Why i would Pick Gripen NG for MMRCA

[rockstarIN]

That is a very vague analysis. Though

That is a wrong notion, Gripen doesnt compete against LCA. When we say LCA can be braught to a tsndard of Gripen, we talk 5-6 years from now.

LCA was designed to be the work horse of IAF, Gripen cant be work the horse. MRCA is not the workhorse of IAF. MRCA as the term states is a look out for a multirole fighter.

We will get fully advanced Gripen after 3-5 years only (AESA, Meteor etc) They too are testing the same..

 

[Yeti]

I like the Gripen NG also but it has too many US made items that could be prone to sanctions and the fact that the MRCA tender is now seeking a twin engine jet.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Totally agree with Storm Force...We need cheap solution...These birds with LCA will make a nice Mid-Low combination..

Yeah best analysis for Storm Force.. i too believed the same.. but considering the sensitivity of our secuirty lapse only Rafael or EFT can provide the superiority in Asian sub continent..

but we have to see the priority..

More sensitive more serious weapons
less sensitive we can go for Griphen NG... but we also need to see whether it will be available by the time we want it..

 

[Dash]

We will get fully advanced Gripen after 3-5 years only (AESA, Meteor etc) They too are testing the same..

Its not just a matter of Meteor and AESA, you will have AESA in LCA too in a matter of 3-4 or say 5 years. But look at the combat load, raduis and range and supercruise. that is still advanced than LCA. but yes Gropen NG is still a demo plane. Lot more to come...

 

[sancho]

Storm Force is missing some important points regarding the Gripen, because although it has some good points, it also has its downsides!

1. Not operational, nor even available in a real pre serial version, Gripen NG is only a tech demonstrator for possible upgrades of older Gripen versions and gives a hint to Gripen E/F capabilities, but is not the final prototype version. That's why it's risky to choose Gripen, because it needs further developments and airframe changes, just like LCA MK2 needs too, with the difference that there are no Gripen E/F orders so far, while IAF already ordered around 100 engines for MK2.

2. Zero gain in terms of politics, simply because Sweden is too small to offer us any strategic benefits, same reason why Brazil prefer France.

3. Least offset capabilities, reportedly last in this field in Swiss competition and most likely the same in Brazil too.

4. Dependance on several countries for techs, spares and weapons and that's why they can offer full ToT, only if Italy, Britan, US... agree to it, because they are the main owners of these important techs. Just look at all the times Gripen was under pressured during the development and one will understand how much influence there outside and how much control Saab really has.

Only if MoDs most important requirement in MMRCA would be costs, Gripen can come on top, but one could also ask, what real performance difference does Gripen offer, that makes it worth around 40% more than for LCA MK2 (expected between $30 - 35 millions fly way, Gripen is offered for $45 - 50 millions fly away)?
LCA MK2 is also a single engine fighter and even more cost-effevctive, will offer similar techs and capabilities, if METEOR is really on offer for Su 30 MKI, it will be for sure on offer for LCA as well. By all latest reports, LCA MK2 will get bigger wings, for more internal fuel and most likely more weapons stations, which means will be even closer to Gripen in terms of range and weapon loads. As long as there is no decision on the partner for AESA radar co-development, we can't say what kind of AESA MK2 will have, but I think we all agree that Swashplate alone can't justify 40% more costs right?

The point is, Gripen might be ready developed a bit earlier than MK2, but is also only a bit more capable and not more cost-effective at all. IAF/MoD already decided about the single engine, cost-effective, lower end fighter of Indias next 3 to for decades and that's LCA, not Gripen. So if they want to spend more, they obviously should do it for a fighter that is more capable!

The simple fact that IAF ordered more Su 30 MKIs, that will be inducted only when we already have started MMRCA licence production, proves Storm Force wrong about IAF can't afford more twin engine fighters. Moreover, with the reports of nearly 300 heavy class Pak Fa / FGFA and considering AMCA, which also are twin engine stealth fighters, they are increasing the operational costs way more. Maintaining stealth alone will be very costly, USN stated that their single engine F35 will be 1.5 times more costlier to operate than the twin engne F18s it will replace!
If IAF/MoD just wanted cost-effectiveness only though MMRCA and as a stop gap till more capable stealth fighters will be inducted, they would have gone with the Mirage 2000-5 in the initial competition. They didn't, which tells us that MMRCA must be about more than just costs, or stop gaps!

Saab and Gripen would have been a perfect partner by the time Gripen and Tejas development started, but now it's the wrong choice because we will have LCA for the same reasons and needs different things now.

- a ready and capable fighter, with good future
- useful in different roles and for different forces
- a reliable partner that can offer us useful ToT and industrial advantages
- political / strategic benefits

 

[indushek]

Storm Force is missing some important points regarding the Gripen, because although it has some good points, it also has its downsides!

