Yeah, this is when people mouthing off about plans and what will be get really quiet on this forum now. We were told the new government would sign off immediately, not still getting their heads round the fact that all this “negotiating” news is BS. There is simply no money left in the pot.

Yes it’s hard when you have to pay for your top notch weapons instead of getting them either by scrounging the second hand market or by asking for alms.

Saab and the Eurofighter consortium still retain hopes for the MRCA deal

Saab and Eurofighter consortium retain hopes for MRCA deal

Don’t know where this Tejas MkII co-design and co-manufacturing aspect comes in now..may be too late for that, although DRDO could have definitely used Saab as a design consultant on this project.

..
Swedish company, Saab, whose Gripen-D light fighter was evaluated but not selected, similarly believes the contract remains open. Saab places hope in a proposal that it formulated with the Defence Research and Developments Organisation (DRDO) to co-develop and co-manufacture the improved Tejas Mark II Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). This affordable, indigenous, single-engine fighter could be built in numbers, providing the IAF a more economical and effective option than limited numbers of enormously expensive, twin-engine Rafales.

Saab believes that a successful Tejas Mark II would erode the need for the Rafale. The Swedish company has offered co-development and co-manufacture of the Tejas Mark II, even whilst fielding the cheapest and most economical fighter of the six in the fray.

As IAF officers confirm, India had intended to buy a cheap, light fighter to replace the IAF’s MiG-21s as they were phased out of service. In late 2004, IAF sent out a “request for information”, to four manufacturers of small, cheap fighters – the Russian MiG-29; the American F-16; the French Mirage-2000-5, and the Saab Gripen.

Only in August 2007, when IAF issued a formal tender – termed “request for proposal”, or RfP – were expensive, twin-engine fighters like the Eurofighter, Rafale and F/A-18 regarded as options. Today, with the economy stuttering, the daunting prospect of paying Rs 1,00,000 crore for 126 fighters could mean that low cost becomes decisive.

Saab sees further advantage in backing the indigenous horse, the Tejas Mark II. The Swedish company claims it is best suited for upgrading the Tejas Mark I, since it is currently upgrading the Gripen-D by fitting a new engine, the General Electric F-414 power pack. Upgrading the Tejas Mark I to Mark II specifications involves exactly the same upgrade.

Last DRDO chief, Dr V K Saraswat, was convinced that Saab’s assistance would be ideal for the Tejas programme. In 2012, DRDO sent Saab a “Request for Information” asking a rough estimate of costs, which Saab duly submitted.

In Jan 2013, DRDO followed up with a RfP, asking for technical and financial bids for Saab to jointly audit the Tejas design with DRDO. Saab had proposed an eight-10 month long audit, after which a fresh design would be finalised and a manufacturing line established.

MoD sources tell Business Standard that Saab proposed in 2011 to co-develop the Tejas Mark II and roll it out from a new manufacturing line within five years. Saab wanted at least 51 per cent ownership of the joint venture company that built the new Tejas, to be free of government controls and procedures.

By May 2013, a joint design contract seemed imminent, says Saab. But on June 1, a new DRDO chief, Dr Avinash Chander, took charge and Saab was unofficially told that DRDO could not co-develop the Tejas with a foreign company without an international tender to select the partner.

Contacted for comments, a DRDO spokesperson told Business Standard that design work on the Tejas Mark II is proceeding satisfactorily without a foreign partner.

In fact, MoD sources admit the Tejas Mark II programme faces significant design challenges beyond merely fitting a new engine. The Tejas Mark I was not designed with operational availability in mind, with important systems placed in inaccessible places that take time for technicians to reach. The Gripen-D, in contrast, requires just five man-hours of maintenance for an hour of flying. (The figure for the Tejas is not available, but the Rafale is estimated to require 15 man-hours).

..

Google Translate:

Makes sense..there will be that many more Gripen C/Ds available for lease or outright purchase and given its economics at a time when the options from the US, Russia and Europe will be limited to costlier 5th gen jets, it will make for a tempting contender for many smaller nations.

RIP 🙁

French AF Rafales with IAF Su-30MKIs at Jodhpur and the French AF Garuda V patch

Almost like a snapshot of a future IAF fighter line up. 🙂

Btw this is how PAF takes pictures at the commencement & end of exercises with a single example of each participating aircraft type & all the contingent members. Examples
Al-Saqoor1
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228921[/ATTACH]
Al-Saqoor2
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228922[/ATTACH]
Indus Vipers13
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228923[/ATTACH]
Going by the neighbor’s logic only a single Tiffy, Single Eagle & a single Viper took part in these exercises. Logic is a scarce commodity it seems in my neighborhood.

There was an article on Janes that mentioned that one J-10 and one J-7 participated in the exercise. No picture or article I disproved that and multiple defense forums from ur nation also are clueless about why just 2 jets participated. It clearly rankled a lot with ur ilk. 😀

Read earlier posts before jumping in and spouting nonsense.

You have seen the picture, you have read the reports and seen the number of pilots. You carry on beleiving all of that was for a two plane exercise detachment. The issue here does not seem logic but your almost obsessive hatred of Pakistan

The less one hears about logic from you, the better it’ll be..you’ve displayed it earlier on the Tejas thread. You haven’t been able to back up your claim with anything, so when I point that out you claim its because I hate Pakistan..quite sad behaviour really.

The reports were clear- one solitary J-10 and one J-7 participated in the exercise from the PLAAF side. I didn’t say that- the report said it and an Australian defence attache remarked on it..you OTOH have not been able to show a single report or picture disproving that..so as things stand, its you who is desperately clutching at thin air trying to prove a point that you otherwise cannot. If you do however, show a picture of a flightline or anything that backs what you’re saying, then I’ll be happy to say that I stand corrected..

But I don’t think that’s gonna happen. 😉

So, its safe to assume that the report was correct.