being the most successful arms vendor in India over the last decade. Since 2009, Boeing has sold India aircraft worth $12 billion. These include eight P-8I maritime aircraft in 2009, and then four in a follow-up order; ten C-17 Globemaster III heavy lift aircraft in 2011; and 15 Chinook CH-47F and 22 Apache AH-64E helicopters in 2015.
> 
> While these were all sales of ready-built aircraft, Boeing is perhaps anticipating having to “Make in India” with an SP in another forthcoming contract — the navy’s multi-billion dollar acquisition of 57 ship-borne fighters for its aircraft carriers. In that acquisition, for which a tender is awaited, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would possibly compete with Dassault’s Rafale-Marine; Saab’s Sea Gripen and an upgraded version of the Russian MiG-29K/KUB.
> 
> Aspiring Indian SPs, like TASL, admit that their role in an SP contract would remain “build to print”, i.e. manufacturing sub-assemblies and assemblies to blueprints provided by the OEM. Yet, it would provide a lucrative growth opportunity.
> 
> “The need of the hour is for the ministry of defence to go forward with the two very large aerospace orders [for] single engine fighter and helicopters. Frankly, in my mind, there is nothing else to it,” said TASL chief, Sukaran Singh, at the same seminar.
> 
> In contrast, HAL chief T Suvarna Raju talked up his engineers’ design skills and experience. Pointing to the range of helicopters HAL has designed ground-up – the Dhruv advanced light helicopter, Rudra armed helicopter, and the eponymous Light Combat Helicopter and Light Utility Helicopter – he declared: “Each component of our helicopters demonstrates the skill sets of HAL designers, of their capabilities and innovation efforts. Look at the carbon composite blades and the transmission system, composite body structure, glass cockpit and many more…” The air force, however, continues to back the SP policy. “The only way to sustain the momentum in the aerospace manufacturing space is to start manufacturing here and strategic partnership model is a step in the direction,” said Air Marshal Shirish Deo, the air force’s vice-chief. The SP policy has been in the making since 2014-15. It remains contested and a work in progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Published: Fri, September 08 2017. 01:49 IST
> 
> http://www.business-standard.com/ar...sector-strategic-partners-117090800051_1.html


LM and Boeing have already denied ToT for their fighter jets. They are very much aware that Indian private sector would catch up pretty fast if they are coopted which would pave way for rapid development of indigenous defense industry and soon foreign players would be irrelevant in India. 

While, if they partner with a PSU which everyone knows are inefficient and highly corrupt, they would still have a chance to mint money and continue selling their outdated weapons systems to India as PSUs aren't good at absorbing ToT

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Papa Dragon said:


> LM and Boeing have already denied ToT for their fighter jets. They are very much aware that Indian private sector would catch up pretty fast if they are coopted which would pave way for rapid development of indigenous defense industry and soon foreign players would be irrelevant in India.
> 
> While, if they partner with a PSU which everyone knows are inefficient and highly corrupt, they would still have a chance to mint money and continue selling their outdated weapons systems to India as PSUs aren't good at absorbing ToT



SAAB has provided significant ToT to Brazil. No reason to withold stuff from India.
They are training large numbers of Embraer employees, which are now busy
designing the Gripen F.

The Gripen E is created using Model Based Design, and that is something India
would benefit greatly to adopt.
It also make it easier to adopt modern production methods like 3-D printers.
SAAB has announced use of 3-D printing technology for the SAAB/Boeing T-X,
and it would be surprising if it was not also used for the Gripen.

The structure of the S/W package, is also unique since the core of the flight control
is separated from much of the other functionality, so instead of having to understand 20 million lines of code, many engineers will only have to learn how to access the APIs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Papa Dragon

A.P. Richelieu said:


> SAAB has provided significant ToT to Brazil. No reason to withold stuff from India.
> They are training large numbers of Embraer employees, which are now busy
> designing the Gripen F.
> 
> The Gripen E is created using Model Based Design, and that is something India
> would benefit greatly to adopt.
> It also make it easier to adopt modern production methods like 3-D printers.
> SAAB has announced use of 3-D printing technology for the SAAB/Boeing T-X,
> and it would be surprising if it was not also used for the Gripen.
> 
> The structure of the S/W package, is also unique since the core of the flight control
> is separated from much of the other functionality, so instead of having to understand 20 million lines of code, many engineers will only have to learn how to access the APIs.


I never mentioned SAAB in my post. Well the extent of ToT SAAB is willing to offer is unknown, US won't offer anything more than a screw and nut job. If IAF is hell bent on inducting a single engine fighter, my choice would be the Gripen but I feel it is better IAF goes with 2 more squadrons of Rafales and maybe a few for IN's next AC and completely stop inducting anymore foreign fighters and focus on indigenous programs with the help of French. The same could be done with Sweden too but too many different types of fighter jets would only be a logistical nightmare and would be plagued with maintenance issues


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Papa Dragon said:


> I never mentioned SAAB in my post. Well the extent of ToT SAAB is willing to offer is unknown, US won't offer anything more than a screw and nut job. If IAF is hell bent on inducting a single engine fighter, my choice would be the Gripen but I feel it is better IAF goes with 2 more squadrons of Rafales and maybe a few for IN's next AC and completely stop inducting anymore foreign fighters and focus on indigenous programs with the help of French. The same could be done with Sweden too but too many different types of fighter jets would only be a logistical nightmare and would be plagued with maintenance issues



No the extent of ToT SAAB is willing to offer is well known,
due to the Brazil Order.
SAAB is willing to supply information enough to allow a buyer to design a derivative of Gripen E.
That is not psdible without extensive training and knowledge.
This is done for an order of 36 aircraft.

Why would not SAAB be prepared to do the same or an order of 100 aircraft?

I believe someone said on PDF that IAF has studied logistics and came to the conclusion
that once you have a hundred aircraft of a type, you cannot gain more logistic efficiency
by ordering more.
So (100 x A) + (100 x B) is equivalent to (200 x A) from a logistics point of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Papa Dragon

A.P. Richelieu said:


> No the extent of ToT SAAB is willing to offer is well known,
> due to the Brazil Order.
> SAAB is willing to supply information enough to allow a buyer to design a derivative of Gripen E.
> That is not psdible without extensive training and knowledge.
> This is done for an order of 36 aircraft.
> 
> Why would not SAAB be prepared to do the same or an order of 100 aircraft?
> 
> I believe someone said on PDF that IAF has studied logistics and came to the conclusion
> that once you have a hundred aircraft of a type, you cannot gain more logistic efficiency
> by ordering more.
> So (100 x A) + (100 x B) is equivalent to (200 x A) from a logistics point of view.


While I am optimistic about SAAB offering significant ToT, the recent push by GoI to cancel the SE fighter jet tender have lead to an uncertainty . IAF and IA have a tradition of killing indigenous projects in favor of foreign fighters for kickbacks and commissions. They happened to kill Marut in favor of Migs and Arjun MBT has been ordered in limited quantity even after it exceeded T90s in performance trails while T90s have been inducted even without their summer trails. 

I know your inclined to think what's best for your country while I would do the same. Rafale is a done deal and is a dual engine medium combat fighter, so far only 36 have been ordered and there is a possibility to face issues with spares ordering a few more would help us in maintaining uniformity among our fleets while Gripen is a light SE fighter which would put our Tejas in jeopardy. If Tejas is killed, there is no way we could get AMCA as that is our only hope for a 5th gen fighter ever since the FGFA went into doldrums


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Papa Dragon said:


> While I am optimistic about SAAB offering significant ToT, the recent push by GoI to cancel the SE fighter jet tender have lead to an uncertainty . IAF and IA have a tradition of killing indigenous projects in favor of foreign fighters for kickbacks and commissions. They happened to kill Marut in favor of Migs and Arjun MBT has been ordered in limited quantity even after it exceeded T90s in performance trails while T90s have been inducted even without their summer trails.
> 
> I know your inclined to think what's best for your country while I would do the same. Rafale is a done deal and is a dual engine medium combat fighter, so far only 36 have been ordered and there is a possibility to face issues with spares ordering a few more would help us in maintaining uniformity among our fleets while Gripen is a light SE fighter which would put our Tejas in jeopardy. If Tejas is killed, there is no way we could get AMCA as that is our only hope for a 5th gen fighter ever since the FGFA went into doldrums



Well, the study means that there is no drawback in maintaining a fleet of 100+ Tejas and a fleet of 100+ Gripen at the same time.
Comments from IAF comparing Tejas with Gripen/F-16 and finding it lacking,
does not mean that it is useless, just that there are limits to the useability.
Japanese products were useless in the 50s, and high quality 30 years later.
SAAB has offered cooperation on AMCA as well, and it might be that this
is where India can have a breakthough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Papa Dragon

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Well, the study means that there is no drawback in maintaining a fleet of 100+ Tejas and a fleet of 100+ Gripen at the same time.
> Comments from IAF comparing Tejas with Gripen/F-16 and finding it lacking,
> does not mean that it is useless, just that there are limits to the useability.
> Japanese products were useless in the 50s, and high quality 30 years later.
> SAAB has offered cooperation on AMCA as well, and it might be that this
> is where India can have a breakthough.


There is no way that would happen as IAF wants both Rafales and SE fighters. MoD doesn't have money to procure 100 Tejas, 100 Gripens and more Rafales. 

You can't ignore the fact that more Rafales aren't gonna be ordered if Gripen is selected because if not the IAF, IN would definitely need medium combat aircrafts for it's carrier borne fighters and F-18 isn't an option there which leaves us with Rafale-M


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Papa Dragon said:


> There is no way that would happen as IAF wants both Rafales and SE fighters. MoD doesn't have money to procure 100 Tejas, 100 Gripens and more Rafales.
> 
> You can't ignore the fact that more Rafales aren't gonna be ordered if Gripen is selected because if not the IAF, IN would definitely need medium combat aircrafts for it's carrier borne fighters and F-18 isn't an option there which leaves us with Rafale-M



MoD have already ordered more than 100 Tejas, and plan to order around 100 single engine fighters.
If the Rafale had not been so expensive, the MMRCA program would have run its course,
and there would not have been a single engine procurement.
It is not obvious that India is better off with fewer Rafale vs more numerous SE fighters.
Anyway, it is not my problem.
India needs to do what gives India the best defense for the money, long term.

From the sound of it, the MoD is considering even the SE fighter expensive and would like to go Tejas, but the IAF is strongly objecting. Going more Rafale is contradicting that position.

Neither the F-18 or the Rafale M is an option until someone fixes the problem with elevator size,
for a carrier built for the smaller Naval Tejas and MiG-29.


----------



## Papa Dragon

A.P. Richelieu said:


> From the sound of it, the MoD is considering even the SE fighter expensive and would like to go Tejas, but the IAF is strongly objecting. Going more Rafale is contradicting that position


MoD isn't objecting SE tender because it's expensive but to comply with MII and to develop indigenous defense industry which they fear would be killed if a foreign fighter is selected. If Congress govt was in power, they would've gone for 126 MMRCA's no matter how expensive they were or 100 SE's and won't hesitate to kill any indigenous project


----------



## Storm Force

There has been shift of focus in last two weeks away from se fighter order.

USA unwillingness to compromise on tot share and Saab programme too reliant on foreign subsystems was further compounded by costing conclusions of 15 billion dollars and not the ten billion dollars India wanted or budgeted for.

There will be two more rafale suds joining for under six billion dollars as a compromise to the airforce who are shouting re falling nos.

But as a result Iaf will have to agree to fully support the mk1a Tejas no matter how long it takes 

India will end up replacing over 11 sqs of mig21/27 with four rafale and six tejas sqds

Mark my words


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Storm Force said:


> There has been shift of focus in last two weeks away from se fighter order.
> 
> USA unwillingness to compromise on tot share and Saab programme too reliant on foreign subsystems was further compounded by costing conclusions of 15 billion dollars and not the ten billion dollars India wanted or budgeted for.
> 
> There will be two more rafale suds joining for under six billion dollars as a compromise to the airforce who are shouting re falling nos.
> 
> But as a result Iaf will have to agree to fully support the mk1a Tejas no matter how long it takes
> 
> India will end up replacing over 11 sqs of mig21/27 with four rafale and six tejas sqds
> 
> Mark my words



India has ordered 36 Rafales for two squadrons, so one squadron is 18 aircrafts.
Four squadrons is 72 Rafales.
Six squadrons of Tejas is 108 aircrafts, which is about what has been ordered already.
So You are basically saying that the 100 SE fighters will be replaced by 36 Rafales.

You may want to predict the future, but I believe in not selling the bearskin,
until the bear is dead.


----------



## X_Killer

Anyways, I request all F-16/Gripen advocates to debate on the SE tender only after the RFI. Because as I said about 2 months earlier than none of the fighter are viable for IAF, LM f-16 because of its very old design and other one because of it multi-national packaged fighter. 

The need of elimination of removing the term "SE" is surfaced and soon all have a RFI for MRCA which gives a way to invite more players in the race. Otherwise MoD/IAF will buy more Rafales and LCAs only.


----------



## Storm Force

Se purchase is dead it's not happening 

Modi will.insist on tejss mark1a and mark two 

He will offer oxygen to Iafaf by buying another small batch rafales

You watch and remember what storm.force told you today


----------



## sathya

SE deal may get altered..


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*Indian Navy to Issue RFP for Carrier-borne Multi-Role Combat Aircraft in 2018*





Saab Sea Gripen
The Indian Navy is likely to issue a request for proposal (RFP) to acquire 57 multi-role combat fighter jets for the aircraft carriers by mid-2018, Navy Chief said.

"Hopefully we will be able to issue the RFP by middle of next year," Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba said Sunday.

Four aircraft manufacturers have shown interest in the project.

The Navy chief also said the first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC I) will be ready by 2020 and the Navy was looking for deck based combat capable fighter aircraft for it.

He said the naval version of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. cannot operate from deck and that is why the Navy was looking for other options.

"I need a deck based combat capable fighter by 2020 for IAC I. In present state, LCA Navy cannot be operated from deck," he said.

The Navy chief also said that the "form and fit" of the second indigenous aircraft carrier have been finalised and that it will be a 65,000-tonne vessel.

In January this year, the ministry of defence issued a request for information to procure approximately 57 Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF) for aircraft carriers of the Indian Navy.

The price of the contract has been estimated on the cost of each carrier borne jet at around US$200 million each if it were a western fighter or under US$100 million if it were to be a Russian jet.

The likely contenders for the contract can be Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, a naval version of the Dassault Rafale, Russian Su-33 that were used in the recent Syrian operations and another Russian-carrier based fighter, the MiG-29K Fulcrum fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

https://www.stratpost.com/7-ways-to-bullet-proof-mmrca-2-0/

*7 ways to bullet-proof MMRCA 2.0 Lessons learned from the earlier MMRCA can prevent a repeat of that result*
*by Saurabh Joshi • July 6, 2018*
Saurabh JoshiJuly 6, 2018



Art: Saurabh Joshi/StratPost

The first stage of the next attempt of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to acquire new fighter aircraft is about to kick-off with the deadline for submission of responses from six manufacturers to a Request For Information (RFI) ending on Friday – the same six that contested the earlier Indian competition for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

Airbus and Dassault confirmed to _StratPost_ last week that they would be offering information on the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale, respectively. Four other contestants have already confirmed their intention to participate in the new process.

*Origin* *Manufacturer* *Aircraft* *Engines*
Sweden Saab Gripen E 01
U.S.A. Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70 01
U.S.A Boeing F/A-18 Block III 02
Russia RAC/UAC/MiG MiG-35 02
France Dassault Rafale 02
Germany/U.K./Italy/Spain Airbus Eurofighter Typhoon 02
Although this contest appears to be a replay of the MMRCA with the same contestants all over again, there are ways in which it can be different – especially in terms of being run as a more robust process.

