Spitfire9LCA mk2 would perhaps be in Gripen NG class; but mk1a seems not.
I thought Tejas Mk2 had been shelved because delivery of light fighters is too urgent to wait for Mk2.
Spitfire9Unless lots of the work is already done………………
Funded by BAE? Turkey through TAI? I don’t recall if Turkey has provided any funding to BAE yet.
Spitfire9DOHA, Qatar — Britain’s defense minister said on Tuesday that a deal to sell Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes to Qatar was “definitely still on the table”.
Michael Fallon, speaking on board a British destroyer anchored in Doha port, said he had held discussions on a possible sale with Qatari officials within the past week.
He added that the deal had not been killed off by a Qatari decision to buy 24 Rafale jets from France.
‘…held discussions on a possible sale with Qatari officials within the past week.’ Why would Qatar possibly be interested in operating 2 different eurocanards? Perhaps the conversation went something like this:
M Fallon: “Are you saying there are no circumstances whatsoever in which you would consider buying Typhoon?”
Qatari officials: “No, we can’t say that.”
Spitfire9The DSA Project Suspended by the DDPS (Swiss acquisition of a new fighter)
The Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) has decided to suspend the air defense project (DSA), pending an overview of the situation in air defense.
In late February, the DDPC announced that an expert group was to prepare a report on the evaluation and acquisition of new fighter aircraft. However, to be effective, an air defense worthy of the name should include other elements, particularly an air-defence system.
Spitfire9Turkey TFX timeline: prototype hoped to be finished 2023
…Ankara is [preparing] to go ahead with its indigenous fighter aircraft program, dubbed TFX, which will require an initial investment of $6-7 billion. Turkey’s military and defense officials are in pre-contract negotiations with U.K.-based BAE Systems for the ambitious program.
Turkey hopes to finish the fighter’s prototype by 2023. By 2019, 80 percent of design, electrical and electronic components, flight, warfare and communications systems and manufacturing plans will have been completed.
“The Turkish plan is a little bit too optimistic,” said one international aerospace expert. “There surely will be numerous anticipated and unanticipated technical glitches along the path. I think the Turks should better devise contingency plans for major delays in this program, beyond what they calculate today.”
“We want this program to proceed flawlessly. We cannot afford to face operational weaknesses due to an aging fleet [of F-16s] and delays in two major fighter programs,” said the Air Force general.
That general is somewhat over-optimistic. It would be the first fighter program I’ve heard of in recent decades that went flawlessly – even when undertaken by the most able companies in the world.
Spitfire9Perhaps SAAB are thinking that it might take another 10 years or more for HAL to deliver 100 Mk1A’s (that might/might not meet specifications) and that India would like some certainty in aircraft being delivered that do what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to be delivered. I think Gripen E could be rolling off an Indian assembly line at most 5 years after India signed a deal with SAAB.
They’d have to build a new assembly line first, with all the requisite tooling. In fact, the main appeal of the F-16 & F-18 is that the equipment at Ft. Worth/St. Louis can be shifted to India significantly reducing the capital costs involved.
Agreed, makes financial sense for India to buy the F-16 production equipment rather than build new for Gripen. However, there appears to be some resistance voiced to F-16 on the grounds that Pakistan is/has been supplied with F-16. Personally, I don’t understand why.
Possibly an angle on MCA as well? Given LCA’s track record, India does not appear to be capable of developing and manufacturing a fast jet with any reasonable adherence to time schedule. If India embarked on MCA without the TOT and guidance of a proficient design and production company, what level of certainty would there be that the project did not overshoot deadline by 10 years or more? A Gripen E deal coupled with an MCA design and production partnership (a la FGFA in which India basically would do very little design work) has its attractions.
So.. basically India would be underwriting a Swedish development program. Duplicating the idiocy of the FGFA project. I doubt that plan would get much traction in New Delhi. If it came down to it, it would make much more sense to scrap the MCA entirely and stick to license-building the PAK FA.
I’ll retract what I said about India doing very little design work for MCA. What I should have said was that India should only design those parts of MCA where local design resources have the skills and knowledge required to do so effectively (including TOT as available from SAAB, where practical).
Spitfire9Swedish aerospace firm Saab reiterated its offer to supply the next generation Gripen-E fighter aircraft to India through the “government-to-government” route and has offered to not only make the aircraft in India but also create the required manufacturing ecosystem in the country as part of the multi-billion dollar project.
Isn’t it too late for SAAB to get a Gripen deal with India, given that there is a commitment to Tejas Mk1A and steps are being taken to ramp production up to 16 per annum?
Perhaps SAAB are thinking that it might take another 10 years or more for HAL to deliver 100 Mk1A’s (that might/might not meet specifications) and that India would like some certainty in aircraft being delivered that do what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to be delivered. I think Gripen E could be rolling off an Indian assembly line at most 5 years after India signed a deal with SAAB.
Possibly an angle on MCA as well? Given LCA’s track record, India does not appear to be capable of developing and manufacturing a fast jet with any reasonable adherence to time schedule. If India embarked on MCA without the TOT and guidance of a proficient design and production company, what level of certainty would there be that the project did not overshoot deadline by 10 years or more? A Gripen E deal coupled with an MCA design and production partnership (a la FGFA in which India basically would do very little design work) has its attractions.
Spitfire9well if they can finalize within a year then it has definitely been expedited!
I don’t see how that is going to work really. According to a report I have read recently, it seems to me that what is to be included in the deal has been finalised, so no more time is required to discuss that. The deal with Dassault and others suppliers (munitions etc) is stalled because India and the suppliers cannot find a price that is acceptable to both customer and suppliers. India can try to persuade the suppliers to hurry up and accept a price they refuse to accept as much as they like but it won’t make any difference. Still, when the suppliers wanted 50% more than India wanted to pay, a deal was clearly (to me) impossible. Now it looks more possible to me, given that India appears to have raised what it is prepared to pay by about $1 billion.
I would give this potential deal a few more months to come about or for the two parties to finally acknowledge that it cannot be done.
Spitfire9The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is voicing opposition to the Pentagon’s plan to manage the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s Block 4 upgrade as a continuation of the existing program. The planned upgrade—which is expected to cost more than $3 billion—is large enough to qualify a major defense acquisition program by itself.
“This modernization effort is like a new program with estimated costs of about $3 billion over the next six years,” Michael Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management issues at GAO, told the House Armed Services Committee on March 23. “That price alone would qualify it as a major defense acquisition program in it own right and it should be managed as such.”
That is the only way to ensure that the Block 4 upgrade is subjected to the proper regulatory and management oversight as well as reporting requirements as any other program, Sullivan said. The F-22 Raptor’s upgrade program is managed as a separate major defense acquisition program.
GAO couldn’t insist on the upgrade being viewed as another program at this stage, could it?
Spitfire9So cherry-picked stolen government docs are your only credible source????
What has he released re:F-35?
F-35 contract: lobbying for the Lockheed Martin plane and with an eye on further contracts, the US Ambassadors to Sweden and Norway recommended export license blocks and high-level advocacy, warning that an adverse decision would ‘weaken one of the strongest pillars of our bilateral relationship’ and damage Norway’s long-term interests.[44][45] In the aftermath of the decision, the Norwegian Deputy Defense Minister said it would be ‘very helpful’ if the US government were to confirm there had been no political pressure to buy the plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Lockheed_Martin
Scurrilous behaviour by the USA (the US ambassador represents the USA, doesn’t he?) + scurrilous behaviour by the Norwegian Deputy Defense Minister in urging that lies be told to cover up. I don’t think Sweden would have been too impressed by underhand US conduct either.
Thanks to Mr Snowden the lack of integrity of the US govt department concerned and of the Norwegian defence ministry in the matter of Norway selecting the F-35 was exposed.
Spitfire9…But let us move back to the original topic which was political pressure/corruption connected with sales to countries like Norway…
Who would represent a reputable source for such matters, in your books? LM company representative?
Edward Snowden.
Spitfire9“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said. “
The guy refers to metrics ie things that can be measured. IIRC one of the concerns about F-35 performance was that its measured sustained turn rate was distinctly unimpressive. So how does F-35 actually compare to Rafale/Typhoon in that respect? If it compares badly, this guy’s opinion cannot be trusted.
which other modern fighter is as rotten as 4.6G for instance ?
Not sure what metric you’re referring to there.
Spitfire9If you are paid to voice an opinion you cannot be expected to voice your opinion.
Spitfire9ps. Yes, the numbers have depleted but I think IAF should take their share of blame for it. There was a time, I thought it was DRDO et al., who promised IAF unreachable deadlines, but with time I’m started to think that IAF probably had more to blamed, especially over the last few years.
How does that work that if you undertake to do something that you cannot do, it’s someone else’s fault that you’ve undertaken to do something you cannot do? I’m talking about a developer/manufacturer promising deadlines that are unreachable. If I’m Airbus or Boeing and I promise a customer delivery on the A380 or 787 in a certain month then discover I cannot do it, how is that the customer’s fault? Why do I have to pay the customer penalties (possibly in the $millions) if it’s not my fault? If you screw up, that’s your problem. Your fault. Your failing. Not the customer’s. End of story in the grown up world. In this case the customer concerned is IAF. They are not to blame if they were promised what could not be delivered.
Spitfire9Thank you for your kind words.
Sign In
