©Copyright TV Today Network
Over a warm lunch at the Akash Officers’ Mess in the heart of India’s capital city this week, the Indian […]
The Indian Air Force today accepted a restored vintage World War II DC-3 Dakota aircraft. As reported earlier this week […]
A historic week begins for Indian aviation. After years in suspense, this week the Indian Air Force will receive as […]
may be an advanced aircraft but just not as good or as capable as some of the ther contenders.. F-16IN, f-18IN, EF, rafale all are better option… EF and Rafale may be more expensive but far superior and F-18IN has no comparison in the roles and payload flexibility. Gripen is a joke compared to them. The price to pounding ratio of the F-18IN is far better.
the LCA mk-2 will outperform the gripen IN any day, IAf may not be too keen on a single engine aircraft besides Gripen is no match for the SH, the original RFP requirements are ir-relevant, the new RFP has much more demanding requirements and the Gripen will fall short in many things. Moreover EF, Gripen supply chain is a logistical nightmare with parts coming from across the world, IAF will go for a one nation aircraft, the vendor that has good production rates, can deliver the first aircraft by mid to late 2013 and the only contender that has the ability is Boeing with the SH. buying Rafale, Gripen, EF means we'll have to source weapons from across the world as well, hence more delays, more negotiations in different currencies, more languages involved, all this is a headache while buying expensive things like weapons, hence only US or Russian platforms stand any chance. Hence F-16IN, F-18IN and mig-35 are the only ones which will be shortlisted. All the others are logistical nightmares. Ef, Rafale, Mig, Gripen IN need extensive tweaking as well while the F-18IN and F-16IN are very advanced off-the shelf, which means integration is faster. Plus going for F-18IN or f-16IN or mig means we can source weapons from one country as well which could mean advanced weapons could end up being prodcued partly or fully in our country as well. needless to say EU weapons are far more expensive than US counter parts and Russian weapons lack reliability.
I wish you or any Indian media don't promote/inform viewers on Saab's or Boeing's or Lockheed Martin Company in your channel or any other means as they are selling Phalcon like AWACS to Pakis.
It sounds similar to the act of Ecuadorian Media w.r.t Dhruv Accident.
I completely disagree with what anonymous has said abt the Gripen. If he is so knowledgeable about defense systems as it looks, he should search the wikipedia abt the MRCA deal.
The stats show Gripen as the clear winner in all aspects, iits trhe smallest, lightest and its power is comparable with the F-16 or F-18. Above all its priced aptly though US$10 million more than Mig -35. Its being offered with TOT option also. All in all the Gripen is the clear winner.
By the way Shiv I went thr the videos, they look awesome. thx n pls keep sending good news abt the Gripen
IIRC only the Mig is actually all non US tech ..and the one to offer maximum ToT!!!
"Moreover EF, Gripen supply chain is a logistical nightmare with parts coming from across the world". Rubbish. The Super Hornet and F-16 also share getting parts from across the world. Parts are made and supplied across Europe in addition to the US – much the same as EF and Gripen. That's called globalisation. Yes, it's also affected the military aerospace industry as well! The only contenders where the majority of the aircraft is produced in one country is Rafale and the MiG-35.
where is the rest of stuff
atleast you should understand what are you writing. get information before posting something. ToT is a mandatory clause in the deal. so, for Gripen, its not offered with ToT option…. rather it is mandatory may be up to some extent.