In this analysis, we examine lessons learned from the MMRCA contest and look at ways to strengthen the process to prevent a repeat of the earlier abortion.

*1. Clarity of Intent*
The defence ministry needs to come out with a clear statement of national intent. This means specifying a maximum budget for the acquisition and a clear approach on the process to be followed. And if you’re eventually going to go G2G (government-to-government), don’t issue an RFP (Request For Proposal) and waste everyone’s time and money.

*2. Clarity on Budget*
Cost is something that comes into play much later in the process, but can be prevented from becoming a problem at that stage, if it is taken seriously at the beginning.

The structure of the Indian defence procurement process incorporates a two-bid system. The first is the technical bid and the second is the commercial bid.

The closest the defence ministry or service headquarters come to budgeting for a particular procurement case is an estimate of cost called Acceptance of Necessity (AoN), which can be adjusted according to benchmarks when the commercial bids are eventually opened.

This can and does cause problems because of a disconnect between defence ministry estimates and eventual real-world market prices plus inflation. There have been cases where estimates and benchmarks have a wide variance from an apparent L1 figure. The MMRCA contest is one such example and the result was sticker shock, paralyzing the process and sending it into a black hole.

The problem here is the two-bid system. No one has any idea how much an order could cost until the opening of the commercial bids, after the technical shortlist. The shortlist tends to include the most expensive bids because it is created only on the basis of technical capabilities and compliance with SQRs. The shortlist ended up including only the two most expensive bids in the case of the MMRCA.

While it’s all very well to aspire to the best possible kit with all the bells and whistles, it defies reality and leads to inevitable, infructuous disappointment. There is no point considering platforms and equipment if the kit is going to be unaffordable.

Just as there is a minimum technical cut-off in terms of compliance requirements with the SQRs (Staff Qualitative Requirements), there should also be a maximum pricing cut-off. There’s a word for it. It’s called a budget. The Acceptance of Necessity is supposed to serve this purpose, but it fails to do so.

A budget for a procurement case should be nailed down before an RFP is issued, catering for inflation over a reasonable period of time allowed for the conclusion of the tender.

The new Defence Planning Committee headed by the National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval, in which the finance secretary and the defence secretaries are also members (besides the service chiefs), can serve as a clearing house to approve such a budget before an RFP is issued. This will ensure not only in-principle budgetary approval from the finance ministry but also a buy-in from the finance ministry into the acquisition process.

And although the contest can still follow the approach of technical shortlist and then L1 discovery, only those bids should be considered that fall within the budget. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to declare a budget and invite only those bids that fall within that number, with vendors being required to declare that their bid will fall within the budget.

This way the defence ministry and service headquarters can ensure they’re only considering bids that they can afford.

The alternative is potentially running tenders over and over again in the hope that some day there will be money for the best available kit, without any acquisition and modernization over years – decades, more likely.

This applies not only to the fighter acquisition program before us, but all procurement cases. There is good sense in defining how much you plan to spend. Otherwise the defence ministry might end up with a _Taj Mahal ka_ tender.

*3. Single-Engine or Twin-Engine*
The next bit is the structure and format of the fighter buy. Former defence minister Manohar Parrikar had arrived at the conclusion that the Indian Air Force (IAF) should focus on single-engine aircraft for the present, because single-engine and twin-engine aircraft should not be considered simultaneously because they can vary dramatically on cost and capability and, presumably, because an acquisition of single-engine aircraft would be cheaper, lower-hanging fruit.

The reason for this is, again, the MMRCA experience. With two single-engine aircraft and four twin-engine aircraft in the mix, a wide variance in cost and capability was inevitable. Also inevitable was the selection of the two most expensive platforms on the basis of their technical specifications, without cost being a consideration till that stage.

Think of it as buying a new car. It would be something like considering SUVs and crossover hatchbacks at the same time. If you have the budget for an SUV, why consider a crossover hatchback? And if a crossover hatchback will serve your commuting purpose, for example, why consider an SUV?

In belying expectations that the IAF would move to issue an RFI for single-engine aircraft, the bureaucracy has betrayed its insecurity and abdication of responsibility for the decision, kicking the can down the road to their successors’ successors and so on.

This is, perhaps, not entirely unexpected in the wake of the charges filed in the AgustaWestland case, which also involved specification of the number of engines for the helicopters bid in the tender. This decision is even less of a surprise considering that #RafaleScam has trended on Twitter over the last year.

Clearly and unsurprisingly, no one in government wants to be seen to be restricting the competition for fear of being perceived as favouring certain types of bids, even if it will lengthen the acquisition cycle and increase uncertainty about the tender.

But, as has been pointed out, this is an RFI. The IAF can still be clearer about their requirements in the following RFP and specify the number of engines they want their next fighter to have.

The alternative is running the same MMRCA contest, all over again, which would raise the question whether there is an expectation of the same result or a different result?

*4. Trials and Paperwork*
Chapter 07 of the DPP which governs strategic partnerships, allows for sections of the trial process to be skipped where they have been carried out before. The defence ministry and IAF should take advantage of this provision and conduct trials only for those technological capabilities that have not been tested earlier or for those capabilities that vendors can justifiably claim have been significantly improved by them. This will save both time and money.

To ensure the tender proceeds without any hiccups, the defence ministry and IAF must ensure a high bar for the paperwork submitted by the vendors. In the last MMRCA, some vendors were dismissive about answering questions in the paper evaluation and were ejected from the contest, only to be brought back in later.

If a vendor is unable to demonstrate the minimum require technical capability in their paperwork, there should be no reason to allow their bid to be considered further in the process.

*5. Derisking the Process with a Provisional L1*
L1 is, as we know, the lowest technically qualified bid. But as _StratPost_ has pointed out before, there is nothing to prevent a vendor from submitting false or incomplete numbers in their bid to ensure they end up as L1. Under the rules governing tenders laid down by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the defence ministry has no option to move to the next-lowest bid or L2 after an L1 has been declared, in the event that the apparent L1 is not actually L1 or is unable or unwilling to satisfy the terms of the RFP in any other manner.

This is exactly what happened in the earlier MMRCA contest.

This results in the L1 vendor being able to hold the defence ministry hostage – with it’s only alternative under CVC rules being to re-tender. A re-tender would result in the loss of many years of work on the acquisition program with no net modernization benefit to the service in question.

Instead of declaring an L1 bid upon opening the shortlisted commercial bids, the defence ministry should declare a provisional L1, to be certified later as L1 only upon complete scrutiny of offer and negotiation. If it is discovered that the provisional L1 bid is not actually the lowest technically qualified bid or the L1 vendor is unable or unwilling to satisfy the terms of the RFP, the defence ministry would be free to move the next-lowest bid and treat that as the provisional L1.

This would go a huge distance in derisking the acquisition process for the defence ministry and the armed forces. by removing the possibility of a forced re-tender to a large extent. Again, this needn’t apply only to the fighter acquisition program, but also all other procurement cases as well.

*6. Clarity on technology transfer and domestic production*
Any RFP should be as specific as possible in terms of the requirements for technology transfer and domestic production under Chapter 07 of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) governing strategic partnerships.

Program managers for the earlier MMRCA tender failed to pay enough attention to this aspect of the acquisition case. In fact, the IAF – with it’s priority being solely selection and acquisition of an aircraft, being dismissive of the role Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) would have to play in the acquisition, virtually ignored the requirements of technology transfer and licensed production to the point where the L1 vendor was able to resist the application of the terms of the RFP to a stalemate.

This was the final point of failure of the MMRCA tender process.

Detailed clarity in the RFP and mandatory compliance of participating vendors with the terms for technology transfer and domestic production will prevent such a situation from arising.

*7. Have the Money Ready*
Finally, plan for the expenditure. There have been cases where L1 vendors have simply been unable to extend the validity of their bid because so much time has lapsed between selection and negotiation that their numbers no longer make a business case because of inflation or, in some cases, because they’ve simply had to shut down production of the platform or equipment.

If the money isn’t going to be made available, there is no point to this process at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BATMAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Gripen E is created using Model Based Design, and that is something India
> would benefit greatly to adopt.



Who told you India have any ability of adaptation?
All they are good at is sabotage!
Now wouldn't it help more, if you travel to India and talk to your brethren in personal!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cerilchan

f16 buying


----------



## polanski

Simulated war game Gripen beats Su-35
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.co...defeat-russias-su-35-in-a-simulated-war-game/


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

polanski said:


> Simulated war game Gripen beats Su-35
> https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.co...defeat-russias-su-35-in-a-simulated-war-game/



Gripen E I think could. Gripen E has AESA, better than Su-35's PESA. Sweden is one of the most advanced and educated countries in the world.


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Simulated war game Gripen beats Su-35
> https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.co...defeat-russias-su-35-in-a-simulated-war-game/


OK. Why not.
But all the words are important : Gripen defeat SU35 in *A* simulated game war.
A simulated game about how many? 10? 100? 2?


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> OK. Why not.
> But all the words are important : Gripen defeat SU35 in *A* simulated game war.
> A simulated game about how many? 10? 100? 2?



The article does not say, but if the simulation is properly done, a variety of scenarios have been simulated and then an average is presented.
The article claims that an F-35 will shoot down 2.4 Su-35s for every loss in WVR combat,
but the source it is referring to claim it is the other way around.
The Su-35 will kill 2.4 F-35s in WVR combat for every loss.
The source is an article from 2016, and is not neccessarily correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...rca-results/story-R8CwczuejelV5SP9tMaphM.html

*IAF to select 110 fighters after multi-role combat aircraft results*
*Strapped with an ageing and depleting fighter fleet, IAF had  floated a Request for Information (RFI) – a global tender – to buy 110 fighters.*
Sudhi Ranjan Sen
The process to select 110 fighters for the Indian Air Force (IAF) will draw upon the field evaluation results of the now-cancelled Medium Muti-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) purchase deal to shorten and hasten the process, senior officials in the ministry of defence who aren’t authorised to speak to the media said.

In 2015, the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government at the Centre scrapped the US$ 20 billion (approx INR 140 billion) MMRCA project. Instead, it opted to buy 36 Rafale aircraft from French defence manufacturing giant Dassault through a government-to-government contract with France. The ~58,000 crore deal has triggered a major political controversy, with the Opposition alleging corruption and wrongdoing in the purchase of the aircraft which the government has vehemently denied.

Strapped with an ageing and depleting fighter fleet, IAF had  floated a Request for Information (RFI) – a global tender – to buy 110 fighters. Of the 110 jets, around 85% will have to be built in India under the ‘Make in India’ programme in partnership with an Indian manufacturer under the Strategic Partnership (SP) route.

“What was tested earlier and proved will not be put to test again,” the officer said. “When we evaluate fighters now, only new additions, systems of the aircraft, and modifications made to the aircraft, if any, will be put to test. We have decided not to go through the entire process again. This will substantially cut down the time,” the first defence ministry officer said.

What may come as a relief to IAF is that all six global manufacturers who have responded to the RFI – Lockheed Martin F-16 and SAAB Gripen with single-engine fighters, and Boeing F-18, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and United Aircraft Corporation MiG-35 with twin-engine fighters – were also contenders for the previous MMRCA deal.

The air force is now in the process of finalising the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR) – a list of must-have capabilities and parameters – for the aircraft. “We are ensuring that ASQR takes into account the disruptive and transformative technologies that are likely to be a reality in the coming decades. The ASQR will be complete in the next few weeks,” a second official involved in the acquisition process said. 

“We hope to get a nod from the ministry (of defence) by March 2019,” the officer added. 

With a new government expected to be sworn in next May, the IAF is keen to complete as much of the process as possible before that. 

“We hope to start the process of field evaluation by next June and complete it as early as possible, so that commercial negotiation can start,” the second officer said. 

Commercial negotiations are precurser to signing a contract.

The IAF spokesperson was not available for comment. Experts and former IAF test pilots who were involved in the acquisition of aircraft, however, said “using previous test results” is practical but advised caution at the same time. 

“It is not necessary to test proven points in the QSR again; all previous points on which a platform was found to be non-complaint should be checked,” Air Marshal RK Sharma (retd), former Vice Chief of IAF and test pilot, said. 

“Importantly, when checking fresh add-ons, modifications to a platform the IAF must ensure is that they check all parameters that the modification will affect,” he said

“The process that follows the selection of the aircraft like commercial negotiations, etc, should also be completed quickly,” he said. 

First Published: Nov 26, 2018 07:20 IST

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

Minus MiG and Typhoon. There is zero chance that IAF will buy MiG. MiG doesn't have the Technology to fulfill the RFI/RFP. 

Rafale has high chance considering commonality of spares and knowledge. 

Cost and Technology wise Gripen pack a punch but Lockheed Martin will fight tooth and nail before let it go. TASL will lobby hard before give up. 

Lets hope IAF select Gripen based on Technology stack.


----------



## randomradio

polanski said:


> Minus MiG and Typhoon. There is zero chance that IAF will buy MiG. MiG doesn't have the Technology to fulfill the RFI/RFP.
> 
> Rafale has high chance considering commonality of spares and knowledge.
> 
> Cost and Technology wise Gripen pack a punch but Lockheed Martin will fight tooth and nail before let it go. TASL will lobby hard before give up.
> 
> Lets hope IAF select Gripen based on Technology stack.



This tender is Rafale's to win. The 36 jet deal already gives Dassault too much of an advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Minus MiG and Typhoon. There is zero chance that IAF will buy MiG. MiG doesn't have the Technology to fulfill the RFI/RFP.
> 
> Rafale has high chance considering commonality of spares and knowledge.
> 
> Cost and Technology wise Gripen pack a punch but Lockheed Martin will fight tooth and nail before let it go. TASL will lobby hard before give up.
> 
> Lets hope IAF select Gripen based on Technology stack.


Gripen E is the sole real new competitor.
But : in a frontal concurrence versus Tejas, and is made of a lot of US technolgy. Not so good for it.
F16 is definitively out. IAF made a lot of criticism about it earlyer.

It would be a huge disappointment not to see rafale as the winner, for a lot of reasons. the RFI was tailored made for it.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> Gripen E is the sole real new competitor.
> But : in a frontal concurrence versus Tejas, and is made of a lot of US technolgy. Not so good for it.
> F16 is definitively out. IAF made a lot of criticism about it earlyer.
> 
> It would be a huge disappointment not to see rafale as the winner, for a lot of reasons. the RFI was tailored made for it.



The IAF has been told that India cannot afford it.
If India was putting the Rafale in the lead position, there would be no need to restart the MMRCA.
India could just restart negotiation with Dassault/France.
The only chance for Rafale to win is by cutting cost to what India can afford = 30-40%.

The Big Question is why India, with desperate need for fighters, has plans for delivery which 100% matches the time when they can expect deliveries of the Gripen E.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The IAF has been told that India cannot afford it.



Not true. This was only specific to MMRCA because HAL added $23M to the flyaway cost of the jet. It was retarded to go ahead.



> If India was putting the Rafale in the lead position, there would be no need to restart the MMRCA.



We are experimenting with the Strategic Partnership Model, and this requires tenders.



> India could just restart negotiation with Dassault/France.



This was contemplated and a GTG for 90 jets was considered to be cheaper than starting an entirely new tender process. But GoI opted for the SPM process.



> The only chance for Rafale to win is by cutting cost to what India can afford = 30-40%.



No. Becoming shortlisted is more important. If Gripen's cost advantage is to come into play, then the aircraft has to get shortlisted first. Even after that T1, ie, the best jet, gets a 10% cost advantage.

Plus if the tech differences are big, then the whole tender can be junked and the best jet can be chosen directly if necessary. That's what happened in the competition between Ka-226T and Fennec. The Ka-226T was overwhelmingly superior, and naturally more expensive, so the GoI junked the tender and signed up for it directly with Russia.