1. Not operational, nor even available in a real pre serial version, Gripen NG is only a tech demonstrator for possible upgrades of older Gripen versions and gives a hint to Gripen E/F capabilities, but is not the final prototype version. That's why it's risky to choose Gripen, because it needs further developments and airframe changes, just like LCA MK2 needs too, with the difference that there are no Gripen E/F orders so far, while IAF already ordered around 100 engines for MK2.

2. Zero gain in terms of politics, simply because Sweden is too small to offer us any strategic benefits, same reason why Brazil prefer France.

3. Least offset capabilities, reportedly last in this field in Swiss competition and most likely the same in Brazil too.

4. Dependance on several countries for techs, spares and weapons and that's why they can offer full ToT, only if Italy, Britan, US... agree to it, because they are the main owners of these important techs. Just look at all the times Gripen was under pressured during the development and one will understand how much influence there outside and how much control Saab really has.

Only if MoDs most important requirement in MMRCA would be costs, Gripen can come on top, but one could also ask, what real performance difference does Gripen offer, that makes it worth around 40% more than for LCA MK2 (expected between $30 - 35 millions fly way, Gripen is offered for $45 - 50 millions fly away)?
LCA MK2 is also a single engine fighter and even more cost-effevctive, will offer similar techs and capabilities, if METEOR is really on offer for Su 30 MKI, it will be for sure on offer for LCA as well. By all latest reports, LCA MK2 will get bigger wings, for more internal fuel and most likely more weapons stations, which means will be even closer to Gripen in terms of range and weapon loads. As long as there is no decision on the partner for AESA radar co-development, we can't say what kind of AESA MK2 will have, but I think we all agree that Swashplate alone can't justify 40% more costs right?

The point is, Gripen might be ready developed a bit earlier than MK2, but is also only a bit more capable and not more cost-effective at all. IAF/MoD already decided about the single engine, cost-effective, lower end fighter of Indias next 3 to for decades and that's LCA, not Gripen. So if they want to spend more, they obviously should do it for a fighter that is more capable!

The simple fact that IAF ordered more Su 30 MKIs, that will be inducted only when we already have started MMRCA licence production, proves Storm Force wrong about IAF can't afford more twin engine fighters. Moreover, with the reports of nearly 300 heavy class Pak Fa / FGFA and considering AMCA, which also are twin engine stealth fighters, they are increasing the operational costs way more. Maintaining stealth alone will be very costly, USN stated that their single engine F35 will be 1.5 times more costlier to operate than the twin engne F18s it will replace!
If IAF/MoD just wanted cost-effectiveness only though MMRCA and as a stop gap till more capable stealth fighters will be inducted, they would have gone with the Mirage 2000-5 in the initial competition. They didn't, which tells us that MMRCA must be about more than just costs, or stop gaps!

Saab and Gripen would have been a perfect partner by the time Gripen and Tejas development started, but now it's the wrong choice because we will have LCA for the same reasons and needs different things now.

- a ready and capable fighter, with good future
- useful in different roles and for different forces
- a reliable partner that can offer us useful ToT and industrial advantages
- political / strategic benefits

Sancho i am no specialist in technical discussions so i will stick to the topic i am a little knowledgeable about, the political one. I agree that Sweden doesn't carry any political advantage to us, true. However isn't that good?? see previously before end of cold war the world was either USA or Russia. With 1991 comes perestroika and there is only America left.

Now in 2010 the world is either USA or China with Russia on sidelines. Now out of the six contenders if we leave F/A 18. F/A 16 and Mig-35 out the other contenders and i say none of them carry any political advantage. The British are a spent force working under the shadow of USA and the French though touting themselves independent don't go against America very often. This leaves us with the swedes.

Now with economic and military inter connections of the Western world it is not difficult to find that there are components or systems in in all these planes which will be liable to American sanctions when the time comes. Infact when the MOD decided to invite selections from western fighters it was pre destined that we were going for a Western fighter as we wanted to diversify our defense needs.

By this logic i am to some extent confident that we are going for a Western plane if not American. I think that we will go for the Super Bug as it is the one that mostly comes close to the Multi Role Definition we talk about. The reasons for my argument are the current geo political situations faced by India and the ensuing drama of 2010 before every body to watch.

Though i would not say that we are switching camps we are definitely leaning both ways if Russia is taken in to account and one way when we speak of China.

 

[SpArK]

An old post by me in MRCA thread on the topic...reposting it

OK here is the Gripen argument.. worth a look.​

 

[kingdurgaking]

^^ economically and as storm force said in another thread a Gripen NG is the best option for IAF.. provided it is developed within the time frame...