well Joydeep, Super hornet can deploy 12 BVR A2A missiles and carry additional 2 WVR missiles in a air interdiction mission, no other aircraft matches this in the MRCA. The SH can play awacs and tanker roles as well, its AESA is by far the most advanced and can detect targets well over 250NM or over 460km away. The AESA has a MTBF of over 1250 hrs also the highest in the competition, the GE EPE 414 engine on offer for the SH is also the same being offered for the LCA mk-2 this new engine allows for 118KN of thrust much more than the LCA will ever require, the US engine costs 4 million while the EJ2000 over 10 million. SAAB cant guarantee full-tot because a lot of parts come from the US including the engine which is inferior to the uprated 414 EPE being offered with the SH. The new engine is also much more durable. Gripen cant match the SH in range as well. SH, Viper are also nuke deployable. Gripen on other hand isnt, even if it was, it will need a lot of tweaking to deploy nuke weapons. Super hornet can land on carriers as well and with india showing interest in buying the new British carrier, Super hornet is the best bet, Rafale on other hand is far too expensive. Super hornet is also the most mature in terms of handling, cockpit ergenomics and high aoa maneuvering, it doesnt need a TVC and still can pull stall free manuevers. super hornet is so advanced its now being tested with biofuels which also makes it the 'greenest' holding promise of cuts in emissions and added fuel cost savings. SH is the only fighter that can play all the roles a fighter can, the LCA mk-2 will outperform the Gripen when its ready, going for Griepn means we'll have to buy weapons from all over the place, this slows down the process. Gripen line is also much slower, while super hornet are being built at over 40 aircraft per year. lest you forget we have a dealine of mid 2013 and the only aircraft that could arrive in time is the SH. RAAF Super Hornets so far have been delivered 3 months ahead of schedule. Gripen is a good aircraft but doesnt match our needs, moreover there is even fear if Gripen wins the LCA mk-2 phase could be in jeopardy. During weapons trials next year US contenders will impress the most deploying new and state of the art weapons like JDAM, LJDAM, JDAM-ER, Paveways 1/2/3, AAGRM, JSOW A/C, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Harpoon block 2/3,SDB, aim-120 C-7/D, CBU-97/105 SFW, SDB, Bunker busters etc.
to joydeep ghosh
Some reasons why the Gripen can't win:
1) Too close on LCA MK2!
The main difference between both might be the payload (Gripen NG 6t, LCA around 4t), in all other aspects both are more than similar. Light weight, single engine, for interceptor, patrol and light strike missions. So if IAF takes the Gripen NG it gets maybe better radar and avionics, but it will serve only for the same roles that the LCA will serve too. So the Gripen NG will mean the least boost of capabilities for IAF.All other fighters in the competition are clearly more capable than these 2 (bigger radars, can carry more payload and weapons, better in strike, or air superiority missions). If IAF looked only for a cheap and cost-effective fighter, it would have chosen the same Jas 39 Gripen that Mr Aroor have flown now in the earlier MRCA competition. There would be no need to wait for a NG version which is only in development and gives the risk of further delays, but not much more capabilities.They didn't, so they clearly wants to add more power, capabilities and more quality!
2) Too reliable on other countries!
Sweden might be an independent country, but the Gripen isn't. All important parts are at least co-developments with other countries (engine, radar, weapons…). This already was a problem, because France which co-developed the radar in the NG Demonstrator didn't allowed the further use, US didn't allowed a co-developed radar with Israel, because some techs belongs to them. This will be a big problem for IAF in times of war, or sanctions, because many countries have to agree to supply spares and weapons.It also is a big problem in terms of ToT, because although they offer much ToT they can only offer it from parts they developed alone. Engine, or radar techs can only be transfered if other countries allows it (which is doubtful).
3) Political power!
Sweden develops good arms and might have some influence in Europe, but is no major power and will not be helpful for the Indian Gov in the UN, or other parts of world politics. All other contenders are, or have a UN veto power on their side. So if we search for a stratigic partner, or closer political ties, Sweden is not the right choice.
The Gripen NG might be a good aircraft, but mainly for smaller air forces. IAF needs better fighters and for such high costs, we must get more benefits through ToT and politically.
How much did SAAB paid you for promoting Grippen?
U LUCKY @!#@@ ..
Shiv Can u tell More about the Helmet u Were Wearing ?
Great presentation, couldn't have been better. I like the way you give the voice overs, apt for a combat aircraft. As far as the MMRCA selection goes, I would personally choose a twin engine fighter, but GRIPEN is a formidable fighters and have it's own set of USPs.