> The Big Question is why India, with desperate need for fighters, has plans for delivery which 100% matches the time when they can expect deliveries of the Gripen E.



The Mig-35 timeline matches Gripen's as well. So does the Su-35 and Typhoon with upgrades. The SH Block 3 will also come in around the same time, and so will the F-16 Block 70. The Rafale F4's first block upgrade will also come in around 2023.

The IAF is not expecting first delivery before 2027 anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hindustani78

27-November, 2018 16:57 IST 
Recent Reforms in Transport Sector to benefit Transporters and reduce Pollution

Major initiatives have been taken in the transport sector, by increasing the Axle load of trucks by 20 to 25 per cent, their load carrying capacity has increased phenomenally. It has not only added to the income of transporters, but has also resulted in lesser pollution.

Modern technology in automobiles, fitness test requirement for vehicle has been changed. In place of the earlier provision of yearly tests, now they need to get it done every two years. Another major step is total exclusion of new vehicles from mandatory fitness tests.

The transporters are now free to paint their trucks in the colour of their choice, instead of the mandatory brown colour. They can now utilize this space for advertisements, etc further adding to their income. This will also bring cleanliness in trucks,. Further, all vehicles are required to be kept completely covered to avoid pollution from dust etc.

Mandatory fixing of fastags in all new vehicles and transport vehicles has started showing saving in time – as they do not need to stop at toll plazas, and money – as they get 5% rebate. Tracking of vehicles is now easy, and the drivers do not need to carry cash for payments etc. The system is proving beneficial for toll operators, with better collection of toll and reduced pollution.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> Not true. This was only specific to MMRCA because HAL added $23M to the flyaway cost of the jet. It was retarded to go ahead.
> 
> No. Becoming shortlisted is more important. If Gripen's cost advantage is to come into play, then the aircraft has to get shortlisted first. Even after that T1, ie, the best jet, gets a 10% cost advantage.
> 
> Plus if the tech differences are big, then the whole tender can be junked and the best jet can be chosen directly if necessary. That's what happened in the competition between Ka-226T and Fennec. The Ka-226T was overwhelmingly superior, and naturally more expensive, so the GoI junked the tender and signed up for it directly with Russia.
> 
> The Mig-35 timeline matches Gripen's as well. So does the Su-35 and Typhoon with upgrades. The SH Block 3 will also come in around the same time, and so will the F-16 Block 70. The Rafale F4's first block upgrade will also come in around 2023.
> 
> The IAF is not expecting first delivery before 2027 anyway.



IAF was told that India could not afford the Rafale *much* after the MMRCA was dead.
The Gripen now has an AESA and the US are much more prepared to do ToT on F-16 and F-18 so they are much stronger.
10% is not much, if you are 30% too expensive.
F-16 Block 70 is more or less available today.
Rafale F4 will not be available for the tests by IAF.

I doubt the extension of the single fighter procurement is anything more than protection from political backstabbing.
India realizes that the single engine is what they can afford.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The Gripen now has an AESA and the US are much more prepared to do ToT on F-16 and F-18 so they are much stronger.



AESA is simply a small part of the equation. If you recall, even the SH and F-16 failed, and this is even before ToT came into the picture.



> 10% is not much, if you are 30% too expensive.



You will be surprised how much of a difference it will make for the Rafale considering Dassault will already have an assembly line in India even before MMRCA 2.0 starts. They plan to set it up with the second order of 36 jets, and they are expected to win the navy's MRCBF also. And Dassault will already have a spares industry set up. So most of the industrial costs will have already been amortised and can be removed from Dassault's bid. The customisation contract has also covered up any gaps the Rafale had versus the new competition.

My bet is the Gripen won't even be shortlisted. Because of the single engine. Lot of points lost there.



> Rafale F4 will not be available for the tests by IAF.



The French can make it available for tests in 2021. A lot of stuff for F4 is already being tested today through older programs. Plus, since Rafale was already shortlisted once before, they don't have to prove much except new systems.



> I doubt the extension of the single fighter procurement is anything more than protection from political backstabbing.
> India realizes that the single engine is what they can afford.



That's where the 200+ LCA Mk2 will come in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> AESA is simply a small part of the equation. If you recall, even the SH and F-16 failed, and this is even before ToT came into the picture.
> 
> You will be surprised how much of a difference it will make for the Rafale considering Dassault will already have an assembly line in India even before MMRCA 2.0 starts. They plan to set it up with the second order of 36 jets, and they are expected to win the navy's MRCBF also. And Dassault will already have a spares industry set up. So most of the industrial costs will have already been amortised and can be removed from Dassault's bid. The customisation contract has also covered up any gaps the Rafale had versus the new competition.
> 
> My bet is the Gripen won't even be shortlisted. Because of the single engine. Lot of points lost there.
> 
> The French can make it available for tests in 2021. A lot of stuff for F4 is already being tested today through older programs. Plus, since Rafale was already shortlisted once before, they don't have to prove much except new systems.
> 
> That's where the 200+ LCA Mk2 will come in.



Lack of AESA was certainly the main reason why Gripen C was not shortlisted.
The US aircrafts were out primarily because they would not release source code allowing India to customize.
There will not be a second order of Rafale outside this project. Dream on.

I think the SH will win the IN procurement. At least they fit the elevator, even if they need a shoehorn. Detachable wingtips requiring 15-20 minutes extra handling once the aircraft is on deck sucks.

The LCA Mk 2 may or may not arrive.


----------



## polanski

BON PLAN said:


> Gripen E is the sole real new competitor.
> But : in a frontal concurrence versus Tejas, and is made of a lot of US technolgy. Not so good for it.
> F16 is definitively out. IAF made a lot of criticism about it earlyer.
> 
> It would be a huge disappointment not to see rafale as the winner, for a lot of reasons. the RFI was tailored made for it.


The Gripen's engine is licensed produced by Volvo. This is a commonality between Tejaz and Gripen, India is also licensed to produce same type of engine for Tejaz. 
Rest of Gripen's technologies are sourced from European. There are armament commonalities between Rafale and Gripen. 
But gripen can be customized to suit Indian needs.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Lack of AESA was certainly the main reason why Gripen C was not shortlisted.



Nope.

Gripen Demo was brought in with an AESA for tests. The IAF did not shortlist the Gripen just because it lacked an AESA. You forget that the Typhoon was also shortlisted and it didn't bring an AESA at all. The Typhoon's AESA was tested by the IAF on a helicopter in the UK.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iaf-...-in-sweden-with-operational-aesa-radar.55185/



> The US aircrafts were out primarily because they would not release source code allowing India to customize.



ToT comes into the picture during contract negotiations. The IAF's round is purely technical and the shortlist has nothing to do with ToT.



> There will not be a second order of Rafale outside this project. Dream on.



The IAF cleverly bought infrastructure for up to 80 jets. So when the time comes, they can easily ask for more Rafales.

It's already in the works.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...india-silent-on-deal/articleshow/63250850.cms
_Indian sources said a decision on more Rafale fighters will be taken once delivery of the initial lot of 36 jets begins..._

We are expecting a new contract to be signed in 2020 so that delivery can happen in 2023 and complete by 2026-27, in time for MMRCA jets to start arriving.



> I think the SH will win the IN procurement. At least they fit the elevator, even if they need a shoehorn. Detachable wingtips requiring 15-20 minutes extra handling once the aircraft is on deck sucks.



SH has a lot of hurdles to cross.

Also, Dassault will manufacture the MRCBF in India itself, while SH will have to be imported. And even Dassault can provide folding wings if necessary, which will allow the aircraft to be operated from both our carriers. SH can only be operated from the new carrier based on its current wing design.

There are also other options which include modifying the elevators themselves.



> The LCA Mk 2 may or may not arrive.



I wouldn't worry about that, but MoD will support the indigenous program over a foreign program. HAL also needs the orders anyway. If LCA Mk2 is late, the IAF plans on buying a few more Mk1A until then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

Gripen scored another victory at Philipines fighter jet MRF competition report IHS Janes.
Also Bulgaria bought 8 used Gripen C/D this month.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The IAF has been told that India cannot afford it.
> If India was putting the Rafale in the lead position, there would be no need to restart the MMRCA.
> India could just restart negotiation with Dassault/France.
> The only chance for Rafale to win is by cutting cost to what India can afford = 30-40%.
> 
> The Big Question is why India, with desperate need for fighters, has plans for delivery which 100% matches the time when they can expect deliveries of the Gripen E.


No way cutting the Rafale price by 30 or 40%. With MII in private sector, a cut is possible, but never at such an extent.
Gripen E is not specially affordable.
If the price is the N°1 factor, take F16 (or Mig35 if india is OK to rely so much on russia)



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Rafale F4 will not be available for the tests by IAF.


But all the F3R, including those of the first 36, can be upgraded to F4.
India is probably in touch with Dassault and french DGA so as to adapt the content of the futur F4...


----------



## Hassan Guy

Taiwan plans on retiring their Mirage 2000 fleet and intends to sell them off.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/taiwan-gives-f-35-turns-f-16v-option-37332

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

polanski said:


> Gripen scored another victory at Philipines fighter jet MRF competition report IHS Janes.
> Also Bulgaria bought 8 used Gripen C/D this month.


Don’t sell the skin before You shoot the bear...
The Phillippine government has commented and said that Gripen is in a good position, but that is all.
Bulgaria was offered used F-16s from Portugal, Tranche 1 Eurofighters from Italy and Gripen C/D 
from Sweden. Initially Bulgaria announced Gripen, but backtracked. 
Now they are asking for new aircrafts from all three.
Portugal certainly cannot sell new F-16s so it will be new Tranche 3 Eurofighters vs new Gripen C/Ds.



BON PLAN said:


> No way cutting the Rafale price by 30 or 40%. With MII in private sector, a cut is possible, but never at such an extent.
> Gripen E is not specially affordable.
> If the price is the N°1 factor, take F16 (or Mig35 if india is OK to rely so much on russia)
> 
> 
> But all the F3R, including those of the first 36, can be upgraded to F4.
> India is probably in touch with Dassault and french DGA so as to adapt the content of the futur F4...


F-16 Block 70 and SH are a little more expensive than the Gripen E.
All three are 30-40% cheaper than Rafale.
Eurofighter beeing the most expensive.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> F-16 Block 70 and SH are a little more expensive than the Gripen E.
> All three are 30-40% cheaper than Rafale.
> Eurofighter beeing the most expensive.



What's interesting is during MMRCA, Saab's bid was $82.2M and Dassault's bid was $85.5M.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## halupridol

randomradio said:


> AESA is simply a small part of the equation. If you recall, even the SH and F-16 failed, and this is even before ToT came into the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> You will be surprised how much of a difference it will make for the Rafale considering Dassault will already have an assembly line in India even before MMRCA 2.0 starts. They plan to set it up with the second order of 36 jets, and they are expected to win the navy's MRCBF also. And Dassault will already have a spares industry set up. So most of the industrial costs will have already been amortised and can be removed from Dassault's bid. The customisation contract has also covered up any gaps the Rafale had versus the new competition.
> 
> My bet is the Gripen won't even be shortlisted. Because of the single engine. Lot of points lost there.
> 
> 
> 
> The French can make it available for tests in 2021. A lot of stuff for F4 is already being tested today through older programs. Plus, since Rafale was already shortlisted once before, they don't have to prove much except new systems.
> 
> 
> 
> That's where the 200+ LCA Mk2 will come in.


I think its time someone shud tell u that u sound like a teenager adamantly peddling his wishes as truth.
What happened to LSA,2018 is ending,still no news of it,,,,,,or foc of lca about which u were apparently well informed about.mk1 shudve already got foc,,,n nxt year mk1a shud be test flying right?
Hawai firing bohot karte ho.


----------



## randomradio

halupridol said:


> I think its time someone shud tell u that u sound like a teenager adamantly peddling his wishes as truth.
> What happened to LSA,2018 is ending,still no news of it,,,,,,or foc of lca about which u were apparently well informed about.mk1 shudve already got foc,,,n nxt year mk1a shud be test flying right?
> Hawai firing bohot karte ho.



Why should there be news of LSA here? It's MSA now. You really can't expect news for this jet on this forum, do you? If you look for it in the right places, you will even see the paper design available, which is not available here. Apart from MSA, the company will also be developing a utility and an attack helicopter, an infantry jet pack and many more.

Why are you so worried about LCA's FOC, it's a bureaucratic process now since all the necessary tests are complete. Regardless of whether it happens in December or Jan or Feb, it is coming. Or should I now explain how bureaucracy in India works? Regardless it has not hampered HAL's plans, design details were already handed over 5 months ago. At worst, the IAF may delay FOC by asking for integration of the ASRAAM.

Long ago, when MMRCA was still going on, I pointed out that there will be 3 MMRCA programs. What happened after? We got 36 Rafales, which is set to climb to 72 jets, we got a new tender that we call MMRCA 2.0 and an expected order of 201 LCA Mk2, which is now MCA (or MWF) since it now weighs 17.5T at MTOW, and replaces the request for 200 single engine fighters. There, three separate programs.

And why should Mk1A have test flight next year? Where did you hear that from? Even the most optimistic estimates put it at 2020, with delivery in 2023.


----------



## punit

halupridol said:


> I think its time someone shud tell u that u sound like a teenager adamantly peddling his wishes as truth.
> What happened to LSA,2018 is ending,still no news of it,,,,,,or foc of lca about which u were apparently well informed about.mk1 shudve already got foc,,,n nxt year mk1a shud be test flying right?
> Hawai firing bohot karte ho.


HAL is a pile of stinking crap. 
LCA program should be taken as " how not to make a fighter plane" its a disasters of double D size. 
Rest with Manohar Parikar out of picture babudom is having field day screwing indian.defenCe..


----------



## halupridol

randomradio said:


> Why should there be news of LSA here? It's MSA now. You really can't expect news for this jet on this forum, do you? If you look for it in the right places, you will even see the paper design available, which is not available here. Apart from MSA, the company will also be developing a utility and an attack helicopter, an infantry jet pack and many more.
> 
> Why are you so worried about LCA's FOC, it's a bureaucratic process now since all the necessary tests are complete. Regardless of whether it happens in December or Jan or Feb, it is coming. Or should I now explain how bureaucracy in India works? Regardless it has not hampered HAL's plans, design details were already handed over 5 months ago. At worst, the IAF may delay FOC by asking for integration of the ASRAAM.
> 
> Long ago, when MMRCA was still going on, I pointed out that there will be 3 MMRCA programs. What happened after? We got 36 Rafales, which is set to climb to 72 jets, we got a new tender that we call MMRCA 2.0 and an expected order of 201 LCA Mk2, which is now MCA (or MWF) since it now weighs 17.5T at MTOW, and replaces the request for 200 single engine fighters. There, three separate programs.
> 
> And why should Mk1A have test flight next year? Where did you hear that from? Even the most optimistic estimates put it at 2020, with delivery in 2023.


Yes yes ofcourse,,,u said,so must be true,,as usual


punit said:


> HAL is a pile of stinking crap.
> LCA program should be taken as " how not to make a fighter plane" its a disasters of double D size.
> Rest with Manohar Parikar out of picture babudom is having field day screwing indian.defenCe..


they r basically a jawahar rozgaar yojna just like most dpsu's 
Tell u what after 5yrs they will still be claiming world class,best in class,gamechanger n what not. Heck why not,,its a source of unlimited overtime n chai biskoot

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## punit

halupridol said:


> Yes yes ofcourse,,,u said,so must be true,,as usual
> 
> they r basically a jawahar rozgaar yojna just like most dpsu's
> Tell u what after 5yrs they will still be claiming world class,best in class,gamechanger n what not. Heck why not,,its a source of unlimited overtime n chai biskoot


All they need is few swift hard kicks on their royal as.s. my goodness..The plane project is a disaster.


