Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[akk]

Can somebody please explain what's the difference between "new design" (gripen) and so called "old heavily modified design" (block 72 f16). how does it matter? Is capability and cost not more important ? How does a modified design make it inferior? how does it mean that it cannot be further modified? Am i wrong in assuming that a heavily"modified design" is also a template for future modification in the same way as a new design?

 

[Mikesingh]

Can somebody please explain what's the difference between "new design" (gripen) and so called "old heavily modified design" (block 72 f16). how does it matter? Is capability and cost not more important ? How does a modified design make it inferior? how does it mean that it cannot be further modified? Am i wrong in assuming that a heavily"modified design" is also a template for future modification in the same way as a new design?

Good points raised. The Yanks have agreed to establish manufacturing facilities in India for the F-16 Blk 70/72 which is a potent aircraft. The advantage is that since they are discontinuing the production of F-16s in the US, India would be the only country producing the F-16s Blk 70/72.

Now considering that there are over 4500 F-16s of all variants operational across the world, India would be the hub for major overhauls, spares and production of the new variants which are cost effective and affordable by most countries. That should turn out to be a bonanza for the make in India project. In contrast, the Gripen has very few takers and therefore would not be cost effective in the long run.

 

[airtel]

India will buy More Rafales ....................no F-16 /18 ...........No Gripen E .

we will develop kaveri with the help of France & transfer subsystems of Rafal , tejas & Pak-fa to AMCA .

 

[Adioz]

Can somebody please explain what's the difference between "new design" (gripen) and so called "old heavily modified design" (block 72 f16). how does it matter? Is capability and cost not more important ? How does a modified design make it inferior? how does it mean that it cannot be further modified? Am i wrong in assuming that a heavily"modified design" is also a template for future modification in the same way as a new design?

Any fighter (or any weapons platform, for that matter) is designed with a future-profile in mind. This allows the basic design to remain relevant in the face of fast-evolving technology. This approach allows upgrades to certain sub-systems that we see in aircraft. But this has its limits. For example, aircraft are prone to weight growth throughout their service life (due to newer sub-systems being generally heavier than the ones they replace). The designer factors this in the initial design, but only to a certain limit. As you go on modifying original designs, that limit is reached sooner or later. That is why a modified aircraft is not preferable to a newer design provided they have the same ability. The F-16's long service record does put some points in its favour. But the aforementioned philosophy should be factored-in while making a decision.

That said, I would be happy to have a design like the F-16 iff (if and only if) it is as well-thought of as the MiG 21 or the B-52 bomber which remain in service and relevant long-after their design life. How something like that can be determined w.r.t. the F-16? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[WolfPack86]

F 16 vs Gripen :: Which combat jet will rule supreme in Indian fighter dogfight??

 

[Cutting Edge]

F 16 vs Gripen :: Which combat jet will rule supreme in Indian fighter dogfight??

Gripen is simply just awesome. I'd rather prefer Gripen over F-16 anyday, even though F-16 is more practical choice.

Gripen NG

 

[Cutting Edge]

Saab Gripen Flight Demonstration - Farnborough Airshow 2016

 

[WolfPack86]

Single engine foreign fighter to be manufactured under #MakeinIndia under 'Strategic Partnership' model
https://twitter.com/livefist?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

Indian Defence Minister @manoharparrikar: Besides LCA, India needs another single engine fighter production line, deal to be done by 2017.
https://twitter.com/livefist?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

Indian Defence Minister @ManoharParrikar strengthens current indications that India's next fighter line will be a Gripen vs F-16 toss-up

 

[WolfPack86]

Tech transfer & price competitiveness to guide India's selection of the #MakeInIndia single-engine fighter: @ManoharParrikar
https://twitter.com/livefist?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

Big: Parrikar confirms India requires another single engine fighter line that will be done under the Strategic Partnership model.
https://twitter.com/etdefence?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

Competitive process will be followed to select western fighter to be made in India. Govt to Govt deal will be inked after selection
https://twitter.com/etdefence?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

Media reports on additional Rafale jets are speculative - Parrikar
https://twitter.com/etdefence?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

.@manoharparrikar says when India decides to go for a twin engine fighter to be made here, will consider the Rafale also. But not now
https://twitter.com/etdefence?lang=en

 

[WolfPack86]

.@manoharparrikar makes it clear that competition for twin engine made in India fighters will be considered. But single engine this year
https://twitter.com/etdefence?lang=en

 

[AmoghaVarsha]

So basically F16 block 70 will be flown by the IAF.

 

[Butter Chicken]

hopefully some good ToT comes with it.I am still doubtful about that

 

[WolfPack86]

BIG: India Details Make-In-India Fighter Plans

India’s Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today took questions on a piece of procurement action that’s occupying more mindspace than any other — India’s next Make-in-India fighter lines, adding fresh official detail to a string of programmes that have largely been speculated upon for the past few months. Livefist gives you the low-down:

1. India’s next fighter production line will be of a single-engine foreign type, confirmed defence minister Manohar Parrikar today, clearing up speculation that this was still in doubt (this was a scenario first reported by Livefist here). This, in essence, narrows the next contest to a possible two-horse race between the Gripen and the F-16. Livefist has detailed both campaigns and pitches earlier.
2. The Minister however also confirmed that India would take up the manufacture of a twin-engine fighter ‘later’. If the Minister was referring to a foreign line, he confirms projections made, for instance, by companies like Boeing about a second Make-in-India fighter production line in India that follows the single-engine line. Dassault’s own pitch for a greater number of Rafale jets (in addition to the 36 already contracted) would conceivably compete for this deal.
3. Speaking today at a Ministry of Defence event, Minister Parrikar noted, importantly, that the Make-in-India fighter would be a deal awarded under the ‘Strategic Partnership’ policy — a scheme that hasn’t been unveiled yet, but that the Minister said would be by the end of January. Vendors and OEMs remain on tenterhooks over how this crucial scheme will play out.
4. Technology transfer and ownership cost will be guiding principles in the selection of the Make-in-India fighters, the Minister said. This isn’t new or surprising — and is a possible safe play owing to lessons learned from the abortive M-MRCA.
5. Finally, Minister Parrikar reaffirmed that the Indian Navy would not operate the LCA Navy, but would continue to support its development as a tech demonstrator. This makes it official that the Indian Navy will float a separate competition for its own future fighter.

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/01/india-details-make-in-india-fighter-plans.html

 

[AmoghaVarsha]

So how many single engine and how many twin engine fighters will we fly?


Does this mean we are going beyond 42 squadrons?