Reasons are

we are already having lot of twin engine fighters..
MKI,Mig29,Jaguar future PAKFA, AMCA

while we have only
Tejas and Mirages, Mig27 which are single engine..

If we have MMRCA also twin engine we will have a big cost for maintaining such a huge fleet... than the purchase cost on long term..

even US forces are also buying F35 single engine fighter on huge numbers... so NG is a suitable option

but my likes are EFT or Rafale... lets see what happens in 120 days

 

[Yeti]

Gripen NG is only a demonstrator at the moment it is not in production although Saab said it will order some in future. It will be risky if we go for it considering we want them inducted asap not to mention the possible cost escalations given how new the NG project is but the benefits would mean we get a customised fighter and Saab is known to give good technology transfer which we can use for LCA mk 2.

 

[SpArK]

Gripen NG matures and waits for India​

By: David Donald
July 20, 2010
Military Aircraft


Sweden is advancing its own Gripen development path alongside that of the Gripen Next Generation aircraft intended for export, which is currently awaiting the outcome of major competitions in Brazil and India. The Swedish air force is now talking openly about a JAS 39E/F version that would draw on many of the technologies being applied to the NG program.

In the shorter term, in March Saab received a contract worth around $256 million from the Swedish defense material administration (FMV) for an upgrade package that will improve countermeasures and communications, integrate new weapons such as the Meteor (the acquisition of which was recently approved by the Swedish government) and provide extra range and functions to the Gripen’s PS-05/A radar. It also includes measures to reduce operational costs, based on experience from the 130,000 flying hours achieved with the Gripen fleet.

This contract helps define the Gripen’s Material System 20 as part of the rolling capability sustainment program that is in force for the type. Shortly after this deal was done, Saab received another commission to expand the capabilities of the aircraft’s SPK 39 reconnaissance system. This enhances night capability and user interface, and will also allow the Gripen to feed imagery into the sensor source intelligence cells being produced to support the country’s new Shadow 200 unmanned air vehicles.

MS21 Version
Saab already has the next major iteration in its sights. The MS21 version is to include a major review of the aircraft’s avionics system, including computers and displays, with the accent placed on handling vastly increased amounts of information at differing security classification levels. The architecture will also to be able to handle new types of sensors.

It is evident that the MS21 will become the JAS 39E/F, and that it will be based closely on the AESA-equipped Gripen NG. Although the exact nature of an “MS21 Gripen” has yet to be defined, it will almost certainly incorporate the more powerful General Electric F414G engine. An avionics development contract was awarded to Saab in May and is expected to lead to a concept evaluation review later this year. Preliminary design reviews will be undertaken next year, leading to full development starting in 2012.

Sweden expects to have the JAS 39E/F in service by around 2017, although it has committed to bring that date forward if Brazil adopts the Gripen so that the customer does not shoulder the burden of fielding a major new version on its own.

Development of what is now known as the Gripen NG began around 2004, a year before the JAS 39C/D achieved IOC. Predictions of airpower requirements for the 2015-2020 time frame suggested the need for new sensors, greater range and larger warloads. After analysis of other options, it was concluded that a developed Gripen NG could meet the requirements, with technology to be demonstrated in a “Demo” aircraft that would also become a de facto prototype for the NG. Initial estimates put the cost at approximately $230 million but that was considered too high, leading to the formation of an industrial partnership that cut the costs by 60 percent. In fact, the Gripen Demo came in some 15 percent below that budget.

The Gripen Demo technology demonstration program has been conducted in two phases and involves a flying demonstrator and an avionics rig. Phase 1 flight tests got under way with a first flight on May 27, 2008, during which the extensively modified two-seater validated the aerodynamic changes caused by moving the main undercarriage to under the wingroots, the addition of underfuselage pylons, new drop tanks and the installation of the uprated General Electric F414G engine. Phase 1 was completed after 79 flights.



Phase 2 introduced further modifications to the aircraft, including extra fuel capacity and, most importantly, installation of a development version of the Selex/Saab ES-05 Raven AESA radar. This phase was brought to a conclusion this February after a further 73 flights. During the initial Demo campaign, all goals were achieved, including a Mach 1.6-plus speed and a supercruise (non-afterburning) capability of greater than Mach 1.2.

Following the end of official Phase 2 trials, the Gripen Demo aircraft continued development work, but in May was dispatched to India in support of Saab’s entry in the country’s MMRCA multi-role fighter competition. MMRCA envisions the acquisition of 126 aircraft, with the first 18 to be built by the original manufacturer, followed by a stepped transition to Indian production. Saab is pitching its Gripen NG against the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16IN and the Mikoyan MiG-35.