----------



## randomradio

halupridol said:


> Yes yes ofcourse,,,u said,so must be true,,as usual



I have always said believe me if you want to. There is no reason to believe me of course, let time prove it all.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> What's interesting is during MMRCA, Saab's bid was $82.2M and Dassault's bid was $85.5M.



What is even more interesting is that when real negotiation ensued, the price for the Rafale deal went up from $10B to $26B.

The price of Rafale is more like $130M per aircraft.
With a price of $85,5 the 36 aircrafts purchased by India would cost ~3B.
Not three times as much.

The Rafale is simply 50% more expensive to buy and quite a lot more expensive to run.
Someone has to prove that one Rafale, which almost always requires french weapons,
is better than two or more Gripen E.


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> What is even more interesting is that when real negotiation ensued, the price for the Rafale deal went up from $10B to $26B.



 There was no $10B. It was just an estimate the govt made before the tender was released.

https://www.news18.com/news/politic...fale-jets-says-its-good-for-india-981723.html
_Parrikar said that Rafale is a costly fighter plane and for 126 planes the total deal will be of Rs 90,000 crore. _

Based on today's exchange rate, it's $12.8B. Or 714Cr/$101M per jet.



> The price of Rafale is more like $130M per aircraft.



The govt says something else.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...670-cr-govt/story-KiI85qHBzxlm4N59rBWQMP.html
_Each basic version of the Rafale jet would cost Rs 670 crore, the government informed the Rajya Sabha on Monday_

Based on today's exchange rate, it's $95M. So the GTG was actually cheaper than MMRCA.



> With a price of $85,5 the 36 aircrafts purchased by India would cost ~3B.
> Not three times as much.



We paid 3.42B euros for the 36 jets.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rafale-fighter-jets-deal-cleared-modi-france-342442-2016-09-21
_Sources said the "vanila price" (just the 36 aircraft) is about 3.42 billion Euros. The armaments cost about 710 million Euros while Indian specific changes, including integration of Israeli helmet mounted displays, will cost 1700 million Euros._



> The Rafale is simply 50% more expensive to buy and quite a lot more expensive to run.



In France, the cost of operating the M-2000 per hour is 8000 euros and Rafale is 10,000 euros. So it's not any more expensive. In India, the M-2000 costs $4000 per hour. The difference is quite negligible compared to the capability upgrade.



> Someone has to prove that one Rafale, which almost always requires french weapons,



The Indian Rafales are being equipped with Israeli and Indian weapons also.



> is better than two or more Gripen E.



Nobody cares about such things. If the engine fails, the Rafale can still fly on another engine while the Gripen will crash, which is particularly important for us over the Himalayas and Tibet where surviving pilots can die in just a few hours. So there are more important factors at play here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> There was no $10B. It was just an estimate the govt made before the tender was released.
> 
> https://www.news18.com/news/politic...fale-jets-says-its-good-for-india-981723.html
> _Parrikar said that Rafale is a costly fighter plane and for 126 planes the total deal will be of Rs 90,000 crore. _
> 
> Based on today's exchange rate, it's $12.8B. Or 714Cr/$101M per jet.
> 
> 
> 
> The govt says something else.
> https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...670-cr-govt/story-KiI85qHBzxlm4N59rBWQMP.html
> _Each basic version of the Rafale jet would cost Rs 670 crore, the government informed the Rajya Sabha on Monday_
> 
> Based on today's exchange rate, it's $95M. So the GTG was actually cheaper than MMRCA.
> 
> 
> 
> We paid 3.42B euros for the 36 jets.
> 
> https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rafale-fighter-jets-deal-cleared-modi-france-342442-2016-09-21
> _Sources said the "vanila price" (just the 36 aircraft) is about 3.42 billion Euros. The armaments cost about 710 million Euros while Indian specific changes, including integration of Israeli helmet mounted displays, will cost 1700 million Euros._
> 
> 
> 
> In France, the cost of operating the M-2000 per hour is 8000 euros and Rafale is 10,000 euros. So it's not any more expensive. In India, the M-2000 costs $4000 per hour. The difference is quite negligible compared to the capability upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> The Indian Rafales are being equipped with Israeli and Indian weapons also.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody cares about such things. If the engine fails, the Rafale can still fly on another engine while the Gripen will crash, which is particularly important for us over the Himalayas and Tibet where surviving pilots can die in just a few hours. So there are more important factors at play here.


So far, in more than 20 years, not a single Gripen of the 250 or so delivered has crashed with engine failure...


----------



## polanski

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Don’t sell the skin before You shoot the bear...
> The Phillippine government has commented and said that Gripen is in a good position, but that is all.
> Bulgaria was offered used F-16s from Portugal, Tranche 1 Eurofighters from Italy and Gripen C/D
> from Sweden. Initially Bulgaria announced Gripen, but backtracked.
> Now they are asking for new aircrafts from all three.
> Portugal certainly cannot sell new F-16s so it will be new Tranche 3 Eurofighters vs new Gripen C/Ds.
> 
> 
> F-16 Block 70 and SH are a little more expensive than the Gripen E.
> All three are 30-40% cheaper than Rafale.
> Eurofighter beeing the most expensive.


*Philippines concludes fighter studies, points to possible Gripen acquisition*
*Jon Grevatt, Bangkok* - Jane's Defence Weekly
17 October 2018
The Philippine Department of National Defense (DND) has concluded a study in support of its programme to procure a new fighter jet and confirmed that Saab’s Gripen aircraft is in pole position to win the contract.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said in comments published by the Philippine News Agency (PNA) on 15 October that the DND “is most likely to buy” the Gripen following a “thorough study and research” to support the Philippine Air Force’s (PAF’s) Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) project.

Lorenzana said the Gripen was the least expensive platform to procure and maintain. He reportedly added that the DND had been offered Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter aircraft from the US government but that the proposal was “too expensive”.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

polanski said:


> *Philippines concludes fighter studies, points to possible Gripen acquisition*
> *Jon Grevatt, Bangkok* - Jane's Defence Weekly
> 17 October 2018
> The Philippine Department of National Defense (DND) has concluded a study in support of its programme to procure a new fighter jet and confirmed that Saab’s Gripen aircraft is in pole position to win the contract.
> 
> Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said in comments published by the Philippine News Agency (PNA) on 15 October that the DND “is most likely to buy” the Gripen following a “thorough study and research” to support the Philippine Air Force’s (PAF’s) Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) project.
> 
> Lorenzana said the Gripen was the least expensive platform to procure and maintain. He reportedly added that the DND had been offered Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter aircraft from the US government but that the proposal was “too expensive”.



Before a contract is signed, nothing is for certain in fighter sales business.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## randomradio

A.P. Richelieu said:


> So far, in more than 20 years, not a single Gripen of the 250 or so delivered has crashed with engine failure...



That depends on how much you fly, how you fly, where you fly etc.


----------



## BON PLAN

Hassan Guy said:


> Taiwan plans on retiring their Mirage 2000 fleet and intends to sell them off.
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/taiwan-gives-f-35-turns-f-16v-option-37332


10 years that story is on the air....



A.P. Richelieu said:


> What is even more interesting is that when real negotiation ensued, the price for the Rafale deal went up from $10B to $26B.
> 
> The price of Rafale is more like $130M per aircraft.
> With a price of $85,5 the 36 aircrafts purchased by India would cost ~3B.
> Not three times as much.
> 
> The Rafale is simply 50% more expensive to buy and quite a lot more expensive to run.
> Someone has to prove that one Rafale, which almost always requires french weapons,
> is better than two or more Gripen E.


You're wrong.

The Rafale "dry" was selled to India +/- 95 millions each. It's official.

The 10$ Billions was an estimate by the Indian governement !
The 26$ Billions was the HAL bill, including 2.6 more man hour for each bird.
Reality is between the 2 figures.



randomradio said:


> That depends on how much you fly, how you fly, where you fly etc.


Indeed.
Gripen C is more a point defense fighter than anything else. It's easier in this case to avoid a crackdown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

randomradio said:


> That depends on how much you fly, how you fly, where you fly etc.



Gripen has flown in Arctic Climate, over the deserts of Northern Africa, also over Southern Africa.
and the Humid South East Asia. It can fly everywhere.
The engines have chewed birds multiple times without crashes.

In May 2011 it had completed 160,000 flight hours without any crash due to engines
In January 2017, it had completed 250,000 flight hours.
It should by now have flown about 275,000 flight hours without an engine related accident.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen has flown in Arctic Climate, over the deserts of Northern Africa, also over Southern Africa.
> and the Humid South East Asia. It can fly everywhere.
> The engines have chewed birds multiple times without crashes.
> 
> In May 2011 it had completed 160,000 flight hours without any crash due to engines
> In January 2017, it had completed 250,000 flight hours.
> It should by now have flown about 275,000 flight hours without an engine related accident.



hep hep hep... This august, a swedish Gripen crashed after a bird strike (engine stopped)

And there was some other crash :
1993 : a serial plane lost for FBW failure.
1999 : during a dog fight, a plane lost for a FBW "disorientation" (same than the one occured to a Rafale : anemometric probes totally mad by the blast of another engine plane)
2005 : A plane lost because unable to leave a stall situation (FBW)
2015 : 2 lost, without clear explanation (at my level).
2017 : one lost during an aero show (pilot disorientation? FBW Pb? other?)
August 2018 : see below.

And if I remember well 2 others, but it was clearly pilot errors.
And a FBW failure on a prototyp.

Engine seem reliable. FBW.... not so.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> hep hep hep... This august, a swedish Gripen crashed after a bird strike (engine stopped)
> 
> And there was some other crash :
> 1993 : a serial plane lost for FBW failure.
> 1999 : during a dog fight, a plane lost for a FBW "disorientation" (same than the one occured to a Rafale : anemometric probes totally mad by the blast of another engine plane)
> 2005 : A plane lost because unable to leave a stall situation (FBW)
> 2015 : 2 lost, without clear explanation (at my level).
> 2017 : one lost during an aero show (pilot disorientation? FBW Pb? other?)
> August 2018 : see below.
> 
> And if I remember well 2 others, but it was clearly pilot errors.
> And a FBW failure on a prototyp.
> 
> Engine seem reliable. FBW.... not so.



The plane that crashed 2018 did so because hit hit a flock of cormorants, and the control surfaces stopped working. It was not engine related according the limited reports available.

The 2017 crash was caused by spatial disorientation, nothing wrong with the aircraft.
The 2005 crash was caused by an inexperienced pilot which did not know how to exit an inverted superstall.
The 1993 crash was the first production aircraft, and it had a known problem with the software for flight control, but it would only occur if the pilot made a lot of stick movement. They had not told the pilot. The pilot made a U-turn during an air exhibition and flew back into his own turbulence, and he was ”whipping cream” with the stick, which resulted in the low level control loop not getting enough CPU cycles to maintain stable flight. They modified the priorities in the operating system, and that problem has not occured since then.
I actually watched that plane go down in person. It crashed just a fe hundred meters from my appartment in central Stockholm.

Noone claimed that the Gripen has not crashed, just that there is no engine related crash.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The plane that crashed 2018 did so because hit hit a flock of cormorants, and the control surfaces stopped working. It was not engine related according the limited reports available.
> 
> The 2017 crash was caused by spatial disorientation, nothing wrong with the aircraft.
> The 2005 crash was caused by an inexperienced pilot which did not know how to exit an inverted superstall.
> The 1993 crash was the first production aircraft, and it had a known problem with the software for flight control, but it would only occur if the pilot made a lot of stick movement. They had not told the pilot. The pilot made a U-turn during an air exhibition and flew back into his own turbulence, and he was ”whipping cream” with the stick, which resulted in the low level control loop not getting enough CPU cycles to maintain stable flight. They modified the priorities in the operating system, and that problem has not occured since then.
> I actually watched that plane go down in person. It crashed just a fe hundred meters from my appartment in central Stockholm.
> 
> Noone claimed that the Gripen has not crashed, just that there is no engine related crash.


1993 : it was the second production aircraft.
2005 : Isn't the FBW job not to enter in a uncontrolled maneuver? inexperenced pilot? a lieutnant colonel.... ?
2018 : I find no source about a breakdown of control surface. The more probable reason is bird ingestion (and what a big bird).


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> 1993 : it was the second production aircraft.
> 2005 : Isn't the FBW job not to enter in a uncontrolled maneuver? inexperenced pilot? a lieutnant colonel.... ?
> 2018 : I find no source about a breakdown of control surface. The more probable reason is bird ingestion (and what a big bird).


1993: It was the first in the Swedish Air Force.
2005: The problem is that the sensors get the wrong input in this situation, so the FBW is helpless.
2018: The plane hit a *bunch* of cormorants. The Swedish newspapers including some with technical focus, as well as TV news mentioned that the aircraft did not respond to the stick.
The final report is not released.
The engines are tested shooting frozen chickens into the front, and they will still survive.


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> 1993: It was the first in the Swedish Air Force.
> 2005: The problem is that the sensors get the wrong input in this situation, so the FBW is helpless.
> 2018: The plane hit a *bunch* of cormorants. The Swedish newspapers including some with technical focus, as well as TV news mentioned that the aircraft did not respond to the stick.
> The final report is not released.
> The engines are tested shooting frozen chickens into the front, and they will still survive.








1993 : 2nd plane delivered... (serial number 39-102).

At the end I agree : Engine seem reliable. The Gripen FBW less.


----------



## randomradio

BON PLAN said:


> View attachment 524497
> 
> 1993 : 2nd plane delivered... (serial number 39-102).
> 
> At the end I agree : Engine seem reliable. The Gripen FBW less.



Bird strikes are a problem in tropical regions like India, where we actually have birds, not the Arctic Circle where the Gripen lives.


----------



## BON PLAN

randomradio said:


> Bird strikes are a problem in tropical regions like India, where we actually have birds, not the Arctic Circle where the Gripen lives.


The cormorants on the Gripen flight was not invented.
And Cormorant is a big bird.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> View attachment 524497
> 
> 1993 : 2nd plane delivered... (serial number 39-102).
> 
> At the end I agree : Engine seem reliable. The Gripen FBW less.



The FBW problem was fixed after the second accident. It has not been a problem since then.
The most interesting crash was when a pilot made a tight turn right before landing.
The 3G suit inflated, and combination of this and the unusually muscular thighs of the pilot
triggered the ejection seat.



BON PLAN said:


> View attachment 524497
> 
> 1993 : 2nd plane delivered... (serial number 39-102).
> 
> At the end I agree : Engine seem reliable. The Gripen FBW less.



The prototypes are called 39-1 .. 39-9.
39-9 is the second Gripen E.
Production aircrafts are called 39-XXX. X = {0..9}
I do not know if there was a 39-101.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2019/...-will-be-manufactured-in-the-us-not-in-india/

*The F-16 Fighters Offered To Bulgaria Will Be Manufactured In The US, Not In India*
On Jan 24, 2019





Photo credit: Businessinsider.com
_SOFIA, Bulgaria (BulgarianMilitary.com) – _The U.S. aerospace company Lockheed Martin denied the claims circulating in some media recently that the F-16 Block 70 fighters for Bulgaria will be manufactured in India, learned BulgarianMilitary.com. 

The conclusion that the production of the fighters for which Bulgaria will negotiate could take place in India, derived from the possibility for the U.S. company to relocate its F-16 plant there, if it is awarded a large-scale military order. In India, the U.S. defence company is competing with Boeing’s F/A-18, Saab’s Gripen, Dassault Aviation’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and a Russian fighter, for the supply of 114 combat aircraft to India’s Air Force. The deal is estimated to be worth more than $15 billion. 