Any glimpse of GRIPEN NG, Mr. Shiv?
what!!! the versions of Super Hornet and F-16 being offered to India are made completly in the US unless you choose to have Israeli stuff on the f-16. Every single component of the Super Hornet is made in the US. Though the super hornet does have some suppliers like ELbit, Moog U.K etc. they have facilities in the US and hence the aircraft's entire logistical network is in the US. cant say the same for the EF, Gripen, Rafale. the mig in its basic version being offered is just too weak a contender and hence will need a lot of tweaking with Israeli, French avionics. The mig is another joke and worst among all the contenders.
to Anonymous 7:58
"Super hornet can deploy 12 BVR A2A missiles and carry additional 2 WVR missiles in a air interdiction mission, no other aircraft matches this in the MRCA. The SH can play awacs and tanker roles as well,"
The SH can carry these missiles only with multi pylons, without it would only be 8+2. The Rafale (with Mica) and EF can carry 10+2 missiles without multi pylons, which is even more impressive if you keep the size difference to SH in mind. Apart from that, all these points you mentioned are already available in IAF through MKI. It already acts as a mini Awacs, can carry a refueling pod to refuel other fighters and can carry 8+4 a2a missiles. That means these capabilities of the SH won't be a big advantage in the competition! Imo IAF must search for a fighhter and capabilities that suits best alongside MKI, like low RCS, precision and preemptive strike, or SEAD capabilities. That's why I think only the Rafale, or the SH could win the competition. The SH might cost $10-20 millions less but we wouldn't benefit much because of limited ToT, restrictions and not sanction prove. The Rafale instead comes with full ToT and source codes, no restrictions and a reliable partner even through sanction times. This clearly would make the higher price worth it don't you think?
Rahul: I did indeed see the Gripen Demo/NG in its hangar, and was given a walkaround of the jet, but wasn't allowed to shoot inside the hangar. This was the Demo with all the changes — new landing gear on the wing-roots, the Selex AESA radar, the F414 turbofan, etc. A slightly more substantial looking aircraft.
Shiv, I do hope that whenever the twin-seat Tejas does fly and fly for an adequate number of hours, that you'll ask DRDO/HAL for a test flight. While its all nice and dandy to see you fly a Swedish jet and talk of it as being one of the most modern fighters around, its sad to see that you don't adequately cover something from our own stables..a case of "ghar ki murgi daal barabar" ?
dear friend u r forgetting, v r going thru this MRCA deal to replace which aircraft, the "MiG21".
Which means we need a single engine aircraft to perform all sorts of ops over short distances, particularly with respect to Pakistan.
Do you think its viable to deploy Su-30 planes in large nos. against Pakistan. Its like using sword to cut vegetables.
Su-30 is a long haul aircraft for heavy bombing, we dont need 200 of them to counter Pakistan. Its far more useful to counter China.
By d way How much did Boeing n Lockheed pay you for promoting the Super Hornet and F-16.
first let me thank u for countering anonymous with better information.
By the way the reasons u gave that Gripen cant win are obvious, with respect to part from other countries, similarity with LCA mk2, but I would suggest u pls first go thru wikipedia abt the MRCA deal. The table will tell you why I say Gripen is the clear winner.
We must not forget few things
v r already developing the FGFA with Russia and v r workin on the MCA on our own.
If at all their is problem with end user agreement or non avaiallbity of part we can do what we did Su-30, merge Isreali, French systems to counter those problems.
U may say it will cost more, but if we did it Su-30, v can do it again right
Super Hornet is a plane with ridiculous low agility. It takes an enhanced variant of F-414 engine to make this plane behave normal. And to compensate for this, they keep packing it up with more electronics. And the most advanced AESA is of no use without source codes. With humiliating end user monitoring agreement for a fighter at the end of its life fitted with bugs, it would take an outright traitor to select this plane. Buy a Rafale, EF or Gripen but avoid SH at all costs.
