Kramer, im not sure if this F-16/paf/neg image argument carries any weight??? Surely such an argument should rule US out. But that’s unlikely to happen. On another note Mig-21 had a very neg public image just a few years ago. Did that have any impact on its service in IAF?

Still some discrepncies in numbers with Pak press claiming 18 new birds being ordered and US DOD stating 12.

Im not sure if the document is an indication of a ‘NEW’ contract (beyond the first 18). I know its the number ’12’ (and not 18) that might confuse some, but it could simply mean that Pakistan has paid in full for the first 6 machines so far (look at the date of publication – July 2010)??? As for the article from The News talking about ’18 ADDITIONAL’ machines, I think the author has it mixed up. Unless im forgetting something, the contract for 18 new machines was also signed during General Musharraf era but he only speaks of re-furbished machines during that time. In my personal opinion, discussion for exercising that option are going on, but there is no solid contract as of yet…or at least I have not come across any solid source mentioning anything about it.

Internet chat and some Pakistani news reports suggest that PAF will receive 10 Block 52s (delayed due to flood situation in Pakistan) sometime in November (bringing the total to 14…the remaining 4 to be delivered at a later date). On a side note, PAF is also said to be negotiating for another 14 new Block 52s (they did have an option of 18 though there were some reports about its cancellation???)…and unless im mistaken another 12-14 older models would be acquired in future.

I hope you accept that a Saab presentation made to another Air Force is official data ? If so, the Gripen C is 6800 kgs and Gripen D is 7100 kgs empty weight.

Kramer, there are plenty of brochures etc that confirm these figures. But that was not my point. Whatever Gripen’s empty weight is, it bein overweight has never been an issue, i.e. it was within the intended targetted range/acceptable.

With additional capabilities, F-16 gained in empty weight. This fact was known, was acceptable & so never was an issue. wrt LCA, someone forgot to mention or convince others that it will gain in weight with changing goal posts, & so it became an issue.

If one looks at the recent LCA engine deal, then July 2011 for MMRCA seems to be too soon. It appears (and please correct me if Im wrong on this) that the engine decision was based on L1 (Im sure this L1 system must have some sort of in-built mechanism for technology consideration, i.e. it just simply cant be the cheapest ‘always’ if some technoloies are vastly superiors to others). Now there would be commercial discussions followed by a period of 121 days to GE to get ToT clearances from the government. And if all goes well the final contract would be signed probably during secod half of next year??? MMRCA deal is much bigger and involves a lot more complexities. And unless the initial decision has already been taken with discussions already underway, or it has taken a different route vis-a-vis engine deal, July 2011 apears to be a tad bit too close…unless of course its the initial stage, i.e. awarding the initial contract with commercial and other discussions including clearances to follow.

Cool it guys. Both IAF & PAF are trying to reduce the no! of op. types, and while meeting some success both have their own challenges in this regard. It will take PAF another decade or so to reduce it to 3 or so types. IAF with having twice as many fighters would take a longer & is likely to retain 4-5 types.

End of the story.