*Read more:* Bulgaria Starts Negotiating with the U.S. on the F-16 Purchase After Parliamentary Approval

According to Reuters, citing the vice president of strategy and business development at Lockheed Martin, Vivek Lall, the U.S. company would make the Asian country the sole global production center for the F-16 that would meet the requirements for the Indian military and overseas markets. 

*Read more:* French Defense Minister Set to Garner New Contract for Rafale Jets in India

However, in a press release related to the recent statements, the International Business Development Director for the F-16 Program at Lockheed Martin, James Robinson, specifies that the fighters offered to our country will be manufactured in the company’s facility in Greenville, South Carolina.

Lockheed Martin’s statement, cites Robinson saying that the production of the very latest version of NATO’s benchmark single-engine fighter F-16 Block 70 aircraft for Bulgaria, will be held at the company’s F-16 production line in Greenville, South Carolina, where and the aircraft for Bahrain and Slovakia will also be produced. _“We have not planned, nor have we ever suggested having F-16s for Bulgaria manufactured in any other country, including India,” _the statement reads and adds that Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, the U.S., with 100,000 employees around the world.

The company is currently shifting its production line from Fort Worth, Texas to Greenville, South Carolina.

*Read more:* Lockheed Martin: We Will Support Our New Bulgarian Partners

In the middle of the next month, the interstate talks for eight F-16 Block 70 fighters begin, with Bulgaria’s ambition the purchase not to exceed BGN 1.8 billion (with VAT). One of the unclear moments, so far, is when the production of the aircraft will take place.

Initially, Bulgaria wanted to acquire the first fighters within two years after signing the contract, but the U.S. and Lockheed Martin could hardly meet that requirement. However, Parliament has adopted the “deviation” from the requirements and all deadlines are yet to be negotiated. Lockheed Martin says they have already found a way to speed up the delivery process.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## polanski

India hooked up to APG-83 SABR AESA radar vs old Russian myth India used to believe. India will never go back to junk fighter anymore once India taste the APG-83. 

https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2019/08/27/active-electronically-scanned-array-asea-radar/


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> India hooked up to APG-83 SABR AESA radar vs old Russian myth India used to believe. India will never go back to junk fighter anymore once India taste the APG-83.
> 
> https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2019/08/27/active-electronically-scanned-array-asea-radar/


They will have the french RBE2 AESA next month.... 
F16 will never came in the IAF inventory. Never.


----------



## polanski

BON PLAN said:


> They will have the french RBE2 AESA next month....
> F16 will never came in the IAF inventory. Never.


I will wait for MMRCA 2.0 outcome. Yes Rafale is a great fighter jet and France has a history of supporting India on desperate times but India cannot overlook lucrative offers from Boeing and Lockheed to develop domestic defenses industries.


----------



## Dash

polanski said:


> I will wait for MMRCA 2.0 outcome. Yes Rafale is a great fighter jet and France has a history of supporting India on desperate times but India cannot overlook lucrative offers from Boeing and Lockheed to develop domestic defenses industries.



Although desirable, I dont see LM or Boeing contributing to building Aerospace infra in India much, unless the IP issues between India and US are addressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

polanski said:


> India hooked up to APG-83 SABR AESA radar vs old Russian myth India used to believe. India will never go back to junk fighter anymore once India taste the APG-83.
> 
> https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2019/08/27/active-electronically-scanned-array-asea-radar/



The picture in the article happens to show the Gripen E radar, LOL.
The article claims:
”ES-05 is the most technically advanced airborne radar systems in the world.”

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maithil

Only RAFALe and SH have any chance of getting selected. Provided RAFALe is not bought on G2G basis.


----------



## surya kiran

maithil said:


> Only RAFALe and SH have any chance of getting selected. Provided RAFALe is not bought on G2G basis.



Saying it for the past 4 years. 200+ Rafale are coming. The infra built is not for small civilian stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

maithil said:


> Only RAFALe and SH have any chance of getting selected. Provided RAFALe is not bought on G2G basis.



If the government wanted to buy more Rafales they would not have started a new tender, just restarted the old one. The Indian Government has told the IAF that they cannot afford to but hundreds of Rafale.


----------



## maithil

A.P. Richelieu said:


> If the government wanted to buy more Rafales they would not have started a new tender, just restarted the old one. The Indian Government has told the IAF that they cannot afford to but hundreds of Rafale.



CapEx of IAF is so low that any new foreign acquisition of 100 planes will bankrupt it for a decade. This whole MRCA-2 saga is waste of time. Best case scenario for IAF is 36-54 RAFALE in G2G follow on deal and couple of squads of Flankers and Fulcrums. And probably some Tejas if that ever gets inducted.



surya kiran said:


> Saying it for the past 4 years. 200+ Rafale are coming. The infra built is not for small civilian stuff.


 
200+ Rafales will cost IAF more than 50 Billion USD. Where will IAF find that kind of money ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## polanski

A.P. Richelieu said:


> The picture in the article happens to show the Gripen E radar, LOL.
> The article claims:
> ”ES-05 is the most technically advanced airborne radar systems in the world.”
> 
> View attachment 576230


No it doesn't. It discussed three radar including APG-83.


A.P. Richelieu said:


> The picture in the article happens to show the Gripen E radar, LOL.
> The article claims:
> ”ES-05 is the most technically advanced airborne radar systems in the world.”
> 
> View attachment 576230


One of them Raven ES. It discussed PESA and AESA. That's what I read.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

polanski said:


> No it doesn't. It discussed three radar including APG-83.
> 
> ...


It did Yesterday.
I guess someone got their butt kicked, and edited the article.
Can’t have an American claim a European radar is better...

Actually, it is still there...


----------



## polanski

A.P. Richelieu said:


> It did Yesterday.
> I guess someone got their butt kicked, and edited the article.
> Can’t have an American claim a European radar is better...


It's not about europe or america. It's about the technology. American is willing accept where there is better technology. It's not like Indian who sent Mig-21 to fight F-16 or the Russian who glorify Su-57.

For your education, Raven ES-05 has the best wide field of regard (120 degree) and GaN used comparing any radar in the world. APG-83 has the best ECCM capability in the world. Captor E has the best missile engagement capability. All are same level except Raven can see more than the others.

Study Wide Field of Regard and massage your bum, it will relief your brain.

Ohh read it again after you wear your eye glass https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2019/08/27/active-electronically-scanned-array-asea-radar/


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> I will wait for MMRCA 2.0 outcome. Yes Rafale is a great fighter jet and France has a history of supporting India on desperate times but India cannot overlook lucrative offers from Boeing and Lockheed to develop domestic defenses industries.


The US will only accept to transfert some of their tech with the nearest ally : Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand. Not more.
Add the fact that you buy Russian S400 and it's over (you will not suffer from CATSAA retaliation because you are a big market, not as Turkey, but you will not have access to latest tech)
US may only propose cheap weapons thanks to large serial production, but don't expect any significant ToT. Or with old junks like F16 (oups, F21 !) but only to produce the frame. Never you will have access to the AESA radar tech or electronic suite.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> ”ES-05 is the most technically advanced airborne radar systems in the world.”


if you except US AESA radars, Japan AESA ones, etc....



polanski said:


> For your education, Raven ES-05 has the best wide field of regard (120 degree) and GaN used comparing any radar in the world.


120° with mechanical antenna moving : YES
GaN ? Not yet. Probably in a second variant (as every AESA radar)


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> if you except US AESA radars, Japan AESA ones, etc....
> 
> 
> 120° with mechanical antenna moving : YES
> GaN ? Not yet. Probably in a second variant (as every AESA radar)



Not my claim, the claim was in the article
As for GaN, I agree. The Raven is still GaAs.
SAAB has a GaN based radar flying in the GlobalEye using EriEye-ER.
They have far gone development of a fighter radar version, but it was too late to include in Gripen E. In order to complete the development they need a target aircraft which will determine physical dimensions and number of T/Rs.


----------



## polanski

BON PLAN said:


> The US will only accept to transfert some of their tech with the nearest ally : Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand. Not more.
> Add the fact that you buy Russian S400 and it's over (you will not suffer from CATSAA retaliation because you are a big market, not as Turkey, but you will not have access to latest tech)
> US may only propose cheap weapons thanks to large serial production, but don't expect any significant ToT. Or with old junks like F16 (oups, F21 !) but only to produce the frame. Never you will have access to the AESA radar tech or electronic suite.
> 
> 
> if you except US AESA radars, Japan AESA ones, etc....
> 
> 
> 120° with mechanical antenna moving : YES
> GaN ? Not yet. Probably in a second variant (as every AESA radar)


Raven ES-05 is not a mechanically scanned radar. Raven ES-05 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array. Raven ES-05 has been in production and in service with Brazil and Sweden. Brazil received first operational gripen last week. Thales, Leonardo, BAE and Saab Radars are GaN based radar. American APG-83 is GaN based. Please download datasheet from manufacturer websites. Don't BS. 

Lockheed Martin already supplied tech to TASL to manufacture airframe of C-130 and Apache. Whether F-21 win the contract or not all F-16V airframe will be manufactured in India near future. 
There are some superficial reassembles between F-16 and F-21 but both are different aircraft. 
https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/lockheed-martin-f-21-meet-make-in-india-fighter-jet/


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Raven ES-05 is not a mechanically scanned radar. Raven ES-05 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array. Raven ES-05 has been in production and in service with Brazil and Sweden. Brazil received first operational gripen last week. Thales, Leonardo, BAE and Saab Radars are GaN based radar. American APG-83 is GaN based. Please download datasheet from manufacturer websites. Don't BS.
> 
> Lockheed Martin already supplied tech to TASL to manufacture airframe of C-130 and Apache. Whether F-21 win the contract or not all F-16V airframe will be manufactured in India near future.
> There are some superficial reassembles between F-16 and F-21 but both are different aircraft.
> https://exoatmospheric.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/lockheed-martin-f-21-meet-make-in-india-fighter-jet/


Yes, Raven is AESA, but to offer 120° field of view L and 120° R, it has to be also mecanically movable. AESA alone is limited, if the antenna is flat (always the case as for now), to + and - 70° nearly.

GaN is the next AESA step. The actual airborne AESA fighter radar are GaAs. So is (will be) Raven, and so will be first gen Captor E (when ready....).
No evidence APG 83 is GaN, specially because on test since 2010... (quite old for GaN). https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SABR/Pages/default.aspx
Rafale RBE2 AESA is GaAs, as Spectra antennas, with upgrades on study in GaN. But GaN is costlier... (Spectra will normally be the first to receive GaN).

It's quite easy to move from GaAs to GaN because you "just" have to remove the antenna. The back part of the radar, the electronic power and treatment back stage may stay the same (but in practice with more range, it's usefull to increase your calculation power)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> Yes, Raven is AESA, but to offer 120° field of view L and 120° R, it has to be also mecanically movable. AESA alone is limited, if the antenna is flat (always the case as for now), to + and - 70° nearly.
> 
> GaN is the next AESA step. The actual airborne AESA fighter radar are GaAs. So is (will be) Raven, and so will be first gen Captor E (when ready....).
> No evidence APG 83 is GaN, specially because on test since 2010... (quite old for GaN). https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SABR/Pages/default.aspx
> Rafale RBE2 AESA is GaAs, as Spectra antennas, with upgrades on study in GaN. But GaN is costlier... (Spectra will normally be the first to receive GaN).
> 
> It's quite easy to move from GaAs to GaN because you "just" have to remove the antenna. The back part of the radar, the electronic power and treatment back stage may stay the same (but in practice with more range, it's usefull to increase your calculation power)



Gripen E will have an EW unit which is GaN based, but Raven is not GaN based.
Neither are the other radars mentioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

Here is THE reason why Gripen is called Sukhoi Killer.

*Hungarian Gripens showcase new capabilities in NATO Baltic Air Policing mission*
*Alan Warnes, Siauliai Air Base, Lithuania* - Jane's International Defence Review
06 September 2019
Follow

RSS







A Hungarian Air Force JAS 39C Gripen, armed with two AIM-120C5 AMRAAMs and two AIM-9L Sidewinders, taxies to its alert barn after a scramble. Source: Alan Warnes
Hungarian Air Force (HuAF) Saab JAS 39C Gripens returned home on 2 September following a four-month deployment to Šiauliai Air Base, Lithuania, during which airmen found the Litening targeting pod and new data links to be especially valuable.

As part of NATO's Baltic Air Policing commitment, four Gripens armed with two Air Intercept Missile (AIM)-120C5 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) and two shorter-range AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs stood on a persistent Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) to defend the airspace of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. One of each pair standing the alert was also equipped with a Litening III laser designator pod.

As the lead nation, the HuAF remained on full-time QRA throughout its mission, whereas the other two detachments - comprising Spanish Air Force EF-18M Hornets co-located at Šiauliai, and UK Royal Air Force Typhoons at Ämari, Estonia - worked in tandem, taking one week off (cold) and one week on (hot).

According to the detachment commander, Brigadier General Csaba Ugrik, it was a busy deployment. "We flew over 400 sorties, including 43 Alpha scrambles that saw us intercept over 50 Russian military aircraft."

There was a variety of types intercepted, including Sukhoi Su-24M/MRs, Su-27Ps, Su-30SMs, Su-34s, and Su-35s armed with new beyond visual range AA-12 Adder AAMs; as well as transports and high-value assets such as Antonov An-12, An-24, An-26 aircraft; Beriev A-50; Ilyushin Il-18 Coot Il-20/Il-22 Coot A/Bs, navy Il-38 May, and Il-76; and Tupolev Tu-134, Tu-142, Tu-154, and Tu-214R aircraft, according to the HuAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

*Lockheed Martin to begin supplying F-16 wings from Hyderabad plant in 2020*
*https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...ying-f-16-wings-from-hyderabad-plant-in-2020/*


----------



## Ali_Baba

polanski said:


> *Lockheed Martin to begin supplying F-16 wings from Hyderabad plant in 2020*
> *https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...ying-f-16-wings-from-hyderabad-plant-in-2020/*



This pretty much kills the idea of new build F16s for PAF, as there is no way they are gonna buy F16s with India wings. Lockheed Martin will shutdown its wing manufactoring capability in the USA once this comes online..


----------



## polanski

Breaking News 
Lockheed Martin submit proposal to build F-21 in India. 
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...o-build-f-21-under-make-in-india-initiatives/


----------



## polanski

Gripen proposes an offer to Indian Air Force
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...-half-the-cost-of-rafale-says-saab-india-cmd/


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Ali_Baba said:


> This pretty much kills the idea of new build F16s for PAF, as there is no way they are gonna buy F16s with India wings. Lockheed Martin will shutdown its wing manufactoring capability in the USA once this comes online..


Oh No


----------



## polanski

This is why India needs F-21 (F-16V Block 70). India needs Spice 250 and Delilah Cruise Missile. 
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...00-meet-the-delilah-stand-off-cruise-missile/


----------



## polanski

India could get their hands on BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 if they choose F-21. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...n-asq-239-advanced-electronic-warfare-system/


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

polanski said:


> India could get their hands on BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 if they choose F-21. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...n-asq-239-advanced-electronic-warfare-system/



Why not F 18 superhornet. If Tom Cruise is flying the plane, it must be damn good

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Why not F 18 superhornet. If Tom Cruise is flying the plane, it must be damn good


Indian Navy is discussing with Boeing to buy Advanced Super Hornet. Don't dream about Russian aircraft anymore. Your military leadership ruled out Russian option. 
MMRCA V2.0 
Gripen Vs F-21

I'm assuming F-21 will win the competition based TASL advocacy. 

For Indian Navy
Rafale M vs F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III

I'm assuming Super Hornet as your Navy may not spend same amount of money as IAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BringHarmony

polanski said:


> This is why India needs F-21 (F-16V Block 70). India needs Spice 250 and Delilah Cruise Missile.
> https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...00-meet-the-delilah-stand-off-cruise-missile/


Israel weapons. They can be integrated with existing Indian crafts having Israel-based radars. Or European radars.

