What to read next


  1. 1


    Good Article. Probably grippen might suite for us. and might be able to replace the engine with kaveri.

  2. 2


    Good summary, India should go for the Independet choise!

  3. 3


    One of the best articles i have ever read
    But dont Rafale and Typhoon come under heavy category ???????

  4. 4


    Eurofighter may be the same class as Su-30 MKI's. F-16's and Gripen are in the class of our Tejas. So better go for the Rafales.

  5. 5


    It will proboly be from SAABs own reserv, as the Sweden Democrats party will vote that all of Swedens 204 + 2 aircraft will remain in the Royal Swedish Airforce ( that is the correct name)

    // First Sergeant

  6. 6


    quote : However much would depend on what is carried by the aircraft in terms of avionics and weapons.

    Pretty much !

    Not very convincing argument for the gripen in. It sounds more like an advertisement for the swedish rubbish.

  7. 7


    MMRCA NEEDS TO DO THE HEAVY LIFTING TOO …. so that it can shoulder the SukhoiMKI in combat missions…..

    Gripen NG with its single engine would not be that perfect on such missions …

    Rafale or the EF typhoon would be suited better for the IAF …

    IAF is depleting rapidly … need to fix this hemorrhage ….

  8. 8


    Just imagine the Pakis are getting the J10 fighters and FC 1 fighters for as cheap as 15 million per piece…. that is a ridiculous price … though the avionics are Chinese …. it is still cheap for Pakistan to operate them …. 4 – 5 chinese fighters for the price of one F 16 fighter … the equation is simple … the more the number the bigger the advantage …

    Also the job these chinese fighters have to do on their missions to India would be to carry and drop the bombs … simple and straight forward business … no talk about air to air superiority … just some decent 4th gen fighters to target our bridges and roads and dams and ports to cripple us during war … India on the other hand are going in for expensive gold plated western aircraft … even losing a few means a huge loss for the IAF with a depleting fighter squadron with further political delays … not to forget the nightmare in maintaining these western fighters and operating them in war …. IAF needs fighters that can do simple and basic missions to carry bombs and drop them … let Sukhois do the air to air superiority thing ….

    LCA tejas costs 25 million per unit … that looks attractive … the Mark II version should be simple … longer range and be able to carry enough bombs into Paki territory ….

  9. 9


    Difficult to disagree with the toplines. We do need technology to build our own fighters and that's not happened with the French and the Russians and unlikely to happen from either the Americans or the European conglomerate. We need an aircraft that performs and we need enough aircraft to stock up all squadrons. While the Swedes stand out on all those counts, there is much to be said for the comfort level, performance and reliability of the French aircraft though they have tended to behave, to borrow an analogy, like Suzuki in the days when they tried to get Maruti to shaft the 800 in the early 90s! One gets the sense that the French have not really been effectively engaged in this current program, starting with the MoDs little leak last year about the Rafale being out. Further, and rather strangely, the French have chosen to be silent except for the occasional iteration of the standard clauses. Time, Shiv, to do a fuller piece on the French proposition.

  10. 10

    Prasun K. Sengupta

    It would have been far more stimulating had the Ret'd Air Commodore done a comparative analysis involving the three M-MRCAs–Gripen IN, F-16IN and the Tejas Mk2. By not dwelling on this point, he is implying that it is perfectly financially viable to induct two M-MRCAs in tandem–the Gripen IN or F-16IN and the Tejas Mk2. And that in itself is a contradiction of his financial analysis of the on-going M-MRCA competition! He also overlooks the fact that the 80-odd F-16A/B/C/Ds of the PAF will be numerically overshadowed in the years to come by the FC-20 M-MRCA and JF-17 Thunder–both from China.
    Lastly, he overlooks the fact that in future wars the battlefield air interdiction and tacftical strike sorties will all come under the ambit of effects-based operations, where all-weather standoff precision strike capabilities will take precedence over the tonnage of droppable offensive payloads. Therefore, in light nof the above, what exactly is it that the Gripen IN/F-16IN can do today which the Tejas Mk2 will not be able to do by 2014? That's what needs to be analysed and revealed, which no one from the IAF or CAPS is willing to do, regretably.

  11. 11


    Good article where he generalised everything sans any juicy stuff – akin to mini skirt on hairy legs.

    Relating to India´s fighter purchases, I see that Media is in a overdrive mode, without taking into account the shortage of Indian fighter Pilots. India´s state-owned flag carrier Air India flies 130 foreign Pilots, something Indian Air Force can not replicate who are short on 400 of them (Air Force Pilots), for loyality is the key word here. So its many aircrafts, few aviators in India´s case!

    Give you the (not so) parallel example:

    Tiny Singapore has few roads(3400 Km), many cars (Million),
    Albiet Singapore's average car speed on arterial (main) roads during peak hours is 27 kmh, compared to as low as 16 kmh in London yet gridlock is rarity. Its efficient management with creativity and vision.

    Its time India tackles pilot issue head on simultaneously as purchase process goes on.

    Then there is a lack of skilled/technically specialized manpower for the likes of DRDO, as said by our MOD on Kaveri issue. This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri C Rajendran in Lok Sabha.

    Best Indian brains (cream of the coffee cup) are siphoned off overseas by multinationals right from University campuses with handsome salaries and perks. No wonder where there is honey, bees ought to be there. Similarly (as in the case of Air Force), DRDO can not hire Latvians and Lithuanians as technicians – Bili dud ki hifazat kaise karegi!

    The (above) task here is not that of putting a toothpaste into the tube, yet, pragmatisim and prudence is the key here, something that is lacking big time in our (beaurocracy infested) defense folks.

    Think 3D!

  12. 12


    I dont agree with cmde singh on this article.

    He did not mention anywhere about in operation AESA radar Only F16in and F18 has that.
    Others are talking about AESA in 2015 – 2020 but they are just projections.

    AESA with AIM 120D will be deadly against any force in ASIA.
    R77 / MICA range and effectiveness is not tested during war.
    US products will work effectively during war. thats where PAKIS has upperhand due to US machines. Soviet and Russia machines are good on paper. but when it comes to war experience does matter.
    The problem is how you integrate the F16 or F18 with our awacs phalcons.
    Off topic: LCA with AESA from US and AIM 120D will kick the ASS.

  13. 13

    Mr. Ra

    No apprehensions on the denial of US technology have been raised. Still I think as I have read somewhere that Gripen shall be most eager to cooperate in the matters of knowhow and tech transfer, may be even to the extent of allowing industrial co-production.

    Weight category shall not be any particular criteria over the overall aspects. Because medium can be defined both as near the light or near the heavy.

    Under the emerging constraints, I think Rafale should be the best, but can someone enlighten me as how to with the relatively lower engine power than EF, can Rafale perform better than EF with higher payloads. I mean how it can be possible on the high end of technology. Is such a feat performed at the cost of the speeds of operations or agility.

    Till then I feel:

    Item>> compatibility>> Capability>> Industrial Conversions

    Rafale>> 1 >> 2 >> 2 = 5
    EF>> 3 >> 1 >> 3 = 7
    Gripen>> 2 >> 3 >> 1 = 6

    I.e. Rafale is First in compatibility, Second in Capability and Second in Industrial Conversions.

    EF is Third in compatibility, First in Capability and Third in Industrial Conversions.

    Gripen is Second in compatibility, Third in Capability and First in Industrial Conversions.

    EF is placed Third in compatibility and Industrial Conversions, because it has too many parents difficult to be appeased in unison.

    Obviously the costs and the real costs may be other matters of concern.

  14. 14


    Great article!

  15. 15


    Rather than paying billions of dollars to foreigner, offer lucrative salary to IITians and indian scientists working abroad and get them working on research projects. One day we will get success. Chinese are doing the same.

  16. 16


    Nothing out of the world here.
    But Mr. Singh made a very important point at the end, the High end Russian fighter we fly, Chinese also do , and Hence Pakis just seem to know as much about the fighter as Chinese themselves.
    A point that needs to be debated. We also needs to ensure that Russians don't help Chinese on Jxx project.

  17. 17


    His figures are all wrong the Gripen is NOT a medium fighter.
    It is a light fighter just like the LCA (both have 14 tons max TOW).

    The Su 30 MKI max TOW is close to 40 tons while the Eurofighter is about 24 tons, which is the very definition of a medium fighter.

    As for the Rafale, 10 yrs down the line when the or even now , if the IAF wants an upgraded version or some future developments it well have to pay the entire development costs to the French!
    And with France being the only operator the Rafale has a very shaky future.

    The Eurofighter is exactly the opposite in this regards.
    Its future development looks a lot stronger than the Rafale and we'd be sharing the costs with the other countries.

  18. 18


    A very superficial analysis ..

    For example, Naked the F-16E/IN weights the same as the Rafale C, but the french plane is able to carry 30% more load…

  19. 19


    For those who are rightly opting for Gripen should note that US maintains a veto on it, owing to its (Gripen) US engine (60% of the engine parts are produced by GE and then shipped to Sweden for final assembly).

    Perticularly, when US is also into the fray, why would they give a waiver to SAAB?

    For Americans it would tantamount to Aa bail mujhe maar!

  20. 20


    This is sensible article. War is about attrition. We need numbers and we need to able to afford them.

  21. 21


    A good Article indeed I must say but not a very good analysis the requirement here is not to replace the entire inventory of Mig 21 but it is to replace already decomissioned Mig-23 and the ageging Mig-27 older variants also as stop loss to some Mig 21 (bisons)this is a requirement for an advanced medium capacity multirole aircraft which can do bombing runs and air to air with eaze against f-16, J-10 and J-17 also not be a mere target for some advanced fighters like Su-27, J-11A and J-11B so we should choose wisely

  22. 22


    @keshto US doesn't have a veto, SAAB got export and TOT garantuees before they picked it.

  23. 23

    Gaurav - India United!

    I am not sure if US has a veto over Gripen or not, but one thing is for sure…US is not obliging Sweden (or India, if we opt for Gripen). If they are manufacturing 60% of the engine, they are being paid for the same…& the world knows that the US runs on business, so no worries.

    I do support the Gripen IN purchase due to a number of reasons which include high operational availability, rapid turnarounds, minimal support requirements (therefore, sustaining high sortie rates), advanced aerodynamics, latest generation of off-bore sight missiles & what not! In addition, world leading weapon integration for high kill ratio, super-cruise capability & world's only 2nd generation AESA radar (improved target tracking, wide field of regard, mode flexibility, increased detection range & increased operational availability together with low life cycle cost) gives Gripen an upper hand.

    Just to remind you in addition, Gripen IN's features also match with our requirements in terms of weight, operational cost & life cycle cost.

  24. 24


    they are not, we have and always have had a full licens will full tech transfear.

    The Engine will proboly be modified again and called Volvo RM-14

    the RSWAF will in tiem replace all of its 204 (+2) jets 🙂

  25. 25


    I'll definitely go for Eurofighter. Cannot depend on US for anything. Moreover the F18 and F16s could be phased out soon once F35 comes into service.

    MIG35 is not a good option as we are already depending on Russia too much for our defense.

    Gripen is not a good option as it almost comes in LCA class, more over it uses GE engines. It is equivalent to going for any US aircraft.

    Rafale& eurofighters are the best options we have. In that, i believe Eurofighter comes in a better class.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . Livefist Defence | Managed by Host My Blog