well source codes are not as usefull as many believe them to be, they take years to comprehend and understand, US may not give source codes but will allow for customization of them, besides US radars have the largest library of threats and do not require much cuztomization in order to cover all the threats we could face. The fact is Gripen, EF, can 'supercruise', good but in a normal daily sortie no use because they hardly go super sonic and their range is much lower. The initial MRCA requirement in 2005 was to replace the mig-21 but needs have changed and LCA will be the aircraft that will take on the mig-21's role, while the MRCA will be true multirole aircraft that can fit many purposes. Super Hornet's maneuverability and high aoa performance is unparalleled for an aircraft without a TVC hence lower maintainance, its maintainer friendly and by far the most capable hitter in all roles including maritime, air superirority and air to ground roles. Its recon abilities are also unmatched. moreover the super hornet's new engine gives 20% more thrust per engine which will put its fully T/W ratio well over 1 and over the mig-35's current T/W ratio, the engine is also more durable and burns less fuel and soon will burn only biofuels thus reducing sortie costs over life time. dogfights occur at speeds between 200 to 400 kts, which is well below super sonic speed and this speed regime is where the super hornet rules, to prove this, it remains the only aircraft to have scored a gun kill on the raptor. Plus SH maintains its agility with a full load, has no throttle restrictions, being also easy to fly, STOL and very rugged is an added plus. US vendors winning means the private sector gets a massive boost. Boeing has also promised a 9 G aircraft. Its fully datalinked, is the most network centric and being able to play awacs roles allows it to command over 36 aircraft in battle. The deal is not only about aircraft performance, you have to look at the whole thing carefully. Rafale F-4 is largely unfunded, Gripen IN may not arrive in time because their production rate is around 10 to 12, not to mention Gripen/Rafale/EF will need US, Israeli and EU weapons this again lengthens the process, too many parties involved. mig's production wont begin till late 2013 and hence mig wont land till end 2015 and is out for being late and obsolete. our existing stockpiles of R-77s, R-27s, KH-31a/p have severe reliability problems and hence the mig may not have any chance. F-16 too old and F-18 well the only choice that will please the AF, IN and IA as well because of being a true multirole it is. moreover it will add roles like awacs and tankers which is always good to have. now IAF has clearly a shortage of aircraft and the vendor who cant deliver by end 2013 wont have a chance and the only vendor that could deliver is Boeing and chances are they deliver ahead of schedule. package wise the SH seems the best option. Rafale, EF would have been good if they were a bit less expensive but no way they sell for below 120 million, mig is useless, Gripen well may be 50 million but the LCA in a few years will play all the roles the gripen can and even better. because atleast the LCA can deploy, Russian, EU, Israeli and US weapons. I maintain Gripen is too puny, tiny to win this deal. Besides if we go for SH and with increasing buys from the US like the C-17, P-8, may be even the E-2D hawkeye, they will have no other choice but to give full-tot. the original MRCA wanted the mirage 2000 but lines closed. Gripen cant gurantee full-tot, neither can EF which also have a lot of US parts, the French say they will give full-tot but they have severe opposition in france from Dassault employees to give full-tot and also Rafale has US parts as well, the infamous Spectra EW suite was made in the US subsidiary and thus falls under US law requiring US govt. permission.
sir u consistently contyradicting urself.
at 1 point u say v need 2 avoid SH, and at another u say we should go 4r SH. pls make up ur mind
We are getting to read a lot in the press and here about mmrca. We are also keen to hear about the developments taking place on the 155 mm Howitzer acquisition planned. That too comes with a ToT clause and is a a big buy with long term implications on our defence preparedness. When is the fresh issue of RFPs going to take place? With so many firms blacklisted and BAe Systems not quoting for upgunning as QRs were unrealistic what is on the Govt's mind to take this further? Is the Services QR being revised? These are some of the questions which are arouse curiosity.
Shiv, good job but a piece of advise if you're receptive to criticism. I know you're Indian but try and lay off the Bollywood "Dhoom dhoom dishum dishum" style of reporting. It feels very 80's Iron Eagle or Top Gun like. Its a different world now, try keeping up buddy.
@Anon(Vincent) at 1:55 pm,
Source codes are heart and brain of a fighter and you think they are not useful. It's not just for customization alone, it is for keeping your mission plan to yourself. What's the use of having your mission plan beamed via bugs to the nearest consulate? And have the bugs annually replaced. Ever heard of malaysia complaining about source codes and switching to Su30MKM.And what really does SH add to the learning curve? Nothing. Even a so called assembled product Gripen brings knowledge of control laws and FBW at least which is going to help the LCA.And the choice of EPE F-414 if it is chosen for LCA, then it is going to hurt India's export of Tejas just the same way as the use of F-414 engine is hurting Gripen now.Others may not give full ToT as promised but you are giving nothing. Liberal use of words like "unmatched", "unparalled" and "world-class" do not prove any facts.