I heard they are developing their own naval jets with Israel-based radars.



polanski said:


> Indian Navy is discussing with Boeing to buy Advanced Super Hornet. Don't dream about Russian aircraft anymore. Your military leadership ruled out Russian option.
> MMRCA V2.0
> Gripen Vs F-21
> 
> I'm assuming F-21 will win the competition based TASL advocacy.
> 
> For Indian Navy
> Rafale M vs F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III
> 
> I'm assuming Super Hornet as your Navy may not spend same amount of money as IAF.


If India has an ounce of wisdom, they will simply go for Rafale all the way. In every branch. Having a zoo of fighters is never a good idea.



BON PLAN said:


> It's quite easy to move from GaAs to GaN because you "just" have to remove the antenna. The back part of the radar, the electronic power and treatment back stage may stay the same (but in practice with more range, it's usefull to increase your calculation power)


GaN will impact transmitters. The backend and processor can still be the same.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Ali_Baba said:


> This pretty much kills the idea of new build F16s for PAF, as there is no way they are gonna buy F16s with India wings. Lockheed Martin will shutdown its wing manufactoring capability in the USA once this comes online..



I think the wings were being built in Israel, that's the one that was being shifted to India.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

polanski said:


> Indian Navy is discussing with Boeing to buy Advanced Super Hornet. Don't dream about Russian aircraft anymore. Your military leadership ruled out Russian option.
> MMRCA V2.0
> Gripen Vs F-21
> 
> I'm assuming F-21 will win the competition based TASL advocacy.
> 
> For Indian Navy
> Rafale M vs F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III
> 
> I'm assuming Super Hornet as your Navy may not spend same amount of money as IAF.



Why not Rafale ??


----------



## polanski

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Why not Rafale ??


Can you afford to manufacture 100 plus Rafale jets in India? Do you the life cycle cost of 85 Tejas? Your government disclosed £25B for Tejas. 

Rafale would cost you £50B or may be more for the life cycle of the Jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

polanski said:


> Can you afford to manufacture 100 plus Rafale jets in India? Do you the life cycle cost of 85 Tejas? Your government disclosed £25B for Tejas.
> 
> Rafale would cost you £50B or may be more for the life cycle of the Jets.



Hmmm.. why do you think the IAF wont buy F 18 superhornet ?


----------



## polanski

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Hmmm.. why do you think the IAF wont buy F 18 superhornet ?


I don't believe IAF will buy Super Hornet. It doesn't make sense for them although EA-18 Growler is the premier Antidote to S-400. EA-18 Growler and Super Hornet makes sense for IN. BTW your Navy chief is interested in Queen Elizabeth class aircraft Carrier. so I am guessing he may select either Super Hornet, EA-18 Growler or the F-35B. The US already said that F-35B is on the table if India selects F-21. 
As someone said already, India is no longer banana republic that they can't afford American weapons. Russian fighter jets are out of India once and for all.


----------



## Novice09

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Why not Rafale ??



Too Expensive to operate... fuel hungry...
GoI is trying very hard to push for 180+ Rafale jets (IAF+IN) but ON ITS OWN TERMS (TOT + Local Manufacturing + Local overhauling facilities) to bring down the cost SIGNIFICANTLY... and French are ACTING SMART as of now...
Someone told me - "IF deal is not worked out AS PER INDIAN DRAFT... get ready for 36 Rafale, 100+ F 21 and F 18... 95% chances for 2nd"...
The only problem he has is the UNPREDICTABILITY and SECRECY under which Modi government works...

On a side note... IAF is really happy with the performance of Tejas and now they are backing it up... someone from Sulur told me this...



polanski said:


> I don't believe IAF will buy Super Hornet. It doesn't make sense for them although EA-18 Growler is the premier Antidote to S-400. EA-18 Growler and Super Hornet makes sense for IN. BTW your Navy chief is interested in Queen Elizabeth class aircraft Carrier. so I am guessing he may select either Super Hornet, EA-18 Growler or the F-35B. The US already said that F-35B is on the table if India selects F-21.
> As someone said already, India is no longer banana republic that they can't afford American weapons. Russian fighter jets are out of India once and for all.



Russian Jets are CHEAP TO BUY... Expensive to maintain with LOW serviceability... Russian and Swedish jets are completely out of the race... very minuscule chance for EF... F-21 or Rafale for IAF... F-18 or Rafale for IN...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Indian Navy is discussing with Boeing to buy Advanced Super Hornet. Don't dream about Russian aircraft anymore. Your military leadership ruled out Russian option.
> MMRCA V2.0
> Gripen Vs F-21
> 
> I'm assuming F-21 will win the competition based TASL advocacy.
> 
> For Indian Navy
> Rafale M vs F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III
> 
> I'm assuming Super Hornet as your Navy may not spend same amount of money as IAF.


LOL.

F21 is just another F16 avatar. It is black listed in India. Game over.

SH18 is a old horse, even in a block IV or V.... the latest swisss eval, this year, show that SH18 is low agile than legacy F18. It is heavier but with less load than Rafale. It's just a stop gap fighter, so are the capacity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Novice09 said:


> Russian Jets are CHEAP TO BUY... Expensive to maintain with LOW serviceability... Russian and Swedish jets are completely out of the race... very minuscule chance for EF... F-21 or Rafale for IAF... F-18 or Rafale for IN...



F-21 is F 16 only. Pakistanis have been flying these planes for so long now. why would we buy that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BON PLAN

Novice09 said:


> GoI is trying very hard to push for 180+ Rafale jets (IAF+IN) but ON ITS OWN TERMS (TOT + Local Manufacturing + Local overhauling facilities) to bring down the cost SIGNIFICANTLY... and French are ACTING SMART as of now...
> Someone told me - "IF deal is not worked out AS PER INDIAN DRAFT... get ready for 36 Rafale, 100+ F 21 and F 18... 95% chances for 2nd"...


The french are the sole to be able to give you a high level of ToT (because 100% of the plane is french).
Local manufacturing : a factory is already built, with some groung to increase it. It's in the pipe.
Overhauling : of course. With a small fleet (36) it's too costly, but with a 100+ fleet, it's natural.

I think the french proposal can't be compete by any other competitor. US will never give you a high level of ToT. 

F21 is already out of the game. Now too old...

My opinion : more Rafale in the IAF. The game remains open for Navy (SH18 is heavier, less agile, it's another plane in the inventary, but the weapons range of SH is very impressive and Rafale one can't match it).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

BON PLAN said:


> The french are the sole to be able to give you a high level of ToT (because 100% of the plane is french).
> Local manufacturing : a factory is already built, with some groung to increase it. It's in the pipe.
> Overhauling : of course. With a small fleet (36) it's too costly, but with a 100+ fleet, it's natural.
> 
> I think the french proposal can't be compete by any other competitor. US will never give you a high level of ToT.
> 
> F21 is already out of the game. Now too old...
> 
> My opinion : more Rafale in the IAF. The game remains open for Navy (SH18 is heavier, less agile, it's another plane in the inventary, but the weapons range of SH is very impressive and Rafale one can't match it).



Just make the Rafale cheaper man. We are buying so many. Let's make life easier for both of us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BON PLAN

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Just make the Rafale cheaper man. We are buying so many. Let's make life easier for both of us.


To achieve that, Dassault and Reliance are doing all their best so as to produce a maximum of the plane in India.
If the cost can't be cut so deeply as you want, at least the money will stay mainly in India, and will help to built a strong and competitive private aero cluster so as to challenge HAL.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BringHarmony

BON PLAN said:


> To achieve that, Dassault and Reliance are doing all their best so as to produce a maximum of the plane in India.
> If the cost can't be cut so deeply as you want, at least the money will stay mainly in India, and will help to built a strong and competitive private aero cluster so as to challenge HAL.


I wonder why Indians have such a massive hard-on on "Technology". @Nilgiri Rest of Indians here, any comments?

Hint : Its not the technology that you need.


----------



## Nilgiri

BringHarmony said:


> I wonder why Indians have such a massive hard-on on "Technology". @Nilgiri Rest of Indians here, any comments?
> 
> Hint : Its not the technology that you need.



Simple, we want to replicate what we have with ISRO in many more fields over time (on top of keep improving ISRO). France is a good proven partner in ISRO story actually...so make sense we choose them intrinsically for lot more things now.

There is good capacity, and direction is following now....you can look up SJR science output numbers and trends.

We also prefer to work with partners (and systematically prioritise and fork out the coin and mutual interactions) rather than hack and steal IP or retroactively force IP handover from them outright and create some (coming home to roost now) negative long term perception for short to mid term ruthless gain. That is more hallmark for brittle all or nothing autocracies and totalitarian types.


----------



## BringHarmony

Nilgiri said:


> Simple, we want to replicate what we have with ISRO in many more fields over time (on top of keep improving ISRO). France is a good proven partner in ISRO story actually...so make sense we choose them intrinsically for lot more things now.
> 
> There is good capacity, and direction is following now....you can look up SJR science output numbers and trends.
> 
> We also prefer to work with partners (and systematically prioritise and fork out the coin and mutual interactions) rather than hack and steal IP or retroactively force IP handover from them outright and create some (coming home to roost now) negative long term perception for short to mid term ruthless gain. That is more hallmark for brittle all or nothing autocracies and totalitarian types.


Did it ever occur to Indians that perhaps, just perhaps, its not the technology which is holding you folks back in getting access to the desired platforms and weapons?

I mean -- take a look at the relatively simple process of procuring fighters. Your entire tender and delivery took about 20 years. From initial requirements : in 2001 or so to the delivery of first fighter in 2019 or 20. If you folks would have bought the production lines of Mirage 2000 in 2001 or so, outright when France was starting to move to Rafale in numbers, by now you would have a large number of Mirage 2000s flying and replacing unreliable museum pieces like Mig-21. May be upgraded.

Upshot is : perhaps you guys need to learn how to do project or program management properly and NOT exactly the technology. Because going by the timelines you folks take, by the time you will fully absorb any technology, it will be outdated!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

BringHarmony said:


> Did it ever occur to Indians that perhaps, just perhaps, its not the technology which is holding you folks back in getting access to the desired platforms and weapons?
> 
> I mean -- take a look at the relatively simple process of procuring fighters. Your entire tender and delivery took about 20 years. From initial requirements : in 2001 or so to the delivery of first fighter in 2019 or 20. If you folks would have bought the production lines of Mirage 2000 in 2001 or so, outright when France was starting to move to Rafale in numbers, by now you would have a large number of Mirage 2000s flying and replacing unreliable museum pieces like Mig-21. May be upgraded.
> 
> Upshot is : perhaps you guys need to learn how to do project or program management properly and NOT exactly the technology. Because going by the timelines you folks take, by the time you will fully absorb any technology, it will be outdated!



A lot of things "occur" to us...courtesy of thought process in any human population....so not sure what you imply there. The first basic one that occurs to us is we dont like to be a hive mind or encourage that sort of thing, so we prefer debate and this creates dissonance in different direction too....but also lot of gaps for entrenched interests to dwell and exploit status quo stuff from.

But it needs to be aired out well to be solved is the conclusion we generally all come to....rather than put sheer blind trust in some brittle top down autocratic method. Too much risk inherent in that system and it doesn't work well for us from history.

Program management is just getting too specific. The problem with certain govt orgs handling this stuff (in contrast to ISRO) has much more to do with the bureaucracy and affiliated problems that reward dwell time over results...for various reasons related to size, scope, transition and inertia (of the cold war psyche as it manifested in India in particular way). Things like not having military people running the military product programs to keep good healthy pressure on it to deliver in suitable timeframe....because certain bureaucratic norms and processes (in rest of Indian govt) were just assumed to be good enough (there was also an institutional suspicion of military at certain key points given the general neighbourhood and developing world proclivity for coups etc in cold war).

The point is we have the stellar example to learn from and emulate...gestated and delivered already (ISRO) across the board of what this all generally involves....be it program management, technology absorption and refinement, administration and more result-oriented iterations. In fact there are several good parts in other organisations like DRDO, they are just not comprehensive yet...point is to keep getting better as what works and what doesnt work accumulates more pressure to effect relevant change everywhere....but not so much one that does something so severe like a purge or complete reset from 0.


----------



## Novice09

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Just make the Rafale cheaper man. We are buying so many. Let's make life easier for both of us.



Yes, This is the exact thing GOI is asking...


----------



## polanski

BON PLAN said:


> LOL.
> 
> F21 is just another F16 avatar. It is black listed in India. Game over.
> 
> SH18 is a old horse, even in a block IV or V.... the latest swisss eval, this year, show that SH18 is low agile than legacy F18. It is heavier but with less load than Rafale. It's just a stop gap fighter, so are the capacity.


OMG! It seems you're out of touch about Aerospace industries!

Beyond superficial reassembles of F-16, F-21 comes with APG-83 SABR AESA and same EW Suite as F-35. The armaments package is unmatched. The most importantly, F-21 comes with MALD-J for swarm attacks against s-400.

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/08/01/lockheed-martin-f-21-meet-make-in-india-fighter-jet/

Super Hornet is semi-stealth and proven platform, can carry Nukes.

https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2018/05/31/boeing-f-a-18-advanced-super-hornet/

Both F-21 and Super Hornet come with ToT. Rafale is great fighter aircraft, no doubt about it. Rafale is omnirole as well but costly to acquire. Question: Can India afford whopping £8B again for 36 Rafale or for 100+ Rafale costs whopping £50B plus. Indian would rather buy F-35 if they have to spend £50B.


----------



## CIA Mole

US only sells F35s to countries that need help holding off China and Russia. India will never get F35#


----------



## Sheikh Rauf

this is not just old aircraft tech transfer or building factory its about india to have war with china and they make sure india will not short of jets before surrender. 
india sud not go to anywhere els if they offering f16 the mighty to piss Pakistan off unless india is dealing somthing els beside that.


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> OMG! It seems you're out of touch about Aerospace industries!
> 
> Beyond superficial reassembles of F-16, F-21 comes with APG-83 SABR AESA and same EW Suite as F-35. The armaments package is unmatched. The most importantly, F-21 comes with MALD-J for swarm attacks against s-400.
> 
> https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/08/01/lockheed-martin-f-21-meet-make-in-india-fighter-jet/
> 
> Super Hornet is semi-stealth and proven platform, can carry Nukes.
> 
> https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2018/05/31/boeing-f-a-18-advanced-super-hornet/
> 
> Both F-21 and Super Hornet come with ToT. Rafale is great fighter aircraft, no doubt about it. Rafale is omnirole as well but costly to acquire. Question: Can India afford whopping £8B again for 36 Rafale or for 100+ Rafale costs whopping £50B plus. Indian would rather buy F-35 if they have to spend £50B.


LOL.
during a MACE exercise, a omnirole Rafale was able to detect S300 when the dedicated F16CJ can't.
F21 is just a refurbished F16. F16 is near the end of it's life. You will always found some country to by some, but what kind of country? peacefull or under the NATO umbrella. India needs up to date and fully effective weapons because in a permanent war situation.
In the same way you will always find some country to purchase old F5 with remaining potential. But for air policy peace time duty. Not more.



polanski said:


> Both F-21 and Super Hornet come with ToT.


?
Sure not. Oh yes, for bolts, nuts, wires, door panels.

The Trump's America needs jobs in America. It's not to give India ToT and complet and up to date assembly line...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rajiv sharma

Gandhi G in da house said:


> Just make the Rafale cheaper man. We are buying so many. Let's make life easier for both of us.


