LurkerBaba
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,883
- Likes
- 8,138
Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest
- Thread starter Galaxy
- Start date
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
Except for those who have actually worked in our DPSUs or were exposed to DPSUs (there are quite a few here), you will find that most of the members are DRDO-lovers on this forum.
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,041
Anything wrong.. 
WOw...... comparing a non existing paper plane with one of the most successful combat aircraft in the world.....
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
When was the most successful combat plane in the world faced an equal opponent with the same EW and power projection capability?WOw...... comparing a non existing paper plane with one of the most successful combat aircraft in the world.....
by the same token the most successful combat plane in the world will also trump Grippen -Ng, RAFALE,TYPHOON all hands down perhaps, because the planes mentioned above are obviously not most successful combat planes in the world perhaps.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
So do you subscribe to SANCHo's views that india should stick with making just subsystems for MIGs and SU-30s instead of embarking on a totally new plane designs like Tejas because indin designers are not up to it?
When indian designers are upto the mark in missiles, nukes, BMDs, and nuclear submarines and why can't they be upto the mark in a run of the mill 4.5th gen fighter design with engines from abroad?
Calling tejas a prototype developmental project forever with no IAf acceptable specs, but the stark realities is that it will be among the top three multirole fighters in IAF in any battle day, the mk-1 itself, mk-2 will be a different beast all together.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,029
- Likes
- 8,764
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 105.7kN P&W F100-PW-220
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.09 m
Wing Area: 27.90 m2
Empty Weight: 7387 kg
Max.Weight: 17010 kg
Max. Speed: Mach 2.05
Ceiling: 16750 m
Max. Range: 3900 km
Armament: 1*g 20 mm 9276 kg payload
Unit cost: 20 million USD
Type: F-16C/D Fighting Falcon
Country: USA
Export: Bahrain/Greece/Israel/Egypt/NZ/UAE/Singapore/South Korea/Oman/Chile
Function: Multirole Fighter
In Service date: 1979
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 x 131,6 kN (29590 lbs) General Electric F110
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Wing area: 27.88 m2
Wing Aspect Ratio: 3.09
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.03 m
Empty Weight: 8581 kg
Internal Fuel Weight: 3105 kg
Max.Weight: 19187 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.0
Ferry Range: 4215 km
Combat Radius: 900 km
Internal Armament: 1*g 20 mm
G-limits: 9/-3.5
Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.26:1
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.1:1
---------------------------------------------------------------
17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.
1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.
Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.
Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf's satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.
So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.
Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .
In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won't add to much empty weight either.
Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.
LCA mk-1 with it's empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won't suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it's primary role.
But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.
Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.
So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation ofcourse
Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 * 105.7kN P&W F100-PW-220
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.09 m
Wing Area: 27.90 m2
Empty Weight: 7387 kg
Max.Weight: 17010 kg
Max. Speed: Mach 2.05
Ceiling: 16750 m
Max. Range: 3900 km
Armament: 1*g 20 mm 9276 kg payload
Unit cost: 20 million USD
Type: F-16C/D Fighting Falcon
Country: USA
Export: Bahrain/Greece/Israel/Egypt/NZ/UAE/Singapore/South Korea/Oman/Chile
Function: Multirole Fighter
In Service date: 1979
Crew: 1
Engines: 1 x 131,6 kN (29590 lbs) General Electric F110
Wing Span: 10.00 m
Wing area: 27.88 m2
Wing Aspect Ratio: 3.09
Length: 15.03 m
Height: 5.03 m
Empty Weight: 8581 kg
Internal Fuel Weight: 3105 kg
Max.Weight: 19187 kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.0
Ferry Range: 4215 km
Combat Radius: 900 km
Internal Armament: 1*g 20 mm
G-limits: 9/-3.5
Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second
TWR(50% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.26:1
TWR(100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile): ~1.1:1
---------------------------------------------------------------
17 deg sustained turn rate is the initial ASR set for LCA mk-1 just 1 degree less than F-16 block C/D.
