VnomadDeliberately so, I suspect. India knew what it wanted and structured the process to produce the result that was obtained.
A mistake in retrospect.
Not likely; and in any case Gripen steps on the toes of Tejas. Back in the darker days of the program that wouldn’t have been a problem, or even an advantage — Gripen E as a fallback if LCA couldn’t make it. But things are different now — indeed Tejas was out of the woods by the time the down-select was made. Ergo, no Gripen.
Its a threat to the Tejas program but on the flipside the program wouldn’t have been held up as it has been.
Or they could just conclude the MMRCA arrangement, which, fanciful speculations aside, is what is going to happen.
$20 billion. Its unaffordable.
Even if they do go through with it, the military will take a hit elsewhere.
Vnomadyou are now in reverse gear with your statement. Gripen E was the most underdeveloped plane in MMRCA and that’s the fact.
Your comprehension issue are YOUR problem. Everyone else who read that statement understood what it meant.
that’s good you admit that Gripen E will be heavier than Gripen C. and it will not have greater thrust to weight ratio due greater fuel capacity and weights.
Its a pity you’re too much of an idiot to accept that the Gripen E will have a higher TWR than the C.
Production line is closing and no further Indian orders. India will be in same situation like in M2K when production line was closed and insufficient quantity was inducted in IAF.
A closed production line doesn’t mean aircraft aren’t available.
Vnomadyou mentioned Gripen E delivery starting now. which is not possible. plane is simply not certified for loads.
I did no such thing. Don’t blame me for your poor comprehension skills.
I gave 1 ton margin to Gripen E since lighter weight engine againt F-16E.
F-16A was indeed lighter than M2K but once 29,000lbs engine with greater load capability introduced it rapidly gained weight.
Gripen E not only larger weopon load but greater internal fuel capacity and than weight of AESA. this can practically end up in failure. the point I am making it is underdeveloped plane even now with doubtfull capabilities.
And your opinion as usual is worthless. The Gripen E will be heavier than the C variant but will also have greater thrust to compensate. Higher TWR and capable of supercruise (something its already demonstrated).
how long they going to wait.
Who said anything about ‘waiting’.
VnomadGripen E delivery in 2014 impossible if selected in 2012.
Your words not mine.
Gripen E may well end up 9tons with underpowered engine. it has Canard, larger internal fuel and larger wing area than F-16E.
Could well end up 20 tons as well. (Since we’re just throwing numbers around.)
And after all the Mirage 2000 was so much heavier than the F-16, owing to its fuel load and wing area.
Did MOD order more C-17 as the line is practically closed. and 10 are not sufficient.
Line is closed does mean the aircraft is unavailable.
VnomadRafale will cull both fuel and labor costs, which should help pay the bill.
The upfront cost is unaffordable.
Unfortunately the MMRCA exercise was structured in a way where cost did not enter the picture until the field had been reduced to the EF & Rafale. Had the Gripen E been included in the down-select the IAF may already have been on its way to receiving deliveries by now. IIRC one of the primary reasons it was disqualified was that the AESA development in the time-frame wasn’t deemed feasible. Its now 2014…
On the flip-side, the MoD could double down on the LCA program. They’ve spent just a billion or so on it. Plus $500M for the Mk2 & naval variant IIRC. Increase that budget, increase the production rate, spring for more AWACS & refuelers and it’ll get the job done (for a lower cost) while reducing the hassle of maintaining yet another distinct aircraft type.
Vnomadsurvivability to infinity. In post 2020 era of F-35. real major powers will start deploying hypersonic/stealthy cruise missiles. Supercomputing/satellites will take big leap.
.
.
.
that relatively unseen fighter costs are likely to be higher. so a lot less budget for navy and force protection of airbases. and without navy and ground troops. any specialized force of major power can invade through small boats/subs. as they are going to be fully protected by cruise missiles/TBM/cyber capabilities that can disrupt small air defence network.
Even Australia that is presumably buying 100 F-35 only upgrading two airbases at this point at huge cost with recent budgets cuts to decrease domestic scientists.
Bottom line is limited number of 5G or 4.5G does not make a difference.
1,695 posts. Congratulations. Can’t have been easy. Reflects all the hard work you’ve put in. So.. how does it feel like to be one of the forum’s most accomplished trolls? Tell your readers a little about your arduous journey in the pursuit of excellence in your chosen field.
VnomadAnd what if allies wont arrive? Then it will better for Blue to have superior numbers which are better suited to sustain attrition.
If allies won’t arrive then you’re done for. Just a matter of time. And no, superior numbers of conventional aircraft cannot sustain attrition as well as a VLO platforms. The F-35 will continue to deliver a higher kill-loss ratio than its cost ratio (vis a vis any previous gen fighter).
AWACSs in theatre will change nothing since F-35 is not optimized against L-band/VHF/UHF bands which are used in AWACS AC and is deficient in IR and sound stealth. Which means it will lose its stealth advantage in environment saturated with IR/low-band radars/ground observers.
L-band = obsolete stealth. And yet… PAK FA, J-20, J-31, Taranis, Neuron, SKAT, UCAS…
Its amazing how quickly some people forgot that Air superiority battle is attrition one.
Have the US, Russia, China, UK, Israel, Japan, South Korea etc forgotten, because they’re all pursuing fifth gen fighters despite the availability of advanced fourth gen options.
VnomadYou are reading the document incorrectly, those 112.861 US$ million (has i´ve stated) are for a 2015 contracted aircraft (delivered in 2017), thats LRIP 09, not LRIP 07.
Cheers
You’re right. My mistake. So its $120M for an aircraft ordered this year and $112M for one ordered next year.
Cheers.
VnomadAll this talk about survivability but survivability to what end? This isn’t air policing or expeditionary operations against a mid/lower rung military.
Since the aircraft operate dispersed they can’t be knocked out of the battle with a strike against the airbase? Okay.
But can it blunt an enemy air offensive. 30 years ago it was possible for fighters to go up in the air encounter a foe, maneuver till fuel ran low and return to base calling it a draw. But since the enemy op was checked the mission could be deemed a success. How likely is that situation today with the widespread employment of HMS, high off-boresight IIR seeking SRAAMs with LOAL capability, thrust vectoring and a laser fuzes?
And how do you hide in today’s net centric aerial battlefield? Lets say the enemy inducts 2 AWACS and refueler into the theatre. 24 hour coverage. With escorts. How do you get close enough to take a shot at that? 30 years ago you could have used ground clutter for concealment. Not really feasible against today’s ground mapping AESAs, not to mention the range of your missile shots will be reduced to nothing.
Point is this notion of guerilla air warfare is a tough call in an environment that can be (near) saturated with hostile sensors. And if its the only option (presumably until allies arrive), the aircraft you want is the one that can remain (relatively) unseen.
VnomadJaguar IMs have been integrated with Harpoons already. There was a picture of one during a test flight from HAL airport in Bangalore.
Yes. Said so in my post. Everything integrated except new engine and Derby.
VnomadAs of now though the spec for the Jags is pretty basic right? No PGM or all weather capability?
All weather capable. Has been capable of PGM delivery through the Litening pod and Paveway IIs for over a decade now. Primary platform for CBU-105 delivery.
The plan was/is to upgrade/refurbish it with a full glass cockpit, HOTAS, new avionics, radar, HMS, ASRAAM, Litening G4, a new Honeywell engine, Harpoons (for IM variants) and possibly the Derby. The engine & Derby are yet to be ordered, everything has been integrated (cockpit might only be partial glass though).
VnomadI tend to agree. At this point it’s too far out to tell, and the minister will be off in retirement, beating himself with birch twigs and leaping into icy water.
F-18s were expected to operate for about 28 to 30 years in RAAF service (84-90 to 15-18). Finland ordered its Hornets in 1992. Assuming they don’t want to put it through a SLEP they’d probably be aiming to come to a broad decision by 2020.
The Finnish Air Force has been pushing for an even earlier call.
Air Force is hoping to create new fighter procurement
The Air Force wants the Parliament to decide in the next term of current Hornet fighter renewal.
Flying Hornets end no later than in 2030, but the Air Force believes that the new order, the fifth-generation fighters should be done by 2015.
The Air Force is interested in, among other things, a new generation of F-35 fighters, which are not shown on the radar. Their price is about $ 70 million apiece, or they cost about half as much as the current Hornets.
The Air Force is also interested in still on the drawing board the unmanned machines, which are channeled to the ground. Even today, drones are used for reconnaissance, but there is machines that match the characteristics of fighters.
VnomadPersonally, I think 200 a year in 2019 (order year) is unlikely.
But LockMart is telling the Canadians to bet on it…
Its 150 in 2019 acc to the chart. Assuming it refers to orders instead of deliveries, its… possible. Most foreign orders will come in the 2018-2023 period and that’s likely to be over 500 units.
In any case the GAO report, unlike an LM (marketing) estimate, would generally be more reliable.
VnomadAccording to the article it is pertaining to the DARIN III prototype already flying.
Oh okay. Just went through it again. They were talking about completion of upgrades on all aircraft by 2019. All the same… makes more sense to up the Tejas orders. At $26 million it’ll still be cheaper than the Jaguar on a per hour basis.
VnomadAs for the Finns, there are two translations for the minister’s remarks.
In that case, he says “if [not ‘when’] we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price.” And he can’t do that and never will be able to.
The minister is likely well aware of that fact, but this how the ground work is usually laid. Announcing a definite future acquisition of the F-35 would have opened him up for a torrent of criticism. But attaching a ‘same cost’ rider allows Finnish delegations to start visiting F-35 production sites and speak to US/LM reps without eyebrows being raised.
When the time for the acquisition comes around, the aircraft’s controversies would have, if not died down, definitely lost steam. Plus costs would lower and stealth platforms would have entered widespread service. Shouldn’t be too difficult to justify an F-35 purchase at that stage.
Sign In