 . syapa mukya



BringHarmony said:


> Did I mean -- take a look at the relatively simple process of procuring fighters. Your entire tender and delivery took about 20 years. From initial requirements : in 2001 or so to the delivery of first fighter in 2019 or 20.* If you folks would have bought the production lines of Mirage 2000 in 2001 or so*, outright when France was starting to move to Rafale in numbers, by now you would have a large number of Mirage 2000s flying and replacing unreliable museum pieces like Mig-21. May be upgraded.
> !


sir , khangress alias indian anti national congress of mohamad das karamchand gandhi always want to import defense equipment because of kickbacks , thankfully *godse's bjp* is trying to reverse everything as they have started *make in in India* program and focus have shifted post 2014 to try to make everything in bharat .* highlighted part was golden opportunity missed as priorities were different that time .*



notmycolon said:


> US only sells F35s to countries that need help holding off China and Russia. India will never get F35#


we never intended to buy american jets either , it is american jet companies who want to sell and are desperate . moreover F35 is not out of the world jet . ok ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

India licensed produces Israeli UAS and UAV. 
Skylark 3 Field Deployable Tactical UAS https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/12/07/skylark-3-field-deployable-tactical-uas/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

polanski said:


> India licensed produces Israeli UAS and UAV.
> Skylark 3 Field Deployable Tactical UAS https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/12/07/skylark-3-field-deployable-tactical-uas/


 It does?

Adani will produce fuselage parts for Hermes nothing more nothing less.


----------



## polanski

Someone said Gripen is a available to buy on paper not in production. Well not now. Swedish Air Force Gets First Gripen E Fighter Jet https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/12/08/swedish-air-force-gets-first-gripen-e-fighter-jet/


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Someone said Gripen is a available to buy on paper not in production. Well not now. Swedish Air Force Gets First Gripen E Fighter Jet https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/12/08/swedish-air-force-gets-first-gripen-e-fighter-jet/


As for now it is an acrobatic show plane, not more.
No IOC, so even less FOC.
It will take several more years (5?) before the plane be fully operational.

The radar is far from being mature, so are the electronic countermeasures and the clearance of the weapons load and release.

Why do you think Switzerland refuse it to enter in the latest competition ?


----------



## polanski

BON PLAN said:


> As for now it is an acrobatic show plane, not more.
> No IOC, so even less FOC.
> It will take several more years (5?) before the plane be fully operational.
> 
> The radar is far from being mature, so are the electronic countermeasures and the clearance of the weapons load and release.
> 
> Why do you think Switzerland refuse it to enter in the latest competition ?


You dreamed about it, I guess. 
Brazilian Gripen is firing BVRAAM and A-darter, dropping bombs. Swedish Gripen is dropping GBU. Raven ES-05 is perfectly mature product. Leonardo, Saab, Thales and BAE Systems are leaders in GaN technologies. 
I guess you're a Russian fanboy. Go buy this https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/08/from-russia-with-dud-meet-the-sukhoi-su-30-and-su-35/

Switzerland and Finland had different agenda. They will buy American products. 
I guess Lockheed Martin F-35 is on their radar.


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> You dreamed about it, I guess.
> Brazilian Gripen is firing BVRAAM and A-darter, dropping bombs. Swedish Gripen is dropping GBU. Raven ES-05 is perfectly mature product. Leonardo, Saab, Thales and BAE Systems are leaders in GaN technologies.
> I guess you're a Russian fanboy. Go buy this https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/08/from-russia-with-dud-meet-the-sukhoi-su-30-and-su-35/
> 
> Switzerland and Finland had different agenda. They will buy American products.
> I guess Lockheed Martin F-35 is on their radar.


I dream? first Meteor was fired by Gripen E just one month ago (*)... That doesn't mean the weapon system is fully operational and mature. So is the radar, because to be leader in GaN technologies doesn't mean the softawares are all written, fine tuned and mature. Ask Eurofighter about that for the Captor E.
The Gripen E will be FOC in several years. Not tomorrow.

(*) we even don't know if the missile was guided or if it was just a separation test....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

India’s Adani Group to manufacture small arms and UAV through the joint venture with Israeli IWI and Elbit Systems: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...t-venture-with-israeli-iwi-and-elbit-systems/


----------



## Hephaestus

BON PLAN said:


> I dream? first Meteor was fired by Gripen E just one month ago (*)... That doesn't mean the weapon system is fully operational and mature. So is the radar, because to be leader in GaN technologies doesn't mean the softawares are all written, fine tuned and mature. Ask Eurofighter about that for the Captor E.
> The Gripen E will be FOC in several years. Not tomorrow.
> 
> (*) we even don't know if the missile was guided or if it was just a separation test....



India should not look beyond Rafale's.
mon ami @BON PLAN can you shed some light on F4.


----------



## BON PLAN

Hephaestus said:


> India should not look beyond Rafale's.
> mon ami @BON PLAN can you shed some light on F4.


F4 includes some new weapons : 1000Kg AASM Hammer, MICA NG (with dual impulse engine)
F4 will receive new radar refinements (ISAR, electronic warfare, ...), hard and soft improvements on SPECTRA, the ability to be a connecting nod like F35 (and probably fully interoperable with F35), a new IRST, new engines calculators....

Older french Rafale will only received some of these improvements.
All new F3R (like the Indian birds) can have the whole package.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BringHarmony

polanski said:


> Can India afford whopping £8B again for 36 Rafale or for 100+ Rafale costs whopping £50B plus.


A good portion of any platform acquisition cost is end user customization and facility development. If I were India, I will seek commonality with my existing base. Either russian or french. Allows me to amortize fixed costs better.


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Can India afford whopping £8B again for 36 Rafale


In the first batch price there was 2 bases accomodation, india spécific improvements, the support so as to give a 75% disponibility, weapons, training.

If you purchase another batch of 36, no need to adapt new air bases (*). the specific improvements are already paid. You don't need as much training because a pilots core will be existing in india to train rookies. The second batch of weapons may be lighter (and Astra will be adapted).
So for 36 planes it will cost more 5 billions than 8.

(*) : In france, the Saint Dizier air base hosts more than 36 bids....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BON PLAN said:


> I dream? first Meteor was fired by Gripen E just one month ago (*)... That doesn't mean the weapon system is fully operational and mature. So is the radar, because to be leader in GaN technologies doesn't mean the softawares are all written, fine tuned and mature. Ask Eurofighter about that for the Captor E.
> The Gripen E will be FOC in several years. Not tomorrow.
> 
> (*) we even don't know if the missile was guided or if it was just a separation test....


FMV, the part of the Swedish government claims that Gripen E will reach operative status in 2021.
They have access to the first production aircrafts since last year. 
They are used both by them and by SAAB for joint verification. 
The Swedish Air Force will get their first Gripen E this year, and it will be operative in the Air Force during 2021.
Final delivery of the last of the 60 on order for the Swedish Air Force will be in 2026.
Due to the Model Based Design, they only find a fraction of the issues they found on the earlier Gripen A/B or Gripen C/D.

Is there anyone more than me that have noticed that the Indian Air Force, which is desperate for more fighters, is waiting to make a decision until the point of time when they can buy Gripen E?


----------



## BringHarmony

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Is there anyone more than me that have noticed that the Indian Air Force, which is desperate for more fighters, is waiting to make a decision until the point of time when they can buy Gripen E?


Unlikely, unless they want to dig the hole of the logistic nightmare deeper.



BON PLAN said:


> In the first batch price there was 2 bases accomodation, india spécific improvements, the support so as to give a 75% disponibility, weapons, training.
> 
> If you purchase another batch of 36, no need to adapt new air bases (*). the specific improvements are already paid. You don't need as much training because a pilots core will be existing in india to train rookies. The second batch of weapons may be lighter (and Astra will be adapted).
> So for 36 planes it will cost more 5 billions than 8.
> 
> (*) : In france, the Saint Dizier air base hosts more than 36 bids....


How much commonality in terms of infrastructure and support systems do Rafale and Mirage share? India has some Mirages as well.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

BON PLAN said:


> F4 includes some new weapons : 1000Kg AASM Hammer, MICA NG (with dual impulse engine)
> F4 will receive new radar refinements (ISAR, electronic warfare, ...), hard and soft improvements on SPECTRA, the ability to be a connecting nod like F35 (and probably fully interoperable with F35), a new IRST, new engines calculators....
> 
> Older french Rafale will only received some of these improvements.
> All new F3R (like the Indian birds) can have the whole package.


India getting F4?


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BringHarmony said:


> Unlikely, unless they want to dig the hole of the logistic nightmare deeper.
> 
> 
> How much commonality in terms of infrastructure and support systems do Rafale and Mirage share? India has some Mirages as well.



Indian Air Force has been told that India cannot afford the roll out the Rafale in the numbers they need. Gripen will have a common engine base with Tejas Mk 2 and AMCA (whenever they will see the light of day).
It can easily be adapted to all weapons, NATO compatible, Russian or indigenous,
since the advanced S/W architecture allows qualifications of new weapons without the involvment of SAAB.
The Gripen E will not be a logistical nightmare, it will certainly allow India to increase the readiness of the Indian Air Force.


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Indian Air Force has been told that India cannot afford the roll out the Rafale in the numbers they need. Gripen will have a common engine base with Tejas Mk 2 and AMCA (whenever they will see the light of day).
> It can easily be adapted to all weapons, NATO compatible, Russian or indigenous,
> since the advanced S/W architecture allows qualifications of new weapons without the involvment of SAAB.
> The Gripen E will not be a logistical nightmare, it will certainly allow India to increase the readiness of the Indian Air Force.


1 Gripen E costs around $100 million


----------



## BringHarmony

A.P. Richelieu said:


> Indian Air Force has been told that India cannot afford the roll out the Rafale in the numbers they need. Gripen will have a common engine base with Tejas Mk 2 and AMCA (whenever they will see the light of day).


From what I hear, they are already rolling out their own LCA. One squad worth is already in place in IOC and they did FOC recently. They want to upgrade it but given that they were flying Mig-21 and Mig-27 before this, even the incomplete plane will be an upgrade.

So buying another light combat aircraft does not make sense. Heck, with all the customization for tropics and India specific requirements even Grippen cannot come before 3-4 years if they sign the deal today. Rafale took 4-5 years for customization.



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> 1 Gripen E costs around $100 million


Their in-house fighter costs somewhere in the ball park of 50 million or so. So its a no brainer. If they want number, they should ramp up production.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> 1 Gripen E costs around $100 million


The contract says 35,5 BSEK, which is about $3,55B for 60 aircrafts.
That is $56M per aircraft.



BringHarmony said:


> From what I hear, they are already rolling out their own LCA. One squad worth is already in place in IOC and they did FOC recently. They want to upgrade it but given that they were flying Mig-21 and Mig-27 before this, even the incomplete plane will be an upgrade.
> 
> So buying another light combat aircraft does not make sense. Heck, with all the customization for tropics and India specific requirements even Grippen cannot come before 3-4 years if they sign the deal today. Rafale took 4-5 years for customization.
> 
> 
> Their in-house fighter costs somewhere in the ball park of 50 million or so. So its a no brainer. If they want number, they should ramp up production.



If the Tejas had been on par with the Gripen E, maybe you would have a point, but everyone, including the Indian Air Force knows that it is not.
Gripen C is already flying in the Tropics, so that is not a big deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BringHarmony

A.P. Richelieu said:


> If the Tejas had been on par with the Gripen E, maybe you would have a point, but everyone, including the Indian Air Force knows that it is not.


Its more a question of what capabilities they want and what they are replacing. Their current fighters are pathetic, so replacing it with a cheaper less capable fighter in numbers is not a bad decision. Remember, these will be going against likes of JF-17 block 1 and may be 2.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Gripen C is already flying in the Tropics, so that is not a big deal.


I highly doubt customization for an end customer can be hand waved so easily.


----------



## Tumba

BON PLAN said:


> In the first batch price there was 2 bases accomodation, india spécific improvements, the support so as to give a 75% disponibility, weapons, training.
> 
> If you purchase another batch of 36, no need to adapt new air bases (*). the specific improvements are already paid. You don't need as much training because a pilots core will be existing in india to train rookies. The second batch of weapons may be lighter (and Astra will be adapted).
> So for 36 planes it will cost more 5 billions than 8.
> 
> (*) : In france, the Saint Dizier air base hosts more than 36 bids....



36 more are unlikely as MRCA contract is in progress... Also Gripen chances are nill as Tejas will be killed belonging to same category 
F-18 has the highest chances which will be complemented by ORCA with many same sub systems


----------



## BON PLAN

A.P. Richelieu said:


> FMV, the part of the Swedish government claims that Gripen E will reach operative status in 2021.
> They have access to the first production aircrafts since last year.
> They are used both by them and by SAAB for joint verification.
> The Swedish Air Force will get their first Gripen E this year, and it will be operative in the Air Force during 2021.
> Final delivery of the last of the 60 on order for the Swedish Air Force will be in 2026.
> Due to the Model Based Design, they only find a fraction of the issues they found on the earlier Gripen A/B or Gripen C/D.
> 
> Is there anyone more than me that have noticed that the Indian Air Force, which is desperate for more fighters, is waiting to make a decision until the point of time when they can buy Gripen E?


So Rafale reached operative status in 1999 ! But just in a air to air config with only 2 short range Magic 2 missiles... whaou ! impressive...

NO, it's not serious. Maybe a political IOC will be pronouced in 2021 (in a light air to air only config), but the FOC will need some more years.



BringHarmony said:


> How much commonality in terms of infrastructure and support systems do Rafale and Mirage share? India has some Mirages as well.


few. Only the same suppliers, but quite no common components.



Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> India getting F4?


it is now officially offered to India. Probably with a retrofit of the 36 already ordered.



A.P. Richelieu said:


> Indian Air Force has been told that India cannot afford the roll out the Rafale in the numbers they need. Gripen will have a common engine base with Tejas Mk 2 and AMCA (whenever they will see the light of day).
> It can easily be adapted to all weapons, NATO compatible, Russian or indigenous,
> since the advanced S/W architecture allows qualifications of new weapons without the involvment of SAAB.
> The Gripen E will not be a logistical nightmare, it will certainly allow India to increase the readiness of the Indian Air Force.


No way for Tejas in India ! 
don't imagine the indians too idiots to purchase the direct competitor of their own bird !



A.P. Richelieu said:


> The contract says 35,5 BSEK, which is about $3,55B for 60 aircrafts.
> That is $56M per aircraft.


how many years ago? it is a friend price. Without nothing elses (training, support, weapons, test bench....)



Hephaestus said:


> India should not look beyond Rafale's.
> mon ami @BON PLAN can you shed some light on F4.


some more news ....
https://www.janes.com/article/87101...d-spectra-fire-control-radar-avoidance-system

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BringHarmony said:


> Its more a question of what capabilities they want and what they are replacing. Their current fighters are pathetic, so replacing it with a cheaper less capable fighter in numbers is not a bad decision. Remember, these will be going against likes of JF-17 block 1 and may be 2.
> 
> 
> I highly doubt customization for an end customer can be hand waved so easily.



As I said, Gripen E is unique in that a customer can do a lot of customization without SAAB.
It is similar to writing an App for a phone. If India wants to add indigenous missiles, not supported by SAAB, they can do that. Noone else offers this.
Each pilot can have their own customized user interface, and if they switch aircraft, the new aircraft will adopt their customization.



BON PLAN said:


> So Rafale reached operative status in 1999 ! But just in a air to air config with only 2 short range Magic 2 missiles... whaou ! impressive...
> 
> NO, it's not serious. Maybe a political IOC will be pronouced in 2021 (in a light air to air only config), but the FOC will need some more years.



Things that took several months to test out on Gripen C takes days on Gripen E
due to the Smart Fighter S/W architecture.
You will be surprised.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BringHarmony

A.P. Richelieu said:


> As I said, Gripen E is unique in that a customer can do a lot of customization without SAAB.
> It is similar to writing an App for a phone. If India wants to add indigenous missiles, not supported by SAAB, they can do that. Noone else offers this.
> Each pilot can have their own customized user interface, and if they switch aircraft, the new aircraft will adopt their customization.