Although Saab had already demonstrated the JAS 39C/D in India in March (20 evaluation flights), and Indian pilots had flown the Gripen Demo in Sweden during April, the demonstrator deployed to India for an in-country evaluation. Earlier it had been announced that ongoing test work would mean the Gripen Demo was unavailable to make the trip. This was widely seen as being detrimental to the Gripen bid’s cause and resulted in a reversal of the decision. Routing via Kecskemet in Hungary, Athens, Hurghada in Egypt, Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates, the Demo aircraft and its Raven AESA radar arrived in India in late May.

High-altitude Ops


During its stay, the Gripen Demo flew eight evaluation sorties, including in-flight refueling from an Ilyushin Il-78 tanker and operations from Leh. Located in disputed Jammu and Kashmir, close to the scene of the 1999 Kargil war, Leh is of strategic value to India but, at 10,826 feet elevation, is one of the world’s highest airfields. The Gripen Demo operated with ease from the base, and performed well in other trials. According to Eddy de la Motte, Saab’s India campaign director, “We are confident that this aircraft meets, or exceeds, every operational requirement raised by the Indian Air Force.”

The return to Sweden of the Demo aircraft brought to an end the MMRCA flying evaluation phase. Meanwhile, the final bid deadline has been extended a year, allowing some of the competitors to refine their proposals. It is expected that the technical evaluation will initially produce a down-select to three competitors, after which the politics are likely to become an increasing factor.

Politics have certainly played their part in the Brazilian FX2 new fighter competition, in which the Gripen is pitched against the Rafale and Super Hornet. In September last year President Lula announced the selection of the Rafale, but at the time of writing there is no sign of a contract.

An interesting aside to the Brazilian and Indian deals is the proposal by Saab of a Sea Gripen, as both countries have aircraft carriers. Developed initially to meet Sweden’s stringent dispersed short-field operations doctrine, the Gripen already possesses many of the characteristics required in a carrier-borne aircraft. Modifications for sea-going operations are said to be relatively straightforward, but Saab has signaled that it would pursue this avenue further only if Brazil or India signed up for the Gripen NG.


Gripen NG matures and waits for India: AINonline

 

[kingdurgaking]

^^^ which means gripen NG has demoed an AESA already ... hmmm interesting.. If Israel was allowed to participate then NG would have sent shivers to other manufactures.. Guessing Israel found NG best suitable option for MMRCA ...

 

[Storm Force]

Sancho posted this earlier Guys

a ready and capable fighter, with good future
- useful in different roles and for different forces
- a reliable partner that can offer us useful ToT and industrial advantages
- political / strategic benefits

I think the GOI will soon find that not one of the contenders has all these bases covered.

To me with India probably sticking with the PAK FA FGFA programme with Russia as a long trusted ally they will BE comitting to a $20 billion project running from 2015-2030. both development and acqusition of first 150 planes by 2030.

For this Reason alone i donnt see the need or the budget being available for a massive high end MMRCA typhoon or F18S/H @ $15 billion between 2011-2021.

This is where the Gripen NG at under $10 billion easy induction some cross over from tejas mk2 esp engine comes in so handy.

" Word of warning guys" IF INDIA CHOOSES A heavey twin engined bird like Typhoon or Hornets i fully expect the FGFA programme to be curtailed by india.

I CANT SEE BOTH HAPPENING

 

[Storm Force]

This is a really good debate on Gripen NG merits

Thanks to all posters

 

[alam.saquiba]

You can't fly without an engine so yeah, it's just as worrisome as the entire plane coming from the U.S.. But then again, the LCA uses American engines too, so I don't know how much India cares about that.
============================

[navy] For my chinies brother...
1. Rafael used the same American engine, when they made there own engine, they replaced Amerikan engine...

2. After denial of GE engine for LAVI (J10), chinies used Russian engine, now they are on track of replacing it by there own one..

3. China used russian engine for Cancelled MiG33 (FC1) project, now they are working on WS-engine...

Enjoy and stop trolling...

Long live

 

[typhoon77]

An old post by me in MRCA thread on the topic...reposting it

OK here is the Gripen argument.. worth a look.

That is an incredibly biased report. Its not even funny. So the euro fighter which has less US parts than the gripen shouldn't be considered due to sanctions but the Gripen is fine?? Umm where's the logic in that. the Gripen has its most crucial parts sourced from the US. Also having US parts didn't stop your M-2000's from flying in Kargil did it? Or what about the Jaguars??
All of the MRCA contenders have similar capabilities, it will come down to what India wants. Does it want political gains (go for the teen series), does it want the best offsets and tech transfer (Eurofighter) or does it want something cheap and easy to maintain (Gripen). My guess, it wants the technology each fighter company has had to one up the other. If the US doesn't put a lot of pressure on India it should go to the Euro fighter.