$10-BILLION FIGHTER DEAL HITS TECH-TRANSFER AIR POCKET

[#hydra#]

You have obviously little knowledge about the mentality of Swedish Politicians.
That is why you draw such strange conclusions.

I am not forgetting anything. The difference between Tejas and Gripen is much wider
than the difference between Gripen and Rafale.
Gripen is superior to Rafale in certain properties, and much cheaper to operate.
Tejas is not superior to Gripen in any property, and while cheaper to buy,
is more expensive to operate.
Even Gripen C can take on F-16s, F-15s and Eurofighters and win.
How Gripen E would work vs Rafale is not really known.
Not aware of any exercises where they are pitted against each other.
What Tejas can do ???



And Gripen Avionics, EW suite is claimed to be superior to that of Rafale...
The Rafale stuff is 10-15 year old.
Compare a modern PC, with the PC of 2005...
That is why Dassault plans to make a major overhaul of the Rafale.
The engine tech of the Rafale and Gripen E is fairly similar.

In the world only sweedish will say Gripen is superior to typhoon and Rafale. I can't argue with a person who thinks that Rafale is 15 year old relic. You must know one thing,they are actively upgrading rafales.
Also I want to ask you ,how do you rate f22 over Gripen? Asper your logic f22 must be a inferior one against Gripen E.

 

[Papa Dragon]

The number will definitely pass well beyond 200, maybe 400 plus if you include Fifth gen aircrafts and nacy aircrafts as well and as far as money is concerned we are not going to pay the sum in one tranche.

We aren't gonna procure 200+ foreign aircrafts, not before 2030 and I'm talking about 4+ gen fighters irrespective of single or dual engine fighters and even if we aren't paying the money in one tranche, procuring 200+ jets with limited ToT is wasting tons of foreign exchange. 5th gen is a totally different issue and FGFA looks like a dead deal and F-35 isn't anywhere in sights. Even if we go for the F-35, we're last in line. The only feasible option is to procure more Rafales for the IAF & IN and to focus on LCA Mk-2/AMCA with French assistance to speed up the development

 

[Taygibay]

Rafale has a little more range and a few more weapon stations, which needs to have a value assigned.
It does not neccessarily mean that it will do its intended job better, in which case that value is zero.

Gripen E vs Rafale :
Empty weight : 8000kg - 10 000 kg
Max take off weight : 16.5 T - 24.5 T
Internal fuel : 3.4 T - 4.7 T
Store points : 10 - 14
External load : 16.5 - 8 = 8.5 - 3.4 = 5.1 T vs 24.5 - 10 = 14.5 - 4.7 = 9.5+ T

Sources : http://saab.com/globalassets/commer...oad-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data/

Now, range is indeed similar on both . . . for the very simple reason . . .
that flocking modern NATO-compliant birds all use aerial refueling, duh!
But do note that the Rafale does that with almost twice the payload?

BTW, SAAB claims 6 tons of ext. load but computing as we did from their
own numbers shows a lower metric whereas Dassault left 200-300kgs out.

Every one claims that Rafale is more capable, but noone can show why...
Gripen was flying over Libya as well, and did a good job.

Rafale flew first prior to CM saturation;

France was the first coalition partner to strike, on March 19 at 6:00 p.m.,
a few hours before British and U.S. forces went into action.​

Gripen came later within the NATO alliance;

On April 2, 2011, Sweden deployed eight JAS 39 Gripen fighters
to participate in the NATO-led Operation United Protector (OUP) in Libya.​

Both from :

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf
​

Sweden's job was found to be outstanding in the reco role
and the Gripen C/D plus pod excellent save on download
time ( physical removal after landing vs transmission ).
Still, not the same job and that after the zone was secured.

Gripen is superior to Rafale in certain properties,

Mysterious properties then as no one can state nor has seen them!

Drop the Rafales, and you can easily afford the Gripen,
and 120 Gripen are better than 72 Rafales .

That's a pro comment if I ever saw one! Drop a signed contract,
pay all penalties, pay the lawyers to pay less in following lawsuit,
muck up for along time the relationship with a friend that provided
weapons for decades and is a major exporter of such goods ...
to save enough to buy a plane that replaces a local product & ends it?

And no they're not which a smiley can't hide. Remember the range
that you used earlier and the refueling thing I mentioned? Well, the
Raffys of our FAS squadrons practiced 11 hours flights to la Réunion.
Wake me up when Sweden can vitrify a target 4,400 kms away and
come back to base! We can strike Natanz from Istres for Pete's sake!