1.Even with 6G and 20 deg AOA limitation the LCA has already completed a horizontal loop in Aeroindia demo within 23 seconds. That comes to a STR of close to 16 deg with the limitations of partially opened flight envelope.We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.
Also with the same 6G 20 deg AOA restriction it completed a vertical loop within 20 seconds in AeroIndia 2013 ,meaning it had a STR of close to 18 deg in vertical loop. In a recent fly past the Su-35 too completed the powered vertical loop within 18 seconds. Once again We don't know whether the plane was stretched even to this partial limit of 6Gs and 20 Deg AOA in that demo.
Recent reports in a blog indicate that LCA mk-1 has achieved a Sustained Turn Rate to the IAf's satisfaction even with 1 ton extra empty weight than the original target of 5470 kg. SO it must have improved over the aeroindia2013 demo in a substantial manner.
So in no way can the initial airframe design can be called draggy.
Also the TWR ratio of LCA with 50 percent fuel is 1.07. Same for F-16 is 1.25. So with even lower thrust to weight ratio than F-16 C/D , LCA has managed to pull closer to the F-16 C/D .
In mk-2 it will only further improve, with weight reduction due to more composite percentage and a 20 percent higher thrust engine in GE F414 IN S 6. Since the length of fuselage is going to be expanded by 0.5 meter only it won't add to much empty weight either.
Also with an empty weight of 8.5 ton F-16 C/D carries 3.1 ton fuel.
LCA mk-1 with it's empty weight of 6.4 tons carries 2.5 ton fuel.SO LCA mk-1 has a close to 10 percent better fuel fraction ratio than the F-16 C/ D. Indicating it won't suffer much in range in an air to air configuration of 2 ton air to air missile load which is it's primary role.
But by having a significantly lower wing loading than the F-16 C/D Tejas mk-1 will have a much better Instantaneous turn Rate than the 26 degree given for F-16 C/ D.
Even the initial ASR given for LCA by MSD Woollen indicates a requirement of 30 deg maximum attainable in the ADA website.
So in the all important high off bore sight WVR missile launching capacity based on Instantaneous Turn Rate , it will be better than the F-16 C/D, just going by the low wing loading factor alone.. But needs citation ofcourse
Zebra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,060
- Likes
- 2,303
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
Saab offers #MakeinIndia plan for the Gripen (+ Video) | StratPost
The Swedish defense and aviation company Saab has offered to make its Gripen fighter in India.
Chairman of Saab India, Lars-Olof Lindgren told StratPost about his company's intention to offer the aircraft for production in India.
This comes at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi has begun a campaign to encourage manufacturing industry, particularly foreign companies, to 'Make in India'.
"We are prepared to set up a joint venture company in India and produce, by and for India, by Indian workforce. You see the mix of a large number of Indian well-educated highly-skilled engineers and Sweden's high technology in the field of aerospace – it's a perfect match," said Lindgren, a former Swedish ambassador to India.
Saab has been quietly working on a plan to build the Gripen in India and Lindgren said his company has already done a lot of the homework for it.
We already have a Make in India plan for our aircraft. It is there already, because we have prepared ourselves, we have all the designs for a factory, the layout of the factory, how it would look like and how the flow of products would work and we have also prepared for sub-contractors being in the same area, so we have done a lot of work already to produce in India.
We have been active on that for a couple of years, now, because we have seen all the time that we were fitted very well with the Indian Air Force need.
And we have already prepared the ground very well. We have a blueprint of how the factory could look like, how the production system could look like in India – so we are well prepared for this.
We have worked quite a lot on that – we have visited a number of chief ministers in different states to discuss this and from all places got very positive responses. We have talked to a number of companies about teaming up with us – got, so far, very encouraging results, so I'm not worried about these things. These will fall into place.
