Of course, because they have to know which weapons will be integrated, or offered from the vendor / vendor country and that’s the difference here. EF seems to offer Storm Shadow and Taurus, although they are not integrated yet, but Saab seems not to offer Taurus at all!
That makes a huge difference in A2G capabilities, because now Gripen E/F comes even more closer to LCA. Both heaviest A2G weapons will now be 1000Kg LGB, with the only difference that LCA can carry 1, the Gripen E/F 2.
:rolleyes: I am sorry but you are now bordering on the ridiculous.
1. Seems to offer ? Show me one link where some one from Dassault or Eurofighter camp offers the SCALP/Storm Shadow.
2. MBDA has offered all these systems. Including Taurus and SCALP/Storm Shadow, there was an article on a Force issue last year with their head saying the same.
3. Those MBDA articles were basically paid for advertisemetns showing what was on offer to the IAF if they needed, it also included Meteor (available on request for multiple platforms IAF operates), MICA and ASRAAM.
See, that’s what I said and if this policy doesn’t change, the Gripen disqualifies itself!
So does a host of others, does it mean India is not buying from others. India is ordering P 8I, C 130J and LCA engines from the U.S.A. Sweden cannot be any worse. Like I said if you want real autonomy better make your own.
Btw, you always argue that IAF can’t afford more twin engine fighters, but that’s your personal opinion only and IAF obviously thinks different!
If they can’t afford it, they would have added Mirage 2000-5, or Gripen C/D in the initial competition and would not add 3 heavier twin engine fighters in the MMRCA competition now.
If they can’t afford it, they would add medium class twin engine, or single engine MMRCAs, instead of producing more MKIs that will be inducted at the same time.
If they can’t afford it, they would develop a single engine AMCA, with one higher thrust Kaveri Snecma, or the AL 41 engine, that we will get through FGFA developmen anyway.
So the lack of money to operate twin engine fighters is not a real argument!
1. Sure indeed it is my personal opinion, but it is based on common sense that the IAF will be operating too many twin engined fighters if it goes for one of the big birds in the MRCA competiton.
2. Initially they only wanted Mirage 2000-5, then Gripen C/D and F 16 was added, the F/A 18 was added during Bush’s visit, Dassault offered Rafale instead of Mirage and so on.
3. One of the main reasons to go for two engines in the AMCA is because India doesn’t have and are long way from making a single engine with enough thrust to power an aircraft of its size. So two Kaveris will do the job. The fact that even the AMCA is twin engined makes a stronger case for the IAF to go for a lighter MRCA.
4. It is a real argument because no large airforce operates with a structure where only 10% of its strength (propose LCA MK2 and MK1) is single engined.
Sign In