Lets see... In case of Brazil the contract was signed on 24th Oct 2014 for 36 fighters in E and F variant AFAIK. First grippen landed on 10th september 2019. Thats 5 years. This delivery will go on for about 2024. Now with Indians producing their fighters right now at a rate of even 6-8 fighters per year will be able to raise two to three new squadrons in that time period with their own planes. This is actually neglecting any time for negotiation and tender process right now. Admittedly those will not be up to the Grippen standards but then they are not going to face F-18 or F-16 E/F any time soon, do they?

It will fit the mix nicely. Really capable Heavy fighter and really sophisticated mid fighters with cheap but numerous light fighters.


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

BringHarmony said:


> Lets see... In case of Brazil the contract was signed on 24th Oct 2014 for 36 fighters in E and F variant AFAIK. First grippen landed on 10th september 2019. Thats 5 years. This delivery will go on for about 2024. Now with Indians producing their fighters right now at a rate of even 6-8 fighters per year will be able to raise two to three new squadrons in that time period with their own planes. This is actually neglecting any time for negotiation and tender process right now. Admittedly those will not be up to the Grippen standards but then they are not going to face F-18 or F-16 E/F any time soon, do they?
> 
> It will fit the mix nicely. Really capable Heavy fighter and really sophisticated mid fighters with cheap but numerous light fighters.



India has already ordered the Tejas, but they also want a more capable fighter,
that can take on J-10/-20/-31 as well as AMRAAM equipped F-16s.
JJFF-1177s are less of a threat, until at least Block III.


----------



## Hephaestus

BON PLAN said:


> some more news ....
> https://www.janes.com/article/87101...d-spectra-fire-control-radar-avoidance-system


c'est merveilleux


----------



## BON PLAN

Hephaestus said:


> c'est merveilleux


tu trouves?


----------



## polanski

Israeli IAI signed drone tech transfer deal with Indian HAL: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...-and-indian-hal-signed-drone-production-deal/


----------



## Incog_nito

Similar to all of this, I was commenting here on PDF and people were going crazy that I'm wrong.

I guess the initial order will be like this:
36-40 F-21/F-16 Block-70
36-40 EF-2000s
36-40 Grippens
36-40 SU-35s
36-40 MiG-35s

36-40 F-18E/F (for Navy)


----------



## A.P. Richelieu

*India will purchase 110 new fighter jets in staggered manner, says CDS Gen Bipin Rawat*
*Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat, who is mandated with prioritising capital procurement, says India will likely buy more submarines for the Navy too.*
Snehesh Alex Philip17 February, 2020





Indian Air Force fighter jets | T. Narayan | Bloomberg File Photo
Text Size:

*New Delhi:* India will stagger the purchase of new foreign fighter jets for the Indian Air Force (IAF), General Bipin Rawat said as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) looks to also boost the domestic manufacturing industry.

“You should not go in for large numbers. Staggered acquisitions are important because when small orders are placed, it gives us time to take care of their downtime and also allow modernisation of the three services simultaneously,” he said. The IAF is planning to acquire 110 new fighter jets.

However, a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for the mega deal, valued at over USD 15 billion, is yet to be issued. The IAF has new budgetary constraints given that it saw a drop in its capital funds allocation in the latest Union Budget.

The IAF is considering proposals for Dassault Aviation’s Rafale, Boeing’s F/A 18, Lockheed Martin’s F-21, the Eurofighter Typhoon, SAAB’s Gripen E, and the Russian MiG-35 and Su-35.

_*Also read:* IAF needs 200 new fighters but Modi govt has cut funds in Budget 2020_

*Make In India push*
CDS Gen Rawat said that it is important for defence services to accept an indigenous product over a foreign-made one even if it meets only 70-80 per cent of the required parameters as contracts bind the forces for years.

“It is important to hand-hold the domestic industry. Upgrades can come like Mark 1, 2 or 3,” he said. The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have already begin work on Tejas Mark II.

The CDS explained that by placing large orders with foreign companies, forces can’t switch to the domestic industry that may be capable of making the same technology a few years after a contract is finalised.

“Why do you think only 36 Rafales were bought,” Gen Rawat said, citing the deal as an example. On whether this meant that more Rafales could be bought, the CDS said everything depended on what requirements need to be met at the time.

Gen Rawat’s comments come at a time the IAF is set to place an order with the state-run HAL for 83 Tejas Mark 1 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA).

There has been speculation that India will buy another 36 Rafales, which will be cheaper than the ones signed for in 2016, and depend on the LCA Mark IA and Mark II and the indigenous Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft to boost IAF’s strength.

India bought 270 Su-30 MKI from Russia in staggered contracts beginning in the late 90s, delivery of which is yet to be completed. The initial order was for 140 aircraft.

_*Also read:* India gets modern Rafale, but is only major air force to fly these 6 outdated aircraft_

*Underwater capabilities *
Gen Rawat also spoke on acquisitions for the Navy, saying the focus right now is on procuring new submarines instead of adding a third aircraft carrier to the fleet.

“When we know that there would be two aircraft carriers and if the submarine strength is dwindling, then our priority should be for submarines,” he said.

The Indian Navy currently operates one aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya. A second carrier, Vikrant, is currently under construction in Kochi.

He added that the Navy’s demand for a third aircraft carrier will be considered after “assessing performance” of the Vikrant, which is set to begin sea trials this month.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

Israel-India Military Cooperation Reaches New High: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/20/israel-india-military-cooperation-reaches-high/


----------



## polanski

MMRCA V2.0: Indian Air Force’s Options For New Fighter Jets: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...dian-air-forces-options-for-new-fighter-jets/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## polanski

Indian Military plans $15.95 billion capital spends out of $65.86 billion Defense Budget: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...l-spends-out-of-65-86-billion-defense-budget/


----------



## polanski

India is the second largest arms importer in the world: Report SIPRI: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...gest-arms-importer-in-the-world-report-sipri/


----------



## BON PLAN

Return of the Yeti said:


> I said this 6 years ago and I shall say it again...I like the Gripen  alongside another batch of 6-12 Rafales


No way !
The Gripen is a direct competitor to the Tejas. 
Forget that idea, a political suicide !


----------



## polanski

Saab Gripen E: An unique opportunity for Indian Defense Industry: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/10/03/gripen-e/


----------



## aman_rai0007

We should just order 36 more Rafaels and close this


----------



## dbc

aman_rai0007 said:


> We should just order 36 more Rafaels and close this



why order when you can get for free, just ask Greece

Reactions: Haha Haha:
3


----------



## CIA Mole

india should buy 5 of every jet out there.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## BON PLAN

polanski said:


> Saab Gripen E: An unique opportunity for Indian Defense Industry: https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/10/03/gripen-e/


A unique opportunity to kill the Tajas !


----------



## BON PLAN

dbc said:


> why order when you can get for free, just ask Greece


= bull shit.
12 second hands and 6 brand new to be sold in the 1.2 billion.... 
+/- 50€ million each for the second hand ones, 100 millions each for the new.


----------



## Figaro

CIA Mole said:


> india should buy 5 of every jet out there.


India would be one of the first countries to purchase the JF-17 if it were not designed/produced by Pakistan and China.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## dbc

BON PLAN said:


> = bull shit.
> 12 second hands and 6 brand new to be sold in the 1.2 billion....
> +/- 50€ million each for the second hand ones, 100 millions each for the new.



I'm sorry. and you are right *not free* but donation - France is so generous.


----------



## BON PLAN

dbc said:


> I'm sorry. and you are right *not free* but donation - France is so generous.


As said previously, it is full bull shit.

The deal is not for 10 to buy and 8 for free (or donation or what you want). It is 12 in second hand, with a max of 3500 flying hours each (ie remains 5500 hours) and 6 new.

So stop this ridiculous french bashing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khan vilatey

Figaro said:


> India would be one of the first countries to purchase the JF-17 if it were not designed/produced by Pakistan and China.



they still would after Pakistan liberates Delhi from an illegal Goverment

k

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dbc

BON PLAN said:


> As said previously, it is full bull shit.
> 
> The deal is not for 10 to buy and 8 for free (or donation or what you want). It is 12 in second hand, with a max of 3500 flying hours each (ie remains 5500 hours) and 6 new.
> 
> So stop this ridiculous french bashing.



no..no.. French bashing....only Rafale bashing....  

*Source 1 From Greece*









Greece Getting 18 Dassault Rafale Fighter Jets From France, 8 Are Free - Fighter Jets World


Rafale - RIAT 2013 - Credits: Tim Felce (Airwolfhound) Greek newspaper Parapolitika reports that Gre




fighterjetsworld.com





Greek newspaper Parapolitika reports that Greece will be getting 18 Rafale fighters. The report says a preliminary agreement for the acquisition has been reached. Ten of these fighters will be the F3-R variant built from scratch while the other 8 jets will be second-hand aircraft that will be *transferred free* to Greece from the French Air Force.

*Source 2 From France*

The Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly claims the gifts to Greece will leave France *"petit creux"* (little hollow)

Why little hollow mon ami? Obviously since Greece is not remunerating France for the *'Free Rafale' so France cannot replenish 😪 so sad.*









Florence Parly cherche à rassurer sur les prélèvements de Rafale pour la Grèce


La ministre des Armées Florence Parly assure que les prélèvements de Rafale sur la flotte de l'armée de l'Air au profit de la Grèce, qui compte acquérir 18 avions de combat français dont plusieurs d'occasion,




www.capital.fr


----------



## BON PLAN

dbc said:


> no..no.. French bashing....only Rafale bashing....
> 
> *Source 1 From Greece*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greece Getting 18 Dassault Rafale Fighter Jets From France, 8 Are Free - Fighter Jets World
> 
> 
> Rafale - RIAT 2013 - Credits: Tim Felce (Airwolfhound) Greek newspaper Parapolitika reports that Gre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fighterjetsworld.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greek newspaper Parapolitika reports that Greece will be getting 18 Rafale fighters. The report says a preliminary agreement for the acquisition has been reached. Ten of these fighters will be the F3-R variant built from scratch while the other 8 jets will be second-hand aircraft that will be *transferred free* to Greece from the French Air Force.
> 
> *Source 2 From France*
> 
> The Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly claims the gifts to Greece will leave France *"petit creux"* (little hollow)
> 
> Why little hollow mon ami? Obviously since Greece is not remunerating France for the *'Free Rafale' so France cannot replenish 😪 so sad.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Florence Parly cherche à rassurer sur les prélèvements de Rafale pour la Grèce
> 
> 
> La ministre des Armées Florence Parly assure que les prélèvements de Rafale sur la flotte de l'armée de l'Air au profit de la Grèce, qui compte acquérir 18 avions de combat français dont plusieurs d'occasion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.capital.fr


The french news said : Greece will acquire 18 jets, several of them taken from the french air force. Taken desn't mean offered. 

https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/en-ach...ible-de-la-turquie-15-09-2020-2391903_24.php# it is 12 second hand jets and 6 new.

Only the idiots think "second hand" means "for free".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BON PLAN

BON PLAN said:


> The french news said : Greece will acquire 18 jets, several of them taken from the french air force. Taken desn't mean offered.
> 
> https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/en-ach...ible-de-la-turquie-15-09-2020-2391903_24.php# it is 12 second hand jets and 6 new.
> 
> Only the idiots think "second hand" means "for free".


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can we leave out the Greek AF and its possible Rafale order and come back to the topic!?*

By the way, are there any news concerning this "Make in India" purchase or will it again soldier on until 2034?


----------



## johncliu88

Is "Made in India" a joke of the century? I only hear "buy... buy ... buy..." from Indian even assault rifles & bullets.


----------



## MirageBlue

Deino said:


> *Guys ... can we leave out the Greek AF and its possible Rafale order and come back to the topic!?*
> 
> By the way, are there any news concerning this "Make in India" purchase or will it again soldier on until 2034?



Latest news is that the IAF's new ACM has asked to speed up the RFI and get an RFP ready for 2022. 

But frankly there isn't money for 114 MRFAs and the contract will be horrendously complicated. It will take years to be signed and then for them to be built and delivered. Only hope is that the Govt. goes for a G2G contract with the chosen fighter and skips the years that will go in negotiations with L1/L2 winners.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Darius77

Is this thread an attempt at humor? India can not even make a working rifle as the ANSAS 5.56 failed in Lakakh and they are now assembling Russian AK-103 to replace it. India is is delusionally being buoyed up by the US losers and Zionist criminals as a lackey cannon fodder to "contain China" which is the usual racist western group think delusions. India would last less than a week against the PLA and the saner Indians know it. Why do you think they have not sent their much vaunted Rafale either against China or even Pakistan? they would be shot out of the sky, causing both France and India much embarassment and humiliation on the Kabul scale.


----------



## Hephaestus

Darius77 said:


> Is this thread an attempt at humor? India can not even make a working rifle as the ANSAS 5.56 failed in Lakakh and they are now assembling Russian AK-103 to replace it. India is is delusionally being buoyed up by the US losers and Zionist criminals as a lackey cannon fodder to "contain China" which is the usual racist western group think delusions. India would last less than a week against the PLA and the saner Indians know it. Why do you think they have not sent their much vaunted Rafale either against China or even Pakistan? they would be shot out of the sky, causing both France and India much embarassment and humiliation on the Kabul scale.


Ok, calm down & stick to the topic.


----------



## Yasser76

Hephaestus said:


> Ok, calm down & stick to the topic.



OK, lets stick to the topic.

Right now, HAL has no SU-30s MKIS being made, No deliveries of Tejas this year and paying France to build Rafales in France.

MRCA was first tabled in 2001. It is now 2021. 

F-16s, and F-18s are being replaced. 

The Europeans are already designing replacements for the Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen.

China (after J-10C production is finished) will only be producing 5/6th Gen planes. 

At the very most optimstic estimate if IAF chooses a plane in the next 3 years (assuming funds) you will start producing the planes in 2030. You will be the only country in the world inducting and building 4th gen planes by then, no one else will.

Tejas MK2 has not even flown yet so you can assume no AMCA till at least 2035-2040 9again, be very charatible to HAL here).

USAF will not release F-35. Russians may flog you a dumbed down SU-57.

This sums up just how f**ked IAF is.....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## johncliu88

Yasser76 said:


> OK, lets stick to the topic.
> 
> Right now, HAL has no SU-30s MKIS being made, No deliveries of Tejas this year and paying France to build Rafales in France.
> 
> MRCA was first tabled in 2001. It is now 2021.
> 
> F-16s, and F-18s are being replaced.
> 
> The Europeans are already designing replacements for the Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen.
> 
> China (after J-10C production is finished) will only be producing 5/6th Gen planes.
> 
> At the very most optimstic estimate if IAF chooses a plane in the next 3 years (assuming funds) you will start producing the planes in 2030. You will be the only country in the world inducting and building 4th gen planes by then, no one else will.
> 
> Tejas MK2 has not even flown yet so you can assume no AMCA till at least 2035-2040 9again, be very charatible to HAL here).
> 
> USAF will not release F-35. Russians may flog you a dumbed down SU-57.
> 
> This sums up just how f**ked IAF is.....


Totally agree with your opinions. As China may also upgrade their J-10C with J-20's avionic equipment to make it a 4.5+ Gen jet, then export them to Pak if necessary. Tejas MK2 or/and AMCA are definitely out-gunned. Also, when China fixes all the bugs of WS-15 engine, J-20 will be in real mass production stage. I just want to see how Indian's fighter jets will deal with all these opponents. Buy, buy, buy ............


----------



## Super Falcon

are top contanders for make in India for following orders


----------