Lindgren emphasized that Saab was proposing 'real transfer of technology' in its proposition to build the Gripen in India. "Often, it's only sending a screwdriver and design and then nothing really happens. We have seen many examples of that. What we mean is transfer of technology is real transfer of technology – that we gradually introduce the technology in India so that the Indian workforce will be more and more acquainted with how to produce aircraft so that will be used in the development of the next generation aircraft. So we mean, actually, real transfer of technology, when we say it," he said.
Saab anticipates that the Indian Air Force (IAF) will have a requirement for at least 200 fighter aircraft, even after completion of all its acquisition plans, including the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) and 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for which the IAF has selected the French Rafale. Gripen was also in the MMRCA tender competition, besides Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Russia's MiG-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
"We were working hard to be considered in the MMRCA. We regret that we were not selected, but we have full respect for the Indian decision and the Indian process and we are not pitching at all, against that. But we know that even with the MMRCA, the Indian Air Force needs a large number of aircraft. It's difficult to say how many but around 200 plus aircraft are needed. And we feel that the Gripen E – as you said, the new generation Gripen – would be a perfect fit for the Indian Air Force," said Lindgren, adding, "When it comes to performance, when it comes to availability, when it comes to affordability and also transfer of technology. So we feel that Gripen would be a perfect choice for India. I would say that replacing the MiG fleet that the Indian Air Force has now would take a plane like the Gripen – lighter, but still very performant aircraft. So as I said, fitting perfectly."
Lindgren also said that such a project could see the light of day in a matter of a few years.
"We know that that demands of the Indian Air Force are immediate, more or less. And we would be able to set up a production that could start less than five years after decision. And since we are so well-prepared, as I mentioned, and we would also be helpful in using our own supplier base to try to convince them to come to India and set up production in India. So that would also be beneficial for the Indian defense industry in general," said Lindgren.
----------------------------------------
They want to eat into the LCA program. This obviously won't happen.
IN was out of the picture before it even began. So, this is a last final desperate attempt by SAAB at selling the Gripen to the IAF.
The Swedish defense and aviation company Saab has offered to make its Gripen fighter in India.
Chairman of Saab India, Lars-Olof Lindgren told StratPost about his company's intention to offer the aircraft for production in India.
This comes at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi has begun a campaign to encourage manufacturing industry, particularly foreign companies, to 'Make in India'.
"We are prepared to set up a joint venture company in India and produce, by and for India, by Indian workforce. You see the mix of a large number of Indian well-educated highly-skilled engineers and Sweden's high technology in the field of aerospace – it's a perfect match," said Lindgren, a former Swedish ambassador to India.
Saab has been quietly working on a plan to build the Gripen in India and Lindgren said his company has already done a lot of the homework for it.
We already have a Make in India plan for our aircraft. It is there already, because we have prepared ourselves, we have all the designs for a factory, the layout of the factory, how it would look like and how the flow of products would work and we have also prepared for sub-contractors being in the same area, so we have done a lot of work already to produce in India.
We have been active on that for a couple of years, now, because we have seen all the time that we were fitted very well with the Indian Air Force need.
And we have already prepared the ground very well. We have a blueprint of how the factory could look like, how the production system could look like in India – so we are well prepared for this.
We have worked quite a lot on that – we have visited a number of chief ministers in different states to discuss this and from all places got very positive responses. We have talked to a number of companies about teaming up with us – got, so far, very encouraging results, so I'm not worried about these things. These will fall into place.
Lindgren emphasized that Saab was proposing 'real transfer of technology' in its proposition to build the Gripen in India. "Often, it's only sending a screwdriver and design and then nothing really happens. We have seen many examples of that. What we mean is transfer of technology is real transfer of technology – that we gradually introduce the technology in India so that the Indian workforce will be more and more acquainted with how to produce aircraft so that will be used in the development of the next generation aircraft. So we mean, actually, real transfer of technology, when we say it," he said.
Saab anticipates that the Indian Air Force (IAF) will have a requirement for at least 200 fighter aircraft, even after completion of all its acquisition plans, including the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) and 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for which the IAF has selected the French Rafale. Gripen was also in the MMRCA tender competition, besides Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Russia's MiG-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
"We were working hard to be considered in the MMRCA. We regret that we were not selected, but we have full respect for the Indian decision and the Indian process and we are not pitching at all, against that. But we know that even with the MMRCA, the Indian Air Force needs a large number of aircraft. It's difficult to say how many but around 200 plus aircraft are needed. And we feel that the Gripen E – as you said, the new generation Gripen – would be a perfect fit for the Indian Air Force," said Lindgren, adding, "When it comes to performance, when it comes to availability, when it comes to affordability and also transfer of technology. So we feel that Gripen would be a perfect choice for India. I would say that replacing the MiG fleet that the Indian Air Force has now would take a plane like the Gripen – lighter, but still very performant aircraft. So as I said, fitting perfectly."
Lindgren also said that such a project could see the light of day in a matter of a few years.
"We know that that demands of the Indian Air Force are immediate, more or less. And we would be able to set up a production that could start less than five years after decision. And since we are so well-prepared, as I mentioned, and we would also be helpful in using our own supplier base to try to convince them to come to India and set up production in India. So that would also be beneficial for the Indian defense industry in general," said Lindgren.
----------------------------------------
They want to eat into the LCA program. This obviously won't happen.
IN was out of the picture before it even began. So, this is a last final desperate attempt by SAAB at selling the Gripen to the IAF.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blackwater
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 21,156
- Likes
- 12,211
Gripen is good alternative to LCA. as LCA is no where in sight after 30 odd yrs of mis development. gripen can fill the gap
Hari Sud
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,945
- Likes
- 8,863
If the choice is Gripen and LCA, then I will go for LCA.
Remember Gripen is incremental better than LCA but cost twice as much. What SAAB will transfer is screw driver technology. We have plenty of it over last thirty years.
There is no rush for LCA. No war is about to break out in south Asia. That aspect has been outsourced to Middle East. Hence wait is worth it.
Build your own LCA and be proud of it.
Bad luck to Arms Merchants, you have tried for long time to shut down LCA, but lost many times.
It is the learning process in LCA that is important. Next one will be built in half time.
By the way, is F-35 rolling out of assembly line after twenty years of research and development.
No, it is not.
By the way US has been building fighter jets of supersonic variety for almost 50 years, still cannot finish F-35. Sometimes problems are beyond your control. Moreover US has not to worry about hateful bureaucracy, still a huge delay.
Remember Gripen is incremental better than LCA but cost twice as much. What SAAB will transfer is screw driver technology. We have plenty of it over last thirty years.
There is no rush for LCA. No war is about to break out in south Asia. That aspect has been outsourced to Middle East. Hence wait is worth it.
Build your own LCA and be proud of it.
Bad luck to Arms Merchants, you have tried for long time to shut down LCA, but lost many times.
It is the learning process in LCA that is important. Next one will be built in half time.
By the way, is F-35 rolling out of assembly line after twenty years of research and development.
No, it is not.
By the way US has been building fighter jets of supersonic variety for almost 50 years, still cannot finish F-35. Sometimes problems are beyond your control. Moreover US has not to worry about hateful bureaucracy, still a huge delay.
PaliwalWarrior
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 844
- Likes
- 319
There is nothing new in this offer it is just being hyped up
again it is one more of Vayustrat farts & attempt to take india away from Tejas
except that they are not addressing the current MMRCA but looking beyond MMRCA & Tejas
what they are taking of is
Manufacturing plant in india
plane to be made in india
Gradula & slow transfer of technology - technology of what ? building plane ?