Honestly, you should drop the adolescent wishful thinking exaggeration
although, SAAB as Lock_Mart and the Second Best maker are leading
the way to it for you, which is sad in its own right.

Rafale current orders of 36 fighters for $8.6 billion will be doubled. TOTAL COST over $16 billion

As IIRC Hydra pointed out, no! If located on the same bases to avoid
those costs, 36 more Rafales should be around 5 B$ with offsets incl.

The offsets then add to the ones from the 1st deal so that more of the
production costs stay in India. It gradually moves to some sort of MMI
so that if each deal of 36 units was 5 B$, eventually most of the amount
actually never leaves in India.

And a good day to all, Tay.

 

[anant_s]

That's a pro comment if I ever saw one! Drop a signed contract,
pay all penalties, pay the lawyers to pay less in following lawsuit,
muck up for along time the relationship with a friend that provided
weapons for decades and is a major exporter of such goods ...
to save enough to buy a plane that replaces a local product & ends it?

I think the situation is like comparing a game of football with one team playing with a player less on account of a red card.
Except that here one team is Paris Saint Germain and other is FC Orleans

 

[Storm Force]

More rafales all the way

By the way gripen great plane but we have given birth to our son Lca

Who will grow to become a wonderful athlete in block 1a and beyond

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

In the world only sweedish will say Gripen is superior to typhoon and Rafale. I can't argue with a person who thinks that Rafale is 15 year old relic. You must know one thing,they are actively upgrading rafales.
Also I want to ask you ,how do you rate f22 over Gripen? Asper your logic f22 must be a inferior one against Gripen E.

I believe that I said that they are planning a major upgrade in the post You quoted...

Gripen E vs Rafale :
Empty weight : 8000kg - 10 000 kg
Max take off weight : 16.5 T - 24.5 T
Internal fuel : 3.4 T - 4.7 T
Store points : 10 - 14
External load : 16.5 - 8 = 8.5 - 3.4 = 5.1 T vs 24.5 - 10 = 14.5 - 4.7 = 9.5+ T

Sources : http://saab.com/globalassets/commer...oad-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/specifications-and-performance-data/

Now, range is indeed similar on both . . . for the very simple reason . . .
that flocking modern NATO-compliant birds all use aerial refueling, duh!
But do note that the Rafale does that with almost twice the payload?

BTW, SAAB claims 6 tons of ext. load but computing as we did from their
own numbers shows a lower metric whereas Dassault left 200-300kgs out.



Rafale flew first prior to CM saturation;

France was the first coalition partner to strike, on March 19 at 6:00 p.m.,
a few hours before British and U.S. forces went into action.​

Gripen came later within the NATO alliance;

On April 2, 2011, Sweden deployed eight JAS 39 Gripen fighters
to participate in the NATO-led Operation United Protector (OUP) in Libya.​

Both from :

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf
​

Sweden's job was found to be outstanding in the reco role
and the Gripen C/D plus pod excellent save on download
time ( physical removal after landing vs transmission ).
Still, not the same job and that after the zone was secured.



Mysterious properties then as no one can state nor has seen them!



That's a pro comment if I ever saw one! Drop a signed contract,
pay all penalties, pay the lawyers to pay less in following lawsuit,
muck up for along time the relationship with a friend that provided
weapons for decades and is a major exporter of such goods ...
to save enough to buy a plane that replaces a local product & ends it?

And no they're not which a smiley can't hide. Remember the range
that you used earlier and the refueling thing I mentioned? Well, the
Raffys of our FAS squadrons practiced 11 hours flights to la Réunion.
Wake me up when Sweden can vitrify a target 4,400 kms away and
come back to base! We can strike Natanz from Istres for Pete's sake!

Honestly, you should drop the adolescent wishful thinking exaggeration
although, SAAB as Lock_Mart and the Second Best maker are leading
the way to it for you, which is sad in its own right.



As IIRC Hydra pointed out, no! If located on the same bases to avoid
those costs, 36 more Rafales should be around 5 B$ with offsets incl.

The offsets then add to the ones from the 1st deal so that more of the
production costs stay in India. It gradually moves to some sort of MMI
so that if each deal of 36 units was 5 B$, eventually most of the amount
actually never leaves in India.

And a good day to all, Tay.

As I said, if the idea is to use the single engine fighters for point defense,
then the advantages in range and payload may not have a high value.

There are certainly a few points where the Gripen E is superior to the Rafale.

The positioner in the radar gives a significant better arc of coverage.
The data link (TIDLS) is only matched by that of the F-35.
Turnaround time is best in class.
Pilot interface is widely considered best in class.
The App based S/W architecture makes integration new weapons much easier.
SAAB claims the Gripen E Electronic Warfare unit, is superior to SPECTRA.
They did a comparision during a presentation I attended, but
have no specific sources to back that up though.

 

[#hydra#]

I believe that I said that they are planning a major upgrade in the post You quoted...



As I said, if the idea is to use the single engine fighters for point defense,
then the advantages in range and payload may not have a high value.

There are certainly a few points where the Gripen E is superior to the Rafale.

The positioner in the radar gives a significant better arc of coverage.
The data link (TIDLS) is only matched by that of the F-35.
Turnaround time is best in class.
Pilot interface is widely considered best in class.
The App based S/W architecture makes integration new weapons much easier.
SAAB claims the Gripen E Electronic Warfare unit, is superior to SPECTRA.
They did a comparision during a presentation I attended, but
have no specific sources to back that up though.

For point defence we have LCA , though it's inferior it's indeginous origin have its own advantage. We need a fighter capable of performing offensive action in Pakistan airspace.

 

[Storm Force]

DONT WANT TO SOUND LIKE A SMART ALEX

But I did TELL YOU more Rafales are coming

deal for more rafales to be announced in December

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

For point defence we have LCA , though it's inferior it's indeginous origin have its own advantage. We need a fighter capable of performing offensive action in Pakistan airspace.

Gripen's combat range would allow action in most, if not all of Pakistan.
While the Rafale can carry more weapons, you would get more Gripen for the money,
so the sum of the Gripen weapon loads would be at least on par with that of the Rafales.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

For point defence we have LCA , though it's inferior it's indeginous origin have its own advantage. We need a fighter capable of performing offensive action in Pakistan airspace.

The last part will defintely be a thing to watch!!! It requires 2 to tango!!! Will IAF step on the dance floor???

 

[ziaulislam]

This is NON DEBATE

India HAS ordered 123 Tejas .......... THIS WILL NOT CHANGE @ UNIT prioce of $45 million each . total cost $7 billion for 120+ fighters

Rafale current orders of 36 fighters for $8.6 billion will be doubled. TOTAL COST over $16 billion

The GRIPEN E delivery for 120 fighters with TOT and manufacturing is over $20 billion



THERE WILL No orders FOR gripen or F16/70

THAT DECISION has ben made .......... it will be made public NEXT YEAR

You sound almost as confident as those Indians claiming that the F-16 deal is done.
Drop the Rafales, and you can easily afford the Gripen,
and 120 Gripen are better than 72 Rafales .

india either needs to drop LCA(which i think it should if it intends not to compromise at all) or do a compromise and induct LCA in numbers, either way, it needs 200 of LCA or Gripen, that would be a better option rather than both


it also needs a fifth gen fighter ASAP, rafale is not gona cut it, India would need either the f-35 or its PAK FA

if i was the policy maker in IAF, i would have immediately pushed for LCA 250+(unless there is a deep flaw in LCA, in that case, i would have terminated the LCA altogether), I would have scrapped rafale and have gone for 200+ f-35 with becoming a partner in the program.

the cost of f-35 200+ would have been same as rafale+gripen infact cheaper, would suit both IAF and IN
if india becomes a partner state which will bring more manufacturing, it can bring down f35 cost similar to rafale, you do know that thrust produced by the single engine on f-35 is more than thrust by twin engines combined on rafale

india needs to look at turkey and china and understand there is no short cut to ToT.. start slow...and forget about pakistan, i mean Pakistan is a minuscule country as compared to india

 

[Taygibay]

There are certainly a few points where the Gripen E is superior to the Rafale.

The positioner in the radar gives a significant better arc of coverage.
The data link (TIDLS) is only matched by that of the F-35.
Turnaround time is best in class.
Pilot interface is widely considered best in class.
The App based S/W architecture makes integration new weapons much easier.
SAAB claims the Gripen E Electronic Warfare unit, is superior to SPECTRA.
They did a comparision during a presentation I attended, but
have no specific sources to back that up though.

Ah, OK! I see! M'well ...

The repositioner is mechanical as on the eventual Typhoon AESA.
As such it moves slowly compared to the milliseconds of waveforms.
Gain more in angles; lose in scanning agility speedwise!

The data link is a great tool but its advantages are more tactical than
definitive. No one says the Raptor is lesser than the F-35 ( save Lock-Mart )
because it didn't get the MADL for example.
TILDS is a better Link 16 whereas both the MADL and Tragedac innovations
( for the Rafale ) are mostly to hike sensor fusion and ob the side to require
less out of Link 16 A.K.A. make the most of it.
Would you really blame a nation say buying Strike Eagles for lack of TILDS?
It would be wrong especially if they coordinate through AWACS or another
AEW&C platform. Besides, MADL is for stealth planes which the Gripen ain't.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...gateway-between-f-35-and-f-22-still-t-435790/

Turnaround time : Two thumbs up there, no doubt about it! That is a specific
strategic ability for a small country with a small number of jets in its airforce.
Not as important for bigger fleets but it is a point of excellence for SAAB/Sw.

Pilot interface is so good on the Rafale ( I've seen the active cockpit on video )
that even if the Gripen's was a tad better which I don't buy without proofs,
it means little. And BTW, the Brits say the same thing about the Phoon's HMI.
So if all claim to be the best does that mean they all are?
How exactly is that possible?

Integrating weapons is big work and not app-based at all. Who cares about
gaining a day during input when the trials take a few months at best?

SAAB claims a lot of things but Spectra worked in real life with SAMs pointed
at it in Libya. ( Did you read the Rand piece? You really should! )
That's schoolyard -my dad is stronger;my thing bigger than yours stuff, not
anywhere near a fact. Hence your lack of source. I.E. PP is a show tool not a capability.

As I said, if the idea is to use the single engine fighters for point defense,
then the advantages in range and payload may not have a high value.

Again A.P., check out Hydra's answer :

For point defence we have LCA , though it's inferior it's indeginous origin have its own advantage. We need a fighter capable of performing offensive action in Pakistan airspace.

There are many countries that should buy Gripen E; it's a fine AC.
But not India and this is why your attempts to shove it down their
collective throat is so annoying. India has the LCA. Unless it can't
perform the duties of the old Bisons, it must be bought and made
into a success. If it does, it fills the light fighter role that you seek
the Indians to give to the Gripen.

While the Rafale can carry more weapons, you would get more Gripen for the money, so the sum of the Gripen weapon loads would be at least on par with that of the Rafales.

Then India could either save by putting 2 GBUs under 2,000 Tucanos
or all of them in a single / couple of refurbished ex-USAF B-52s?
Both of which would cost less than 120 Gripens?
You know a reasoning is wrong when it can't apply elsewhere as here.


A.P. mate, your favourite fighter is fine but let's quit the forced sale to
a nation that has a different set-up. Many nations including a few in
Europe are better target customers for the little fighter that could.

Accessorily, in parting, if your jet is so much better than mine . . .
why exactly did it lose to it in both the Swiss and MMRCA evaluations?
Were those PowerPoint presentation not finished then?

Have a great day in any case, Tay.

 

[anant_s]

@A.P. Richelieu
Grippen E if selected by IAF will come at cost of LCA Mark 2, which atleast on paper can be said comparable to Grippen E.
Now in India, the issue itself is that users aren't very sure or excited about LCA Mark 2 but it doesn't say if they have similar reservations on an established and mature platform such as Grippen.
I'm not sure which platforms will survive all this scrutiny and seemingly perpetually running tenders, but a rough estimate would tell us that eventually IAF would end up with 72-108 Rafales, ~72-100 LCA Mark 1 & 1A and around 100 odd Single engine Fighters (LCA mark 2 or Grippen E or F 16).
Now question here is, if Grippen E is selected, are they really ready to match LM's offer for complete manufacturing in India (i'm not talking of ToT) that too for 100 odd numbers.
Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Ah, OK! I see! M'well ...

The repositioner is mechanical as on the eventual Typhoon AESA.
As such it moves slowly compared to the milliseconds of waveforms.
Gain more in angles; lose in scanning agility speedwise!

The repositioner is for an AESA radar which Selex has developed in cooperation with SAAB.
It will not have worse scanning ability than other AESA radars.

The data link is a great tool but its advantages are more tactical than
definitive. No one says the Raptor is lesser than the F-35 ( save Lock-Mart )
because it didn't get the MADL for example.
TILDS is a better Link 16 whereas both the MADL and Tragedac innovations
( for the Rafale ) are mostly to hike sensor fusion and ob the side to require
less out of Link 16 A.K.A. make the most of it.
Would you really blame a nation say buying Strike Eagles for lack of TILDS?
It would be wrong especially if they coordinate through AWACS or another
AEW&C platform. Besides, MADL is for stealth planes which the Gripen ain't.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...gateway-between-f-35-and-f-22-still-t-435790/

You are mistaken, the TIDLS is a strategic asset since it allows any sensor in the network
to provide information, which is fused into the Gripen E display.

