If what you say comes true mate,no one will be happier than me.But i'm always 'skeptical' about our defence acquisition process.Lets hope.
We will know in about 2 years actually. By then, we will be signing up for 36 more Rafales (since we bought infrastructure for 72 jets) and the IN's tender winner will be announced by then.
Right now, Gripen E uses more advanced technologies that Rafale F3.
I agree. But the difference is not too much. I believe that in air to air, Gripen E will be better than Rafale F3+.
But that's irrelevant, we are talking about post 2025, so Rafale F4.
The Rafale F4, which would be the version catching up, only started development last year,
and is far far away.
It will take us that long to procure aircraft. Minimum 7-8 years to get the first jet from the 110 contract.
Saab is playing catchup, not Dassault.
It does not make it more advanced.
360 degree radar.
Why is the Rafale One-Way data link to the Meteor more advanced than the Gripen/EuroFighter Two-Way Datalink?
This is only one such advantage. Gripen does have some advantages, but Rafale's greater range and payload is more important.
Rafale will get a new radar anyway.
Why is it more advanced to require a full Rafale S/W requalification by Dassault to support new ordonnance? For Gripen E, India can write an App, with minimum support from SAAB.
Rafale is a stealth aircraft. Every time something new is added, it needs to undergo RCS testing so that the Rafale can maintain stealth with the new payload.
Gripen E will have to undergo the same circus once its ready since neither aircraft have IWBs. You can't compare Gripen C with E.
I doubt you have any real fact based comparision between Gripen E and Rafale to support your claims. And No, the Swiss evaluation does not count here, since they applied a derating factor on Gripen data, because it was not available. Come up with something better.
Rafale's engine is better. It ends right there.
Gripen E's TWR is really low. Its payload and range are too less. Its weapons layout is inferior. Too many reasons.
Other than that, Rafale is a proven aircraft while Gripen E's airframe has a long way to go.
The only tender lost was India, since it did not have an AESA radar in 2011.
Gripen lost due to other reasons, not radar. The AESA radar that Saab brought to the game was adequate. So was Eurofighter's radar.
Gripen is simply better bang for the buck.
We don't want a better bang for the buck. We want high end capability. MCA will be our cheap option.
The Indian government came under criticism for corruption because of the Rafale purchase.
It's nothing.
They revamped the Single Engine Project simply because otherwise they would have faced similar accusations. The Economic Facts have not changed.
No, IAF was supposed to have two different tenders, SE and TE MII. Gripen was supposed to participate in the SE MII, but IAF cancelled it and chose MCA instead. So that's gone.
TE MII is really a Rafale tender. The current tender is focused on the Rafale.
Gripen is only 20-30% cheaper than the Rafale. Not to mention, during MMRCA, the unit cost difference was only $3M.
The IAF has been told recently that India cannot fund their wet dreams.
A advanced single engine fighter at half the cost of a Rafale (total cost of ownership)
seems to be a much more attractive deal then.
MCA is even better in that case. We believe we can build a Gripen equivalent aircraft on our own.