now just look at all the IAF procurement of AC over the past history begining with mig21
Mig21
few built in Russia and more than 500 built in india
Now built in india means mfg in india, mfg plant in india (HAL), gradual & slow transfer of technology - building planes
Jaguar
some built in Uk
rest built in india - Mfg in india, mfg plant in india,
Mirage 2000
i dont know much about it
Su30MKI
some built in Russia
rest more than 250 to be built in india
Mfg in india, mfg plant in india (HAL), ToT - gradual & Slow
not only that even for the upgrades we are following the same pattern
initial batch to be upgraded by OEM rest to be upgraded in india by HAL
MMRCA
18 to be built by OEM overseas
rest to be made in India
Mfg plant to be in india (HAL)
slow & gradual ToT
so in all the above cases the conditions of
made in india
mfg plant in india
Slow and gradual ToT
as being touted by SAAB is already followed
also
they are looking at 200+ ac market
does anyone on this forum believe that any govt in india is going to give 200+ AC order to be directly built by OEM overseas?
of course they are going to follow the above pattern
so thinking logically
SAAB is not offering something great, it has to do it in the same manner anyways
yes it would have been different if they had offered to shift their whole R&D and worldwide mfg base to india
if they had said that future AC of saab (military&civil) would be designed developed tested and mfg in india and supplied worldwide then it would have been a different case
Also if they offer to jointly develop a new fighter for future such as AMCA along with indian co and indian people involved from the begining - spec finalisation and esigning and teach them those aspects then it is a different and worthwhile offer
otherwise it is just sratpost vayu (fart)
again it is one more of Vayustrat farts & attempt to take india away from Tejas
except that they are not addressing the current MMRCA but looking beyond MMRCA & Tejas
what they are taking of is
Manufacturing plant in india
plane to be made in india
Gradula & slow transfer of technology - technology of what ? building plane ?
now just look at all the IAF procurement of AC over the past history begining with mig21
Mig21
few built in Russia and more than 500 built in india
Now built in india means mfg in india, mfg plant in india (HAL), gradual & slow transfer of technology - building planes
Jaguar
some built in Uk
rest built in india - Mfg in india, mfg plant in india,
Mirage 2000
i dont know much about it
Su30MKI
some built in Russia
rest more than 250 to be built in india
Mfg in india, mfg plant in india (HAL), ToT - gradual & Slow
not only that even for the upgrades we are following the same pattern
initial batch to be upgraded by OEM rest to be upgraded in india by HAL
MMRCA
18 to be built by OEM overseas
rest to be made in India
Mfg plant to be in india (HAL)
slow & gradual ToT
so in all the above cases the conditions of
made in india
mfg plant in india
Slow and gradual ToT
as being touted by SAAB is already followed
also
they are looking at 200+ ac market
does anyone on this forum believe that any govt in india is going to give 200+ AC order to be directly built by OEM overseas?
of course they are going to follow the above pattern
so thinking logically
SAAB is not offering something great, it has to do it in the same manner anyways
yes it would have been different if they had offered to shift their whole R&D and worldwide mfg base to india
if they had said that future AC of saab (military&civil) would be designed developed tested and mfg in india and supplied worldwide then it would have been a different case
Also if they offer to jointly develop a new fighter for future such as AMCA along with indian co and indian people involved from the begining - spec finalisation and esigning and teach them those aspects then it is a different and worthwhile offer
otherwise it is just sratpost vayu (fart)
Sylex21
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 439
- Likes
- 333
A bit confused about this offer. Is SAAB saying that it wants to build a factory in India to sell jets TO India only? In which case wouldn't EVERYONE be willing to do that / pretty much HAVE to do that anyways? That is the interpretation I take from the article. Now if SAAB wants to merge with an Indian company completely India should bend over backwards if they were willing to merge with the LCA project with a 49% stake + money or other stuff.
Transfer of tech is really important here depending on how much of it. If it was total transfer of tech to the point that India could build entire jet engines etc.. (I think SAAB imports from USA anyways) or some other very critical tech, then India should totally buy to gain the tech.
People always talk about indiginization but what is even more important is infrastructure. It is more important to have the ability to produce Jet Fighters completely in India, even if it is owned and licensed by Russia or someone else than it is to have an Indian company produce a jet but some of the critical parts have to be imported from other nations. The key is to be able to produce a ton of military hardware during a war, without needing to important almost anything regardless of who actually owns the company as long as it is all contained within India.
Transfer of tech is really important here depending on how much of it. If it was total transfer of tech to the point that India could build entire jet engines etc.. (I think SAAB imports from USA anyways) or some other very critical tech, then India should totally buy to gain the tech.
People always talk about indiginization but what is even more important is infrastructure. It is more important to have the ability to produce Jet Fighters completely in India, even if it is owned and licensed by Russia or someone else than it is to have an Indian company produce a jet but some of the critical parts have to be imported from other nations. The key is to be able to produce a ton of military hardware during a war, without needing to important almost anything regardless of who actually owns the company as long as it is all contained within India.
anupamsurey
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,032
- Likes
- 514
thats it the article says in "India for India", i for one dont see Modi govt shelving LCA for SAAB gripen.
p2prada
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 10,234
- Likes
- 4,017
Your interpretation is correct. But IAF and MoD won't buy into this proposition. They already have their hands full with LCA, Rafale and FGFA.
4th gen aircraft are on their last legs anyway. No need to invest so much money into an entirely new project when it is not needed. It will interfere with LCA too.
Even if we consider Modi has decided to increase IAF's squadron strength from 42 to 50 or 60, it still wouldn't make sense to induct Gripen because we will have three production lines churning out LCA, Rafale and FGFA anyway. Not to mention the brand new AMCA production line.
As for ToT, we are getting much more from Rafale, and even more from FGFA. We don't have to shackle ourselves to Gripen with an American engine.
I doubt the navy will be interested in an aircraft that is not CATOBAR capable.
They apparently wanted a 51% stake in the LCA. MoD refused for obvious reasons. I doubt MoD would have accepted even if SAAB agreed for 49%.
PaliwalWarrior
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 844
- Likes
- 319
Rafale is not happening
so dont count in rafale manufacturing line just yet
so dont count in rafale manufacturing line just yet
Sylex21
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 439
- Likes
- 333
What do you base that statement on? It would be hugely embarrassing for the government to backtrack now, we don't have a suitable filler, and it would be very damaging to India's reputation in the defense field for wasting so much of Dassalt's time and money.
Zebra
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,060
- Likes
- 2,303
1) I am talking in general though.
Swedish companies are looking at India as a reliable, cost effective supplier of systems and sub systems for their products.
For that matter few companies are already here in India and few more may join in future.
Just to name one....Scania.
2) For JAS 39 Gripen, formerly Volvo Aero, now GKN Aerospace, makes nearly 50% of Volvo RM12 engine in Sweden.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,622
- Likes
- 590
I believe you are saying that we don't want new type of aircrafts ... when it comes to numbers yes we need more in todays scenario....
The squad fleet of 42(Which is down to 32 or so) is not sufficient to counter balance Pakistan and China Together.....
I also do not think other than Tejas PakFa AMCA(Future) we need any other aircraft.....
SU MKI 270 is a great force in itself....
TEjas MK1 and MK2 could form a light base that means atleast 150 in service....
Perspective FGFA/T-50 will also be in good numbers 144....
AMCA will come into equation after a decade or so when the upgraded aircrafts/oldies will start retiring....
We need to induct Tejas MK1 then MK2 , FGFA parallaly to raise the squad size .....
What do you think should we stick to 42 or increase it.....????
The squad fleet of 42(Which is down to 32 or so) is not sufficient to counter balance Pakistan and China Together.....
I also do not think other than Tejas PakFa AMCA(Future) we need any other aircraft.....
SU MKI 270 is a great force in itself....
TEjas MK1 and MK2 could form a light base that means atleast 150 in service....
Perspective FGFA/T-50 will also be in good numbers 144....
AMCA will come into equation after a decade or so when the upgraded aircrafts/oldies will start retiring....
We need to induct Tejas MK1 then MK2 , FGFA parallaly to raise the squad size .....
What do you think should we stick to 42 or increase it.....????