RCS data for Gripen A.
It was improved in Gripen C, and has been further improved in Gripen E.

Turnaround time : Two thumbs up there, no doubt about it! That is a specific
strategic ability for a small country with a small number of jets in its airforce.
Not as important for bigger fleets but it is a point of excellence for SAAB/Sw.

If you need to have aircraft in the air, then every air force has too few aircrafts around.

Pilot interface is so good on the Rafale ( I've seen the active cockpit on video )
that even if the Gripen's was a tad better which I don't buy without proofs,
it means little. And BTW, the Brits say the same thing about the Phoon's HMI.
So if all claim to be the best does that mean they all are?
How exactly is that possible?

It is possible if each country has different criteria.
Our criteria is pilot workload.

Integrating weapons is big work and not app-based at all. Who cares about
gaining a day during input when the trials take a few months at best?

With Gripen E you can add new weapons without requalifying the flight S/W.
That is not possible on other aircrafts as far as I know.
SAABs experience is that you can reduce tasks which use to take several months
into days.

SAAB claims a lot of things but Spectra worked in real life with SAMs pointed
at it in Libya. ( Did you read the Rand piece? You really should! )
That's schoolyard -my dad is stronger;my thing bigger than yours stuff, not
anywhere near a fact. Hence your lack of source. I.E. PP is a show tool not a capability.

Noone says that Spectra does not work.
This boils down to improvements in electronics, especially Field Programmable Gate Arrays,
where 2-3 years difference can mean orders of magnitude difference in capabilities.

Again A.P., check out Hydra's answer :

There are many countries that should buy Gripen E; it's a fine AC.
But not India and this is why your attempts to shove it down their
collective throat is so annoying. India has the LCA. Unless it can't
perform the duties of the old Bisons, it must be bought and made
into a success. If it does, it fills the light fighter role that you seek
the Indians to give to the Gripen.

Then India could either save by putting 2 GBUs under 2,000 Tucanos
or all of them in a single / couple of refurbished ex-USAF B-52s?
Both of which would cost less than 120 Gripens?
You know a reasoning is wrong when it can't apply elsewhere as here.

A.P. mate, your favourite fighter is fine but let's quit the forced sale to
a nation that has a different set-up. Many nations including a few in
Europe are better target customers for the little fighter that could.

Accessorily, in parting, if your jet is so much better than mine . . .
why exactly did it lose to it in both the Swiss and MMRCA evaluations?
Were those PowerPoint presentation not finished then?

Have a great day in any case, Tay.

In the Swiss evaluation, the first comparision was with Gripen C, which is of course
much less capable than the Gripen E. In the second round,
I have seen claims that it was derated by a factor of 0,7 since it was not available
for evaluation. In the end, the Gripen E was the choice for the Swiss government.

In the MMRCA, there was a requirement for AESA radar, which was not available on Gripen C.
The Gripen E schedule was not matching the decisions made 2011-12.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

@A.P. Richelieu
Grippen E if selected by IAF will come at cost of LCA Mark 2, which atleast on paper can be said comparable to Grippen E.
Now in India, the issue itself is that users aren't very sure or excited about LCA Mark 2 but it doesn't say if they have similar reservations on an established and mature platform such as Grippen.
I'm not sure which platforms will survive all this scrutiny and seemingly perpetually running tenders, but a rough estimate would tell us that eventually IAF would end up with 72-108 Rafales, ~72-100 LCA Mark 1 & 1A and around 100 odd Single engine Fighters (LCA mark 2 or Grippen E or F 16).
Now question here is, if Grippen E is selected, are they really ready to match LM's offer for complete manufacturing in India (i'm not talking of ToT) that too for 100 odd numbers.
Your guess is as good as mine.

LM has offered assembly of the F-16 and production of some components.
I believe LM manufactures about 40 % of the components in the F-16, and this is what they can
offer India as well.
They have contractual obligations to a number of parties that guarantee them a share of the production of ANY F-16, so if F-16s are assembled in India, the Indian manufacturer will have source components from many parties worldwide, including Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Turkey?, South Korea.
Embraer will manufacture Gripen in Brazil for an order of 36 aircraft.
Indias volume is not a problem.
That will also need sourcing of parts from companies worldwide, including Selex and GE.
SAAB thus have recent experience with building a new manufacturing line,
based on modern manufacturing technology (which I guess include 3-D printing),
instead of the older style manufacturing lines used for the F-16.

Btw: It is not spelled Grippen, it is spelled Gripen.