Comparing specs is one thing, but last time I checked Gripen was in service with several nations and integrated with several AMM and AGM missiles and has an advanced radar.

Specs on paper are one thing, but reality is very different.

Funny that you should say that since on the previous IAF thread you refused to believe the same thing..that the JF-17 on paper may have the capability to fire BVR missiles, but as yet it hasn’t got that capability.

Whats good for the goose should surely be good for the gander.

I could right a spec sheet for a plane and post it on the internet. Does not mean I will have a F-22 beater in my air force anytime soon….

same applies to the JF-17 my dear Pakistani friend. Unfortunately you don’t use the same perspective that you freely dispense, when it comes to the JF-17.

Ultimately, if Gripen and LCA were similar India would have no need for a MRCA contest.
If we are being honest…..

so then if the JF-17 and J-10 are both 4th generation fighters as some claim why does the PAF need both ? or why does the PAF want French avionics and weapons when the Chinese are perfectly happy to provide them ?

Am I missing something or is someone not being honest ?

This section of the above news is the real kick in the teeth, “We love the gripen we may buy it but the only bad thing about it is that it has parts from the US”

What are these guys on? So the US content didn’t matter when they were looking to buy the C-17s or silly expensive C-130J or P-8i .. good thing these systems aren’t expensive or critical! :S

Oh i know what it is, maybe they are cribbing about not having enough US content? hmm maybe they wanted more US content than the US aircraft in the Race.

Not surprising I guess

The key difference between the MRCA and the C-130J and P-8I purchases (and you can research it as well, if you want to vet it) was that in both the C-130J and P-8I cases, the IAF and IN did not have any other options. the IAF wanted a Special Forces transport and the C-130J fit their bill perfectly and they had no other aircraft they could evaluate, so they went in with a sole source option. This is mentioned in a Parliamentary report. That was when India had not signed any major contract with the US.

Same with the P-8I, especially after the IN was burnt in the Il-38’s Sea Dragon upgrade program.

If Gripen has high US content (and seen as a problem) then why did they invite Lockheed?

Because the GoI wanted to globalise the MRCA tender.

Kramer, to me Bison with all these modification wil remain a 2nd gen structural design with 4th gen components added to it. But i wouldn’t try to reclassify it in any strict manner of speaking.

why won’t it be a 4th generation fighter ? Structurally its similar to a JF-17, all metallic and alloy.

I mean the upcoming M2K upgrade would give IAF machines 4+ gen avionics but how does go about reclassifying it? Does it become a 4+ gen machine or stay a 3rd gen? I dont know if this would involve any composites or no. I also dont understand what you mean by significant? Would adding couple of composite panels to a mig-19 be deemed significant & merit reclassification.

if you re-design a fighter, have a higher MTOW, and for that you add composites then you’re in a way doing the same thing that adding some modern avionics does to a fighter. you’re “inserting” technology into that fighter. the M2k is a 3rd generation fighter airframe, uses titanium and aluminium alloys mostly. similar to a JF-17. But it will get the Mirage-2000-5 Mk2 upgrade that involves avionics developed for the -9 and Rafale. But structurally, it is still a 3rd gen fighter. So I cannot see how a JF-17 that is built similarly is a 4th gen fighter in this respect.

I do understand your pov. All im trying to question is whether the classification is as rigid or open to interpretation.

Vikas, at the very start of this debate between us, I said that I don’t believe in the classification of some journos. They couldn’t know better if they were hit on the head by a composite panel or an aluminium panel (although someone who does would, they have very different weight and stiffness characteristics). I know about aircraft structures and hence I do not believe that the JF-17 is a 4th generation fighter when it comes to structures.

ps. I know LCA was designed to be a 4th machine while MKI content of composites is likely to be far less. But i know which one i would like to fly. So does a rigid classification systen really matter?

No a rigid classification system doesn’t matter, but the term “4th or 5th generation” is used to denote technology and capability. It doesn’t necessarily work that way, but thats the way it is made to sound.

I would much prefer to fly in a Bison rather than a JF-17. Not because its a tit for tat argument but because I know the Bison is mature and has capabilities that the JF-17 won’t have for some more time–> and I know that the Bison even brought down F-15Cs (which I would also much rather fly than a JF-17 any day) Does that bracket them in the same class ? One fighter that is due to be retired soon and another that is just entering service. What does that say to you about how mis-leading the term “generation” can be ?

Er, if you read his post you will see he was referring to the fighter fleet.

In that sensehe has a very valid point, almost every air force in the world is more “streamlined” then IAF.

By the way, Lamas, Hueys and MI-8s are retired and/or in process of being retired.

Your also including dedciated naval helicopters.

it does’nt matter what fleet he was referring to. They serve a particular purpose and hence they’re acquired from different nations who build them. That is not too difficult to understand.

And if you had read the AFM article that talks of the WoT in Pakistan, you’d have read that Pakistan recieved new Hueys, so they’re not going away too soon. They still operate some Lamas and those Mi-8s will be replaced by Russian Mi-17IVs.

You just want it to look like only the IAF has a zoo. When the zoo is in Pakistan of course, you make it sound like “hey its a different kind of zoo so how dare you talk about it !”

Accuracy was never your strong point I guess.

Look who’s talking. You don’t even know what helicopters your own nation has recieved from the US and you tell me that I’m not accurate. :rolleyes:

If by “learn from it, build it and furthur enhance,” you mean tear-apart, copy, violate IP rights, steal classified technology, and turn around and sell cheap copies, then sure- that’s exactly why there is hate against them. Just ask Russia about the Su-27SK’s they sold the Chinese. What they are doing is blatantly illegal, and extremely unethical.

tell that and you’ll incur the wrath of Chinese posters. They want everyone to believe that despite Russians claiming that the J-11B is a copyright infringement, in reality it isn’t and China is well within its rights to suspend licencing fees to the Russians while merrily copying and improving on the Su-27SK.

Of course they don’t want Pakistan to get their equipment- because next thing you know, they’ll turn around and give it to China and China will be using MICA and Thales RDY technology in their missiles and radars for which they did not acquire a license or production rights. Either that or they will use it to figure out how to jam or disable technologies on the Taiwanese Mirage-2000’s. And it could potentially give them an extra edge over potential competitors (military and industrial) in the west. It doesn’t make sense to turn technology over to a potential industrial or military competitor.

I don’t think that the French care about Taiwan’s Mirage-2000-5 fleet or it being jammed. They are worried about 2 things- money on the Pakistan side and protection of their IP as China is the JF-17’s developer. Having the design authority for that jet means that they will naturally be exposed to and gain in-depth access to any French equipment that the JF-17 will be integrated with.

Kramer explanation on generations is load of personised opinion. Sorry I will not counter you because it would waste my time. Picking and choosing evidence to suit your view. Post me some credible sources to back up yout claim.

Its an opinion borne of facts and also because I work with these things, unlike you. Ask anyone who knows the difference between metallic airframe structure and composite structure and they’ll tell you if its of the same generation or not..or maybe Boeing and Airbus are also fools to invest so heavily in composites technology when they have decades of experience with metals and alloys ?

You can think of the JF-17 as 4th or 5th generation and that would be your personal opinion too.

Kramer, regarding fighter generation, the terms are quite loosely defined. A fighter can have third gen airframe but 4++ gen avionics. How could we classify that? For example, F-16A are given a structural upgrade to address airframe life, fatigue n so on. It could also receive SABR/RACR AESA n so on. What gen would it belong to? MKI is another example. To me it wud always be an extremely modified SU-27 just d way block 60 evolved from block 1.

So should we call the MiG-21 Bison a 4th generation aircraft because it can fire BVR missiles, drop PGMs and has a resonably modern cockpit, radar, HMDS and other avionics and RCS reduction measures ? If you can call the JF-17 a 4th generation fighter when it has alloy/metallic construction throughout, then even the Bison would qualify for similar categorisation.

both the aircraft, the F-16 Block 50/60 and the Su-30MKI recieved significant 4th generation structural technology insertion in the form of composite structures during their upgrades apart from avionics and weapons..No one in their right minds will compare the F-16A/B variants structurally with the F-16C/D/E/F. They’re way too different.

I dont know but i cant imagine similar sort of aircraft engineeing, composites, airframe life etc for this machine as is normally associated with lets say eurocanards. The latter-in my opinion-also have more modern cockpit layout. But then MKI does have top of the range avionics. I guess what im trying to say is that its difficult to label with a particular gen based on standard criterib since these criteria r themselves loosely defined.

some of the MKI’s components do require modern maintenance practices that are followed for composites, and the rest is unchanged from the previous generation. For instance, the MKI’s canards are composites. But yes, structurally its not quite the same as a 4th generation fighter built from design stage. Neither is the JF-17.

But on the Tejas, which is structurally out and out a 4th generation fighter, having more composites than even some Eurocanards, it will bring in a sea-change for the IAF. the IAF will need to train its personnel on how to repair/maintain composite structures because any damage to the Tejas will likely end up being to composite panels or other parts..repair especially is very different and HAL will need to do a lot of work on preparing Structural Repair Manuals for the Tejas. And the Tejas’ fatigue life (6000 hours) corresponds to its high usage of composites.

As for french stuff making jf-17 more exportable, i think thats a myth. In fact i cant recall any official ever saying so. What they say is that its a modular design, & depending on a customer’s requirement it could b fitted with different avionics. This would have an impact on its price, & its upto a customer how much they are willing to pay. Finally we dont know what french deal involves. It probably includes weapons, local assembly, may be some sort of tot, integration etc. We simply dont know. BTW A Warnes did talk about Mica IR-& not EM-& i did wonder whether PAF might wish to go ahead with Mica IR/SD-10 combo???

to say it would impact its price is an understatement. It would more than double its price. Then the whole point of the JF-17 package (its cheap price) is gone and makes it vulnerable to more capable fighters like the MiG-29K or the MiG-35. Already in Myanmar, the Chinese lost out to the Russians who sold the MiG-29 in competition with the J-10 and JF-17 (check last month’s AFM for confirmation on this).

As for local assembly, the French may be ok with it but not ToT because of the Chinese factor, IMO. but then again, it may well be like Airbus where they feel that giving China the technology to build the A-320 will not come and bite them back as they’d have moved on to newer technology by then.

Finally, i would once again suggest to all that we should not jump the gun, & wait for further clarification from the involved companies. There have been too many similar instances in the past.

I’m not jumping any gun Vikas. Just take a look at the discussion on this thread for the last 2 pages to see that everyone is discussing the French deal.