1. Mig-29 and M-2000 will be replaced with FGFA. Jaguar will be replaced with AMCA.
2. Mig-29 will be replaced with PAK FA. M-2000 and Jaguar will be replaced with AMCA.
IAF Chronicles - A side view of whats going on behind the closed doors in New Delhi
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
- Status
1. Mig-29 and M-2000 will be replaced with FGFA. Jaguar will be replaced with AMCA.
2. Mig-29 will be replaced with PAK FA. M-2000 and Jaguar will be replaced with AMCA.
AL31F : weight 1600 to 1800kg according to the source. dry thrust =74Kn, PC = 122Kn
F100 : 1700kg +/- dry = 79Kn PC = 123Kn
F110 : 1800 to 2000Kg. dry = 74Kn PC = 131 to 142 Kn
They all are very comparable in term of weigh, dry and PC thrust. BUT the west standards of engine life are better than russian counterparts.
YES.
All the F3R can be upgraded to F4.1 and F4.2
If I remember well it's only the previous ones than can only go to F4.1
Any evidence of that this is the case?
How do you know? Any source?
Any evidence that LCA MK2A will not be equal to Gripen E? In which parameters? Any reason why Mk2 will be worse or equal to MK1A?
How can ADA compete with HAL when HAL is a manufacturing unit whereas ADA is design unit? ADA is part of DRDO and makes technology to be transferred to manufacturers.
Why do you say so? Again, asI asked in the last question, which parameters have you considered to judge Mk2 to be worse than Gripen-E?
On what calculations have you made these claims? Kindly elaborate
This is just superiority complex. Al31F uses less fuel per thrust comparatively. And there is no reason to say Al31FP is inferior
Can't say. It's the only way for the govt to work out a strategic partnership with the US. We are not buying their ships. We are not buying their tanks. So the only choice is fighter aircraft and the only choice there is the F-35.
PLAAF already operates the J-20. And it is possible that PAF will be the first to receive the J-31 in 2020 or 2021. That's not a good situation for the IAF to be in.
I'm not american citizen, so no complex (no modern french military engine in this thrust field)
less fuel ??? this is all but not sure.
Govt must have realized they cannot justify competition for SE jets (whereby adding another type to the fleet) to increase sqn strength when they're planning to induct Rafales in large numbers.
The main problem with the SE tender was that while the Gripen was technologically superior and a more contemporary airframe, the F-16 carried with it the diplomatic heft of the US govt. Either way, the Govt would have been embroiled in a controversy. Also, by pitting just the two aircraft manufacturers against each other, the GoI doesn't have that many negotiating advantages.
By merging the two, LM and SAAB would be forced to make additional concessions to match the offer made by Dassault (and France) who have promised a much more bigger strategic partnership and larger ToT for critical systems) [Belguim should watch this closely]. If they don't, then Rafales again wins the trials/tender, thereby paving the way for additional orders without any controversy and the govt can wash their hands in the parliament saying this was their plan all along (referring to the 36 GTG order).
I've always said that the SE EoI was just the GoI's way of sending feelers to LM and SAAB to know what they offered viz-a-viz Dassault.
The only drawback i see here is the timeline.
The main problem with the SE tender was that while the Gripen was technologically superior and a more contemporary airframe, the F-16 carried with it the diplomatic heft of the US govt. Either way, the Govt would have been embroiled in a controversy. Also, by pitting just the two aircraft manufacturers against each other, the GoI doesn't have that many negotiating advantages.
By merging the two, LM and SAAB would be forced to make additional concessions to match the offer made by Dassault (and France) who have promised a much more bigger strategic partnership and larger ToT for critical systems) [Belguim should watch this closely]. If they don't, then Rafales again wins the trials/tender, thereby paving the way for additional orders without any controversy and the govt can wash their hands in the parliament saying this was their plan all along (referring to the 36 GTG order).
I've always said that the SE EoI was just the GoI's way of sending feelers to LM and SAAB to know what they offered viz-a-viz Dassault.
The only drawback i see here is the timeline.
SE has nothing to do with the govt, it was all IAF there. It's the govt that killed the IAF's plan to have SE and TE tender and merged it into one.
They could also split their sourcing into SE & TE later , once the results of the bidding are announced .Permutations and Combinations are infinite .
I beg to differ. IAF has consistently petitioned for additional Rafales. Only when the GoI introduced SE jets into the equation did IAF change its stance from Rafales to any jet that meets the requirements, to fill the numbers. Even then, the IAF chief said they ideally preferred more RAfales.
That's a strange assertion, because from the accounts we had here (and in this thread's predecessor elsewhere) the IAF didn't want the F-16 and weren't all that enamored with the Gripen either. So why would they want a tender just between two aircraft types they didn't want?
Al31F has higher bypass of 0.59 and hence lower fuel consumption. The point to note is that despite higher bypass, it has similar thrust to weight as P&W F100 and GE f110 engines. This is advanced technology.
You are forgetting that Gripen is an assembly plane without significant parts from SAAB. It is not manufactured by one single country. How can such a plane even be considered?
Next, how does diplomatic heft of USA affect the fighter aircraft deal? The heft exists only when the bigger party offers something significant. A billionaire does not have heft just because he is billionaire but because he pays well using his money. Stingy people can't have heft. Similarly, unless, USA is giving India something, there can be no heft. USA in this case offers no ToT.
Are you sure that France is offering ToT? This is a speculation as far as I see unless reverse engineering is not considered.
How do you know all this? This is exemplary information. Please give source.
If this new tender goes ahead, there's no chance for a new SE tender ever. This tender will take too long to finish and by the time it does, the SE jets will be too old to be bought, even Gripen E.
The IAF wanted 100+ SE jets and 200+ Rafales. They made both clear quite sometime ago. The IAF has never changed their stance over anything. The current requirement of both SE and TE jets is still as rigid as ever. The only thing that can destroy the SE requirement is complete obsolescence, which will happen by the time MMRCA 2.0 ends. Meaning IAF won't buy SEFs if the Chinese switch over to TEFs themselves. There's the LCA until then.
SE was always independent from TE. Ever since the mid 90s. Even when the govt withdrew the older tender for single engine jets, the requirement wasn't replaced with MMRCA, MMRCA was simply a new tender.
SE tender gave way to TE tender (MMRCA), then TE tender was canceled and IAF wanted to continue their SE exercise because the govt said there's no money for TE. Now, the govt didn't like the prospect of a competition with only two aircraft, so all the jets are back again in MMRCA 2.0.
SE was always an IAF requirement. It has nothing to do with the govt. The govt doesn't even have a choice in this matter.
I've always stuck to my old stand that when it comes to SE MII the IAF wanted Gripens since the beginning. They don't want the F-16s, they've made that very clear.
Even @halloweene can attest to it. The IAF said that the Gripen is currently the best air to air MMRCA class fighter in the world today. They actually ranked it higher than the Rafale.
MMRCA was always about buying twin engine jets. Gripen and F-16 merely participated in it for no real reason. After the MMRCA deal was signed, the IAF had planned to bring back the F-16 and Gripen in another single engine only competition.
Admiral Arun Prakash:
how did you end up with a bunch of aircraft from single-engined to twin-engined, from 17 tons to 30 tons – I mean why did you stand for it?
Air Marshal Matheswaran (he signed the MMRCA RFI in 2004, and authored the MMRCA RFP)
The cheapest aircraft was – and the lightest aircraft was the Gripen. The F-16 would have been the cheapest. But the point is, you had the original contenders who were there in the fray – you couldn’t have removed them because that process had started off.
Basically, they couldn't simply ask LM and Saab to leave India during MMRCA. Even at that time, the IAF had specified that the MMRCA will see preference for twin engine aircraft.
IAF to start process to acquire single engine jets this month
Dhanoa said IAF is giving priority to the single engine fighters as the twin-engine fighters will cost more.
"Right now, we are concentrating on the single engine so as to make up the numbers with lower cost," he said. The IAF currently has 33 fighter squadrons against authorised strength of 42.
The IAF chief, however, said the force has requirement of twin engine jets as well.
Rude Awakening for F-16, Gripen: India May Opt for Twin-Engine Fighter Jets
Earlier in October, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa had categorically stated that the emphasis on single-engine fighter jets was a cost-cutting attempt whereas the Indian Air Force actually desired twin-engine jets.
"Right now, we are concentrating on the single-engine so as to make up the numbers with lower cost. There is a requirement for twin-engine fighters down the road, but engines are "30% of the cost" of a twin, versus 10% of a single," Dhanoa had said.
This is the IAF Chief making it clear that there is a separate requirement for both SE and TE jets.
Correction, the government and IAF both wanted 200 LCA Tejas and 180+ multi-role fighters. LCA program faltered hence the need for an alternate SE jet. There were no talks of a specific SE tender before 2016.
Which older tender? Please specify.
MMRCA competition evolved after the failed acquisition of additional Mirage 2000 fighters. It was a competition for multirole fighters with performance being given the highest weightage, not number of engines. Hence Rafales were selected.
You're contradicting yourself. (below).
Best MMRCA between Gripen and F-16? definitely.
Note the operating word is "COST". Who decides the funds for the acquisition? The Govt.
Sorry, This is the IAF Chief making it clear that there is a urgent need for an alternate SE jets because LCA has fallen short of performance and has missed several timelines, causing the IAF squadron level to fall dangerously low due to the retiring Migs.
BTW @randomradio, there was never any SE Tender, ever.
GoI had sent EoI to LM and SAAB and asked them what they would be offering IF GoI decides to consider acquiring them to arrest the falling sqn strength. Looks like HAL has managed to convince GoI that Mk-1A and Mk-2 will be enough (IAF concurs) for India's light fighter category instead of wasting money on another SE jet.
The introduction of a new MMRCA competition could be GoI's plan to force US/LM to officially offer the F-35A against France's Rafale. It'd be interesting to see if this is indeed the case.
GoI had sent EoI to LM and SAAB and asked them what they would be offering IF GoI decides to consider acquiring them to arrest the falling sqn strength. Looks like HAL has managed to convince GoI that Mk-1A and Mk-2 will be enough (IAF concurs) for India's light fighter category instead of wasting money on another SE jet.
The introduction of a new MMRCA competition could be GoI's plan to force US/LM to officially offer the F-35A against France's Rafale. It'd be interesting to see if this is indeed the case.
Last edited:
The SE requirement was separate from LCA.
2001-2004. M-2000, Mig-29 and F-16. It was a tender to purchase an aircraft that had an MTOW below 20T.
It didn't 'evolve' per se. It was an additional requirement.
MMRCA was about number of engines.
There is nothing contradictory in what I said. Air to air is merely one parameter.
Gripen can potentially beat the Rafale in MMRCA 2.0. But that doesn't take away Rafale's other advantages with respect to range and payload.
If we had the money, both programs would have been parallel acquisitions. But we can only go for one at a time.
Costs are controlled by the vendors, not the govt.
This claim is contrary to facts. The IAF has already ordered 123 LCA and have a requirement to add 3 more squadrons to the kitty once the 6 squads are delivered. So that's 180+ jets meant to replace the Mig-21. The SE MII, or Gripen more specifically, has no relevance to the success or failure of LCA. After having already ordered the LCA, the IAF was trying to pursue the Gripen also.
If there was even one other SE jet available with the ability to compete with Gripen, we would have seen the SE MII. The govt simply developed cold feet at the prospect of a single vendor situation and asked the IAF to combine their SE and TE requirements into one single requirement (a much better idea), which means even the final numbers purchased will be very large. The govt fears that the IAF will tailor make the RFP in favour of the Gripen and we will end up with a scam on our hands.
Single engine fighter jet procurement hits air pocket, faces questions
Sources have told ThePrint that the defence ministry is not yet convinced with the air force argument for breaking up its requirements into two parts – a new single engine jet line and a different double engine jet programme.
Contrary to popular belief, the govt has nothing to do with the IAF bifurcating their requirement into SE and TE.
- Status