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

[A.P. Richelieu]

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]

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)

With Rafale, France will do the integration, n'est pas?
With Gripen, India can do the integration.

? what do you mean?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

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]

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...)

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

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 ?

 

[X_Killer]

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/

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

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".

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.

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?

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

You have to include features in the design that simplifies maintenance, or cost goes up.

RAFALE's modular design already did it.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

Gripen E (MS21) was close to fulfilling the requirements.

Back your statement with credible source.

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.

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.

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.

The App based Gripen S/W architecture is vastly superior to "sharing source code"

You may like it too.

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.

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]

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?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

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.

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.

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."

You may like it too.

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.

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.

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]

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.

One of the goals of the Gripen E was to reduce the CPFH

They learn that from Rafale programme .

 

[X_Killer]

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]

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]

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.

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.