blah blah…source codes are a burden, tell it to all the nations who buy fighters without source codes, US has no means to monitor or watch our mission plans, their 'bugs' well dont exist, all this bs about bugs is stories told by journos who have nothing better to do, if bugs were really an issue, they wouldnt have ordered the P-8, C-130J, soon E-2D hawkeye..matter of fact for all we know by this theory even our infamous Phalcon awacs could be bugged because there are so many US made parts in the Phalcon and without US permission we wouldnt have got it at all in the first place, they blocked its sale to China. While Russia without any restrictions sold stuff to china and due to no monitoring, thanx to which the chinese have copied every single Russian missile, aircraft, SAM, submarine etc. and now pose a direct threat to us. so please lets cut this chatter about who is trust worthy or not.its better to have bugs than to have a supplier who has no control over his supplies and every idiot can copy his stuff without any problem. I dont buy this bug theory for one minute, who knows even the GS 400 thales raytheon low level long range radars might be bugged, May be they even bugged our LCA because its FBW system was tested on an f-16 long time ago, may be the GE engines that power it are bugged too, in that case, the Rafale, Gripen, EF could be bugged as well because they all have US made parts, wow US is just so bent on screwing with every body. Only the holy mig remains untainted but wait over 1/2 of our BVR missiles like R-77, R-27s, kh-31 a/p, dont work and become useless well before the end of their shelf life. so by all means the MRCA should be canceled coz apparently all we need to ward off any threat is only our balls.
@Anon 2:48 am,
You are absolutely right, source codes are a major point for an independent and non aligned country like India, because it means freedom and independence for our forces!He is pushing the SH with many points, but most of it are unimportant from IAF point of view (AWACS, Tanker and even EW roles, because they are available through MKI and for less costs too), or not correct.For example it is not correct that the SH is a good air superiority fighter and that it has a good maneuverability. It is the heaviest fighter with the least t/w ratio of all contenders. It has no features like canards, or TVC that could be an advantage in this field and the new GE414 EPE is only available on paper so far, because the USN will only upgrade their fighters with this engine, if a foreign partner is ready to fund it, or parts of it.
"Although the core enhancements are already under contract with the USN, the programme is seeking an export customer to launch development of the F414 EPE, Gower said.
The international order would lead to follow-on sales for the USN, which would gradually replace its current inventory with the improved version, Gower said. "
So they are not kind to India and giving something special, they only search for a cheap way to upgrade their own fighters!
It is also not correct that the SH has a "gun kill" against a F22, because it was a BVR kill with an AMRAAM, so it doesn't prove it's maneuverability at all.
In air combats the only advantages of the SH are it's weapons and techs like JHMCS, or radar (that indeed is the most mature in the competition, but I would love to see a source for the ranges he claims) and not the capabilities of the fighter itself.That means we could also take the F16IN for less money, less maintenance costs and with even newer radar techs (some parts from F35 radar), but with the same weapons to get the same advantages.
As I said before, strikes are the main advantage for the SH and there might be only the Rafale that compete with it in this field, but in all other important roles (not AWACS, Tanker…)the F18 is inferior and not the best choice.
Shiv, Headlines Today says India is all set to sign the deal for JAS Gripen but I guess the trails for other aircraft are far from over.
Is it typo or a concrete information?
Hi guys i am an avid fan of livefist and i am very passionate about the indian armed forces. i read your post about the mmrca for the iaf and i wish to offer my opinion .my votes are for the Mig 35 and the rafale f3 as both are manufactured by manufacturers who have already worked with indian airforce which is operating mig 29 and the mirage 2000 .mig 35 and rafale are operationally similar to the mig 29 and mirage respectively so they can be inducted faster and Cheaper as there is no significant amount of training required .remember the mmrca is just a temporary bridge to avoid the short fall of lca and mca.we dont need to purchase any new missilf as we already use them ,besides we have astra to be inducted and will be familiarised with all iaf aircraft.
Hi i am latesh .i am an avid fan of livefist.my vote for the mmrca goes to the mig 35.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *