Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 37434445464748495051 ... LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,410 of 1613

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #1381
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    What objection would the USG have? They were amenable to it in the past - "There is nothing on our side, no principle which bars that on our side, Indian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter." - Ashton Carter.

    And this was in 2011, bilateral relations have progressed quite a bit since then. The Pentagon (particularly the PACOM) will certainly be championing such a deal.
    The US Government have repeatedly blocked Lockheed Martin from offering the F-35 to the Indian Air Force, it was never offered in any of the multiple RFI´s that the IAF sent. There´s a reason why LM is offering a ten ton plus Viper in this recent "single engine made in India saga" and not Dave A, the reason being it was blocked from doing so by the State Dpt/Pentagon (choose).

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The MiG-29K is not in the running. From the news that's trickling out, both official and unofficial, the IN is facing some very serious issues with the aircraft.
    Thanks, i wasnt aware of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The Super Hornet will be hard pressed to compete with the Rafale M given the commonality factor. The only question is whether the elevators on the two carriers can accommodate the Rafale's non-folding wings.

    The F-35 is the only US aircraft that has a viable shot at the contract.
    Why?



    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    WRT to the last RFI issued by the IN in 2010 -

    Indian Navy Fighter RFI: Lockheed To Respond With Both F-35B & C
    Did LM ever answered that particular RFI?

  2. #1382
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...se-procurement

    I doubt this is going to happen -- OTOH Poland does spend quite a lot on defence, and the current government is also very much focused on ToT and job creation, seems that's why they cancelled the chopper deal?

    One alternative to assembling new a/c would be to buy second-hand F-16 and refurbirsh them in Poland.

    On verra.
    I think that the Poles are pretty much doing some "Swedish Pressure" on LM and the FMS in order to lower acquisition costs...

  3. #1383
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Is it really?

    I did not see any announcements that LM has responded to the RFI...

    Don't forget that politics is important, more so than technical specifications.
    It made a presentation to the Indian Navy after clearance from the US DoD.

    Where is the political barrier to a sale to India? Keep in mind, the IN already operates P-8s as its primary ASW aircraft and is ordering Sikorsky S-70s for shipborne ops & looking at MQ-9C drones for maritime patrol. Also the US is providing design assistance for the aircraft carrier in development, will be delivering EMALS & AAG for it as well as E-2Ds for early warning.

    That does not sound like F-35 to me... Also, although the F-35A seems to becoming affordable, the question for India will be whether F-35C (not to mention the B!) will become affordable.
    Costs for all variants are dropping though the F-35A is obviously the cheapest. ToT & local MRO options are at least equivalent to that offered with the SH.

    Perhaps this is why most news reports suggest that the two front runners are SH and Rafale, with Sea Gripen having a small chance of winning. I think the only thing that could strengthen the chances of Gripen M would be if Gripen won the single-engine contract for the IAF; there will be a lot of commonality and India would not have to build a dedicated assembly line for 57 jets for the Indian Navy, as would be the case if their Navy goes for the SH.
    The Sea Gripen is a paper project at the moment. The Brazilians have withdrawn their interest and in any case even the Gripen E is scheduled to FOC only by 2026. Saabs pitch is further complicated by the existing MoD blacklist on Finmeccanica/Leonardo (Selex).
    Last edited by Vnomad; 17th March 2017 at 17:53.

  4. #1384
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...se-procurement

    I doubt this is going to happen -- OTOH Poland does spend quite a lot on defence, and the current government is also very much focused on ToT and job creation, seems that's why they cancelled the chopper deal?

    One alternative to assembling new a/c would be to buy second-hand F-16 and refurbirsh them in Poland.

    On verra.
    How about Poland buying the F-16 line and transferring Viper production to Poland? Not many aircraft on backlog now. Waiting for India is probably pointless. By the time they make up their mind, they could have the F-35 line.

    A mix of JAS 39E and F-35 might be another possibility, with a Gripen assembly line in Poland.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  5. #1385
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    The US Government have repeatedly blocked Lockheed Martin from offering the F-35 to the Indian Air Force, it was never offered in any of the multiple RFI´s that the IAF sent. There´s a reason why LM is offering a ten ton plus Viper in this recent "single engine made in India saga" and not Dave A, the reason being it was blocked from doing so by the State Dpt/Pentagon (choose).
    The IAF has never sent RFI for the F-35 and LM has never been blocked by the Pentagon or State Dept (where did you get that info from)? If anything, the Pentagon made it explicitly clear that they were open to including India in the JSF consortium (I've posted the quote by Ashton Carter).

    They offered the F-16 because the line is going defunct, nobody else has any serious interest in the aircraft post 2020, and they see the opportunity to milk it for another decade (instead of writing off the infrastructure) if they can get India to buy in. Although with Parrikar exiting the MoD, its highly doubtful the MII single engine program will fructify.

    Thanks, i wasnt aware of that.
    Apparently the landing gear is underdesigned and the airframe cannot cope with the stresses involved in deck recovery.

    Why?
    The SH offers no significant capability advantage over the Rafale M while also lacking the commonality element; aside from unified maintenance/support, the Rafale is already being customized with Indian IFF, comms, weaponry etc.

    The F-35 has very sizeable technical edge over its peers and as the newest type on the market its future-proof. The SH, notwithstanding some major backroom political deal, is unlikely to prevail against that.

    Also, for the record the IN has in the past, expressed its preference for the F-35 over the SH.

    "Navy prefers F-35s to F-18s"
    KOLKATA: The Navy is interested in the F-35 fighter aircraft than the F-18, as our aircraft carrier [the first indigenous carrier being built at the Kochi shipyard] will not have the steam-catapult with which the F-18 takes off," according to Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash said here on Monday.

    "We are keen on the F-35 as they are operated with the ski-jump facility and are more compatible," he said.

    He, however, does not know whether the issue had been taken up by Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee with the U.S. officials.
    Did LM ever answered that particular RFI?
    It did. Also made a presentation to the MoD with clearance from the Pentagon though it hadn't come before the State Dept yet (who have no reason to block it).

    US offers F35 to India as India-US Defence Cooperation grows

    Lockheed Martin’s Vice President for Business Development Orville Prins told India Strategic that a presentation about the aircraft was made to the Indian Navy recently after it expressed interest in the newer generation of aircraft for its future carrier-based aircraft requirements.

    The Indian Navy is buying 45 Mig 29Ks for the Gorshkov, or INS Vikramaditya, which it will get from Russia in 2012 and its first indigenous aircraft carrier. But for its second indigenous carrier, and possibly more in the future, the Navy is looking for a newer generation of aircraft as the carrier itself is likely to be bigger.

    Although the best of the weapon systems in the US are developed by private companies, the funding for their research and development is provided by the Government which exercises full control on the resultant products and their sale to any foreign country. ToT is a serious issue and in most cases, technology, particularly source codes, is not shared even with Washington’s best allies in the West or East.
    Lockheed Martin apparently made the presentation to India after authorization by the US Department of Defense (DOD), but Prins pointed out that the F 35 could be sold only after clearance from the US State Department, for which bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Washington would need to be held once India expressed interest.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 17th March 2017 at 21:43.

  6. #1386
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,359
    The U.S. never offered the F-35 to India. Lockheed had asked to brief Indian officials on the F-35. India officially has expressed no interest (at least the MoD), and the U.S. Congress has given no consent on anything other than a briefing. Ash Carter stated that there was no specific reason that the U.S. wouldn't offer the F-35, but that the decision was India's. Whatever Admiral Arun Prakash stated, MoD has rejected previous suggestions. The Indian Navy previously requested information on the F-35 in 2011.
    Last edited by FBW; 17th March 2017 at 18:30.

  7. #1387
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    The U.S. never offered the F-35 to India. Lockheed had asked to brief Indian officials on the F-35. India officially has expressed no interest (at least the MoD), and the U.S. Congress has given no consent on anything other than a briefing. Ash Carter stated that there was no specific reason that the U.S. wouldn't offer the F-35, but that the decision was India's. Whatever Admiral Arun Prakash stated, MoD has rejected previous suggestions. The Indian Navy previously requested information on the F-35 in 2011.
    How interested the IN is, we'll know soon enough I think; last date for submissions in 17th May. Adm Prakash's comments are just an indicator on the likely prevailing thought within the IN (although this was long before the Rafale was ordered so that would also be a factor now). The Congress does need to approve every arms deal but with the Pentagon backing it (and the contract likely to slip away to the French otherwise) that shouldn't be a major hurdle.

  8. #1388
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,257
    That Parrikar went placarded is a sign that the balance is leaning toward the Fr side IMOHO.

  9. #1389
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    That Parrikar went placarded is a sign that the balance is leaning toward the Fr side IMOHO.
    I wouldn't be so sure. From what I can gather Dassault's move to bypass the formal channels and approach the PM's office directly to push for the Rafale wasn't well received in the MoD. The subsequent negotiations on cost, offsets, etc were pretty prickly as well.

    So while I wouldn't count the Rafale out, its not smooth sailing for the French either. A lot depends on the Navy - if they conclude that stealth is a necessary investment with compatibility with PacRim forces a further plus, the MoD is unlikely to oppose it. The comms interoperability & geospatial data-sharing agreements currently being negotiated between India and the US will also need to be concluded.

  10. #1390
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The IAF has never sent RFI for the F-35 and LM has never been blocked by the Pentagon or State Dept (where did you get that info from)?
    From severall defense press organisations, and severall analysts including Richard Aboulafia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    If anything, the Pentagon made it explicitly clear that they were open to including India in the JSF consortium (I've posted the quote by Ashton Carter).
    I have severall identical quotes for Brasil, and when the FAB asked specificaly for the F-35A in the FX-2, LM answer was a warmed over F-16. I suspect the same is happening here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    They offered the F-16 because the line is going defunct, nobody else has any serious interest in the aircraft post 2020, and they see the opportunity to milk it for another decade (instead of writing off the infrastructure) if they can get India to buy in.
    Highly doubtfull. The reason why almost certainly the F-35A was not offered to the IAF twice in a row was because the State Dpt looked at the MRCA and this new "Made in India" and what was asked in terms of technological transfer was entirely out of order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Also made a presentation to the MoD with clearance from the Pentagon though it hadn't come before the State Dept yet (who have no reason to block it).

    US offers F35 to India as India-US Defence Cooperation grows
    Eh, F-35A presentations by LM have been done to everybody and its dog, including the Brasilians, the Saudis, the UAE, and so on.

    But, well, soon enough we´ll know wich of us is correct, if indeed LM officially offers Dave, then you are correct, if not, dont make a mistake, i am correct and it was indeed blocked at the Congress/State Dpt.

    Cheers

  11. #1391
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Where is the political barrier to a sale to India? Keep in mind, the IN already operates P-8s as its primary ASW aircraft and is ordering Sikorsky S-70s for shipborne ops & looking at MQ-9C drones for maritime patrol. Also the US is providing design assistance for the aircraft carrier in development, will be delivering EMALS & AAG for it as well as E-2Ds for early warning.
    The political barrier was in my post above: India wants local assembly and also expects some ToT. Sure, they can get that with e.g. the F-16. But not with the F-35. Of course LM want to sell the F-35 to India. However they can only do this if India is willing to accept US "rules" on the sales of F-35 to a "not-so-close" ally; no assembly and definitely no ToT.

    Costs for all variants are dropping though the F-35A is obviously the cheapest. ToT & local MRO options are at least equivalent to that offered with the SH.
    Costs are dropping however the B and C remains quite expensive. ToT at least equivalent to that offered with the SH? What is the evidence to that?

    You are wrong; F-35 will not be offered -- or if it is offered it will not be accepted. F-35 cannot meet requirements in terms of local assembly in India, and in terms of ToT.

    Perhaps they do offer the F-35 just to make a point. However as you will see it will not be accepted in spite of being far superior from a technical POV.

  12. #1392
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,257
    There is money to make in sustaining the 16 fleet. Money (on both side of the pacific) and jobs (idem). The MII and ToT are two different entities that should be able to be dealt in phases.

  13. #1393
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    From severall defense press organisations, and severall analysts including Richard Aboulafia.



    I have severall identical quotes for Brasil, and when the FAB asked specificaly for the F-35A in the FX-2, LM answer was a warmed over F-16. I suspect the same is happening here.



    Highly doubtfull. The reason why almost certainly the F-35A was not offered to the IAF twice in a row was because the State Dpt looked at the MRCA and this new "Made in India" and what was asked in terms of technological transfer was entirely out of order.

    First for the LM to answer an RFI about the F 35 or F 16 it will needs the authorization of the US Government, in the case of Brazil the US Government had granted the authorization for the F 16 but denied for the F 35.


    Eh, F-35A presentations by LM have been done to everybody and its dog, including the Brasilians, the Saudis, the UAE, and so on.

    But, well, soon enough we´ll know wich of us is correct, if indeed LM officially offers Dave, then you are correct, if not, dont make a mistake, i am correct and it was indeed blocked at the Congress/State Dpt.


    Cheers

    Indeed every presentation of the F 35 at the possible clients does not mean that it has been approved by the US Government, otherwise this means like polite invitations that it will be possible to send an RFI for analysis both for the company and after the Government.

    Then with the RFI response for the client It will be possible to begin negotiations between the parties, again it doesn't mean that all requirements from RFI has been accepted by the company or Government. The lack of response of the RFI has been a polite way to say: no.

    In the F/X 2 from Brazil there were two requirements highly complexity to accept :
    100% of ToT and the construction in Brazil of all 36 fighters.

    Both the F 16 and the MiG 35 were rejected by Brazil for reasons I do not know until now , the Typhoon were rejected at the high cost and the Su 35 because it had not contemplated the 100% of ToT in the proposals.

    The short list of F/X 2 has been included: Rafale F3, F/A 18 E/F and Gripen E/F that all had been supposedly accepted those requirements, however all proposals has been classified as secret so far.

    In the case of F 35 certainly the US would not accept to make 1% of ToT with Brazil.

    The Gripen E/F has finally won the competition in Brazil, however after the signing of the contract the conditions has been modified by the parties: 15 fighters will be built in Brazil of 36 and the ToT will be extremely limited against the announced proposal of the 100%, as well as the Gripen F has not been designed in Brazil, and even the prototypes of the Gripen F will be constructed in Sweden instead of the Brazil.

    So far 100% of ToT has been described as an urban legend in the aerospace industry that will bring the following two results from anyone who has been demanding this: it will burning the negotiations as it has been probably happened with India in the MMRCA program in which the Rafale F3 won the others competitors, or it will be forgotten as it has been happening in the case of the Gripen E/F that won the F/X2 from Brazil.

    In general terms all RFI, RFE or any other supposed 'document' are fairy-tales until the contract has been signed between the parties, so if this contract will be like sweet dream or nightmare , all that has been depending of the side that will pay the bill in the end.

  14. #1394
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    From severall defense press organisations, and severall analysts including Richard Aboulafia.
    I don't recall anything specific in the press. Perhaps you could share. Richard Aboulafia is really an analyst rather than a primary source.

    I have severall identical quotes for Brasil, and when the FAB asked specificaly for the F-35A in the FX-2, LM answer was a warmed over F-16. I suspect the same is happening here.

    Highly doubtfull. The reason why almost certainly the F-35A was not offered to the IAF twice in a row was because the State Dpt looked at the MRCA and this new "Made in India" and what was asked in terms of technological transfer was entirely out of order.
    The IAF has never expressed any formal interest in the F-35 to date. Tech transfer comes under the purview of the DoD, the State Dept only looks at the political implications of any dealing, and in general the SD's position has never been a barrier to military deals with India.

    Eh, F-35A presentations by LM have been done to everybody and its dog, including the Brasilians, the Saudis, the UAE, and so on.
    That's incorrect. Lockheed Martin is formally barred from marketing the F-35 in any form to Middle Eastern customers (barring Israel obviously). Any presentation requires DoD approval and that's not in coming.

    Brazil & India are different cases, in that the US is forming long term strategic partnership with India, driven by geopolitical developments in Asia. Including, but not limited to, military sales, intensive joint exercises and intelligence sharing. Which is also why there is a dedicated India cell at the DoD and why the US Congress passed the US-India Defense Cooperation Act through the NDAA 2017 bill. Brazil meanwhile, a benign power in a generally peaceful region of the world, is only peripherally involved in the power politics in Asia.

    But, well, soon enough we´ll know wich of us is correct, if indeed LM officially offers Dave, then you are correct, if not, dont make a mistake, i am correct and it was indeed blocked at the Congress/State Dpt.
    If LM doesn't respond its probably not been cleared by the US DoD to make an offer in line with the customer's request. The State Dept as I said only makes a political analysis while the Congress' role begins only after it receives a DSCA notice.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 19th March 2017 at 02:43.

  15. #1395
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    The political barrier was in my post above: India wants local assembly and also expects some ToT. Sure, they can get that with e.g. the F-16. But not with the F-35. Of course LM want to sell the F-35 to India. However they can only do this if India is willing to accept US "rules" on the sales of F-35 to a "not-so-close" ally; no assembly and definitely no ToT.
    You're mixing up two very different things - ToT & indigenization.

    Technology is technology - whether its packaged through the F-16, SH or F-35, its content does not necessarily change. France for example offered engine tech to India to help revive the Kaveri program but that doesn't mean it came in the form of M88 blueprints. Similarly, South Korea to help spur its F-X3 program requested 25 specific technologies as part of the F-35 offsets (of which 21 were sanctioned, 4 refused) but that tech again wasn't specific to the F-35. Point being, if ToT is available through the F-16 & SH, its available through the F-35.

    Assembly in contrast is no big deal. LM already has two assembly lines overseas - a third will not materially change the status quo - and would still remain within the bounds of the joint statement signed in Dec 16 that designated India as a Major Defense Partner to "facilitate defense trade and technology sharing with India to a level at par with that of the United States’ closest allies and partners" (sic).

    There are a lot of political developments over the last few years that have generally gone under radar. The is one of them. The bigger hurdle to such a sale is actually the Trump administration and the political symbolism of any apparent 'off-shoring' of work (which doesn't actually apply in this case here but there's a strong constituency for alternative facts nowadays).
    Last edited by Vnomad; 19th March 2017 at 02:43.

  16. #1396
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post

    The IAF has never expressed any formal interest in the F-35 to date. Tech transfer comes under the purview of the DoD, the State Dept only looks at the political implications of any dealing, and in general the SD's position has never been a barrier to military deals with India.
    Don't you find it strange that the IAF has never expressed formal interest in the F-35, the by far most advanced and most capable multi-role fighter on the planet? I believe they have not expressed formal interest because they know the politicians will stop such a deal...

  17. #1397
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Technology is technology - whether its packaged through the F-16, SH or F-35, its content does not necessarily change.
    I would think that the technology in the F-16 is actually quite different from what is in the F-35? -- I may be wrong of course...

    Assembly in contrast is no big deal. LM already has two assembly lines overseas - a third will not materially change the status quo - and would still remain within the bounds of the joint statement signed in Dec 16 that designated India as a Major Defense Partner to "facilitate defense trade and technology sharing with India to a level at par with that of the United States’ closest allies and partners" (sic).

    There are a lot of political developments over the last few years that have generally gone under radar. The is one of them. The bigger hurdle to such a sale is actually the Trump administration and the political symbolism of any apparent 'off-shoring' of work (which doesn't actually apply in this case here but there's a strong constituency for alternative facts nowadays).
    I am not sure if assembly is no deal for a country like India

    If tech transfer is no big deal, and if assembly is no big deal, why on earth is the IAF not pushing for the F-35A?

  18. #1398
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    That's incorrect. Lockheed Martin is formally barred from marketing the F-35 in any form to Middle Eastern customers (barring Israel obviously). Any presentation requires DoD approval and that's not in coming.
    israel, china and nasdaq.

    Brazil & India are different cases, in that the US is forming long term strategic partnership with India, driven by geopolitical developments in Asia. Including, but not limited to, military sales, intensive joint exercises and intelligence sharing. Which is also why there is a dedicated India cell at the DoD and why the US Congress passed the US-India Defense Cooperation Act through the NDAA 2017 bill. Brazil meanwhile, a benign power in a generally peaceful region of the world, is only peripherally involved in the power politics in Asia.
    how exactly brazil and india different cases. india willl find significant constraints on use of US systems the more it depended on them and import based economy means as the equipment ages the cost of upgrades and maintainance rise. see the Taiwan F16 upgrade without engines and they only 20 year old not 30 age when india usually upgrade stuff.

  19. #1399
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Don't you find it strange that the IAF has never expressed formal interest in the F-35, the by far most advanced and most capable multi-role fighter on the planet? I believe they have not expressed formal interest because they know the politicians will stop such a deal...
    You're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight at a time when the F-35A has achieved IOC, ironed out most development problems and is racking up outstanding performances in training exercises.

    Now think back a few years ago. The IAF was due to induct the Rafale as its MMRCA with progressively moving to full indigenization. The PAK FA was supposed to enter service by 2016 with the 'jointly developed' two-seat FGFA variant expected to be available by 2020. Meanwhile the F-35 program was late, overbudget, rife with bugs, with unit price hovering around the $200 mil mark. Also, Indo-US relations, while on the upswing, weren't nearly as robust as they are today (mention the F-16 for India then and people would have rolled their eyes).

    I would think that the technology in the F-16 is actually quite different from what is in the F-35? -- I may be wrong of course...
    That's the point. Nothing prevents LM from transferring technology that's employed on the F-16 as part of a F-35 offsets deal. The objective for India would be to adapt it to its domestic programs (like the Tejas Mk2, for example).

    I am not sure if assembly is no deal for a country like India

    If tech transfer is no big deal, and if assembly is no big deal, why on earth is the IAF not pushing for the F-35A?
    Why is the MoD/IAF considering the F-16 or Gripen instead of ordering more Rafale, Tejas & Su-30s fighters? Why is the Gripen M & SH in contention for the naval order? The MoD operates in weird, mysterious and quite often idiotic ways. That being said, the F-35 is quite close to maturity today, the FGFA is still years away, and the PLA has just started inducting S-400s (among many other area denial systems), so lets see what happens.

  20. #1400
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    You're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight at a time when the F-35A has achieved IOC, ironed out most development problems and is racking up outstanding performances in training exercises.
    This is a relevant point for the original MMRCA but cannot explain why the IAF seems not to be much interested in the F-35 for the "single-engine" fighter, where LM is offering the F-16 not the F-35.

    Why is the MoD/IAF considering the F-16 or Gripen instead of ordering more Rafale, Tejas & Su-30s fighters? Why is the Gripen M & SH in contention for the naval order? The MoD operates in weird, mysterious and quite often idiotic ways.
    There is some kind of reasoning behind it; the reason why they don't get more Rafale is because it's too expensive. The reason why they consider F-16 and Gripen is because they need something that is less expensive than the Rafale, and at the same time can be assembled in India, with some ToT. This is what is callled "politics" (and yes the result is often not very good for the IAF/IN).

  21. #1401
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Don't you find it strange that the IAF has never expressed formal interest in the F-35, the by far most advanced and most capable multi-role fighter on the planet? I believe they have not expressed formal interest because they know the politicians will stop such a deal...
    Maybe because they know what we have suspected for years.. that it might be the most advanced, but by far not the most capable multi-role fighter on the planet..

  22. #1402
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    There is some kind of reasoning behind it; the reason why they don't get more Rafale is because it's too expensive. The reason why they consider F-16 and Gripen is because they need something that is less expensive than the Rafale, and at the same time can be assembled in India, with some ToT. This is what is callled "politics" (and yes the result is often not very good for the IAF/IN)
    The reason is far more complex than what you mentioned. The IAF, which has had a long experience of using light-weight fighters/attack-A/C [Jaguar, MiG-21, MiG-27, Gnat, Ajeet, Mirage 2000 etc] is built upon the idea of using.a hi-lo mix. In the recent years, that ability has been lost to a large part. They've been more or less replaced, or are due to be replaced, with large dual-engined multi-roll fighters such as the Su-30MKI, FGFA, Rafale and MiG-29. Whilst the Tejas was intended to be something inbetween to cover the gap and being a cost-effective solution, it has failed to deliver the intended requirements on time. As such, buying more Rafales or more Su-30MKIs to fill that gap would simply hollow out the IAF budget. A complimentary lightweight fighter would however serve a broad spectrum of needs, doing many if not most of the roles the heavy fighters abilities, but at a far lesser cost. Why use a Rafale for an intercept if you can do it with a Gripen E? For a deep strike mission with heavy ordenance, a Rafale or MKI would be prefered, but that is only a small part of the whole mission envelope. The Gripen e.g shares commonality with the Tejas and the Super Hornet [for the Navy RFI] in terms of engine and weapons and is highly cost-effective in all other areas aswell.

  23. #1403
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by wellerocks View Post
    The reason is far more complex than what you mentioned. The IAF, which has had a long experience of using light-weight fighters/attack-A/C [Jaguar, MiG-21, MiG-27, Gnat, Ajeet, Mirage 2000 etc] is built upon the idea of using.a hi-lo mix. In the recent years, that ability has been lost to a large part. They've been more or less replaced, or are due to be replaced, with large dual-engined multi-roll fighters such as the Su-30MKI, FGFA, Rafale and MiG-29. Whilst the Tejas was intended to be something inbetween to cover the gap and being a cost-effective solution, it has failed to deliver the intended requirements on time. As such, buying more Rafales or more Su-30MKIs to fill that gap would simply hollow out the IAF budget. A complimentary lightweight fighter would however serve a broad spectrum of needs, doing many if not most of the roles the heavy fighters abilities, but at a far lesser cost. Why use a Rafale for an intercept if you can do it with a Gripen E? For a deep strike mission with heavy ordenance, a Rafale or MKI would be prefered, but that is only a small part of the whole mission envelope. The Gripen e.g shares commonality with the Tejas and the Super Hornet [for the Navy RFI] in terms of engine and weapons and is highly cost-effective in all other areas aswell.
    I agree entirely. From what I have been told .. the IAF distinctly likes the Gripen E - they find it an impressive jet that fills the void between the Tejas and the Gripen E ... but as I have mentioned earlier ... its no longer about the aircraft ... its about the technology transfer and whether Gripen would be able to provide the technology transfer package (including India manufacture of the fighter) - Again, from what I have been told, Gripen believes that it has an impressive package which should suit Indian requirements but so do Lockheed Martin which is offering to transfer the production line to India ...

    However .. I do think one needs to take a realistic look at the Indian defence budget ... the amount left for serious capital acquisitions is still fairly limited ... and there are other projects which need to be financed as well .. For example, the upgrade of the Su-30 to the Super 30 standard ... so ... its all still in the realm of a dream for Gripen to close out the deal. It is, however, my personal belief that Gripen are better placed to win this contract than they ever were with MMRCA. It would help, however, if the Gripen-E is fully certified ... Cheers

  24. #1404
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Vishnu Som, thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

    Do you know anything about the timelines for this process?

  25. #1405
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    23
    Why Gripen or F16? Why not Tejas mk1A and Tejas mk2?

  26. #1406
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by VishnuSom View Post
    I agree entirely. From what I have been told .. the IAF distinctly likes the Gripen E - they find it an impressive jet that fills the void between the Tejas and the Gripen E ... but as I have mentioned earlier ... its no longer about the aircraft ... its about the technology transfer and whether Gripen would be able to provide the technology transfer package (including India manufacture of the fighter) - Again, from what I have been told, Gripen believes that it has an impressive package which should suit Indian requirements but so do Lockheed Martin which is offering to transfer the production line to India ...
    I think it's impossible that Gripen E has been between Tejas Mk1 and Gripen E, since the laws of physics has been preventing that t same object like Gripen E has been taking two places at the same time.

    Perhaps you could have been referring to Gripen C/D, in that case India the had been interested a in the early 2000s as an alternative at the development of Tejas Mk1.

    But the US had been vetoed Sweden's negotiations with India's in reason of the nuclear program at the time.

    In fact, India has not been shown such highly interest in the Gripen E, since the Gripen E were rejected in the MMRCA program, as well as India has been sending RFI for several countries like France and Russia that doesn't produce fighters with a single engine like the Gripen E or F 16.

  27. #1407
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Vishnu Som, thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

    Do you know anything about the timelines for this process?
    When India announced the procurement they said that decision would be made in 2021.

    The LM offering is unlikely to be further developed during this time, while Gripen will be much closer to FOC.
    If India wants Gripen, they will not get it before that date.
    If India wants F-16, why wait until 2021?

  28. #1408
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    I don't recall anything specific in the press. Perhaps you could share. Richard Aboulafia is really an analyst rather than a primary source.
    Yes, off course that Aboulafia is not a primary source, and actually he sometimes gets things pretty mixed up. It was a few articles in AW and Flight a few years ago, i´ll have to dig them out.



    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The IAF has never expressed any formal interest in the F-35 to date.
    And if i am not mistaken, the severall RFI´s sent to LM didnt specify the Viper either. It was LM choice to answer to the IAF with the Viper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    That's incorrect.
    Actually it is correct, both the US Government and LM have made presentations in the Midle East, the thing is those presentations didnt include classified data.

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...he-uae-364868/
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-dubai-fighters-idUSBRE9AK14Z20131121[/url]
    http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_n...next-year/5143

    I can remember a few years ago a LM slide with some five or six "Gulf" potential clients.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    If LM doesn't respond its probably not been cleared by the US DoD to make an offer in line with the customer's request.
    Hum? Thats precisely what i´ve wrote! LM didnt answer with the F-35 to the IAF, and i have the distinct feeling that it wont answer to the IN, precisely because of that. There´s no way in hell that the DOD would allow that the JSF would be cleared to the level that the IAF requested.
    The idea of having HAL, the chaps who build the SU-30MKI and are working with Sukhoi on the FGFA, building "Dave´s"... Not likely.

    Well, in a few months we´ll see if i am wrong.
    Last edited by Sintra; 20th March 2017 at 19:14.

  29. #1409
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    This is a relevant point for the original MMRCA but cannot explain why the IAF seems not to be much interested in the F-35 for the "single-engine" fighter, where LM is offering the F-16 not the F-35.
    That was less the IAF and more the MoD with its 'Make-in-India' directives for which the 'free' F-16 assembly line was a particularly attractive idea. With the defence minister Parrikar gone, and no formal process initiated, it remains to whether the plan will see light of day.

    There is some kind of reasoning behind it; the reason why they don't get more Rafale is because it's too expensive. The reason why they consider F-16 and Gripen is because they need something that is less expensive than the Rafale, and at the same time can be assembled in India, with some ToT. This is what is callled "politics" (and yes the result is often not very good for the IAF/IN).
    As far as the Navy is concerned, the F-16 isn't an option while the Sea Gripen is still entirely a paper project. Which leaves it down to the Rafale M and F-35B/C. Short of going with more MiG-29Ks, there are no cheap options available to it. Besides, given that for air cover/fleet defence the entire battle group relies on the carrier's air complement, which is limited in numbers by deck space, a 'budget solution' may actually be a liability for the service.

  30. #1410
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    Why is the MoD/IAF considering the F-16 or Gripen instead of ordering more Rafale, Tejas & Su-30s fighters? Why is the Gripen M & SH in contention for the naval order?
    Didn't IN specify they want a twin-engined fighter, so that rules out both F-35 and Gripen Maritime? Did it change again?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES