Military Acquisitions, Partnerships & Developments

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 04 Oct 2014 09:12

IMO isnt this "Middle Man" essentially a cruder form of an Investment Banker? This world unfortunately does not exist without brokers.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 04 Oct 2014 10:13

^^^ I have worked with a firm which was in a similar role. Even when not authorized by the government, these firms have at their top or as part of their owners people very close to government or people part of the government. So till about May 14, it did not matter what the rule was, the agents freely participated 'unofficially'.

arun · Post by **arun** » 11 Oct 2014 17:08

X Posted from the Coastguard thread.

Coastguard commissions 11th Griffon 8000TD(M) Hovercraft, H-197:

11th Hovercraft for Coast Guard inducted into service

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Oct 2014 18:35

I think some Indian private industries should take stakes in these companies..

http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... Id=1828859

Israel Government in 2015 will seek to sell a minority stake in Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd., Israel Railways Corporation Ltd., Israel Electric Corporation Limited, Mekorot Water Co. Ltd., The Israel Postal Company Ltd., Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., Israel Military Industries Ltd, Haifa Port Company Ltd., Ashdod Port Company LTD and Israel Natural Gas Lines Ltd. with proceeds expected at ILS 4 billion. The ministry said some companies would be sold through the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange while others would be sold at one time or in stages in a private sale.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 23 Oct 2014 06:14

Reliance, Tatas, Adani, AV Birla group are all stitting on a huge pile of cash... I think if allowe (by Israelis and encouraged by Modiji), they would queue up for this... A senior honco in Ficci quipped, "Now Indian companies have improved their margins by 10%, after UPA-II", sky is the limit for Indian companies...

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Oct 2014 10:05

http://www.janes.com/article/44825/isla ... t-failures

This has included a photograph of a GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb that was purportedly dropped near Kobane sometime on or before 2 October. The photograph shows that the SDB's wings, rear fin assembly, and fuze were torn off when it hit the ground, but its warhead did not explode.

If two of the 47 TLAMs fired by the US Navy crashed on the way to their targets it would represent a failure rate of just more than 4%.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Oct 2014 11:10

We could maybe consider some thing more multi purpose like the Karel Doorman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Door ... pport_ship

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2014 11:34

munitions will fail to a certain %. doesnt change the fact they are mostly deadly effective against outfits like ISIS with no air defence.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Oct 2014 17:41

Centre gives nod to defence projects worth Rs 80,000 cr - The Hindu

Defence projects worth a whopping Rs 80,000 crore were on Saturday cleared by the government. Six submarines will be made indigenously and over 8,000 Israeli anti-tank guided missiles and 12 upgraded Dornier surveillance aircraft will be purchased.

The decisions were taken following a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council, chaired by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley that lasted for over two hours with Defence Secretary, the Chiefs of all three services, DRDO Chief and other senior officials attending it.

The bulk of the decisions went in favour of the Navy that was in dire need of up-gradation and capability enhancement.

The big ticket step was the decision to build six submarines in India at a cost of about Rs.50,000 crore rather than source it from outside.

The other major decision was to purchase 8,356 Anti Tank Guided Missile of Israel worth Rs 3,200 crore rather than the US’ Javelin missile for the Indian Army. The Army will also purchase 321 launchers for the missile.

Another 12 Dornier surveillance aircraft with enhanced sensors will also be bought from the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd at a cost of Rs 1,850 crore.

The DAC also decided to buy 362 infantry fighting vehicle from the Ordinance Factory Board, Medak in West Bengal for Rs 662 crore.

Giving details of the decision to make the six submarines in the country, official sources said a committee will now be formed by the Defence Ministry which will study both public and private shipyards over the next 6-8 weeks.

Following this, the Ministry will issue Request for Proposal (RFP) to specific port that will be identified on the basis of the study which will look into whether they have the capacity and manpower to build six submarines in the same port only besides other parametres.

The submarines will be Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) capable that will enable them to stay underwater for longer than a conventional submarine besides having enhanced stealth features.

The Navy currently has 13 operational submarines and the target set in 1999 was to have 24 by 2030.

The previous UPA government had gone in for six Scorpene submarines and the first is likely to be delivered only in 2016.

The decision to manufacture the submarines in India is in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make in India’ pitch.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 25 Oct 2014 18:01

If Javelin is given a pass, then it is a failure of intensive US lobbying over the year to pressure India. John Kerry and Hagel were personally lobbying for this deal.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 25 Oct 2014 18:36

Updated on the Hindu article:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/d ... epage=true

The submarines will have the capacity to be equipped with land attack cruise missiles.

The DAC also decided to buy 1,761 units of five spoke 7.5 tonne radio containers at the cost of Rs 662 crore besides acquiring 1,768 critical rolling stock — open and closed wagons for transport of military equipments at a cost of Rs 740 crore. Both will go to domestic vendors.

"National security paramount"

During his address to those attending the meeting, Mr. Jaitley said national security was paramount concern for the government.

He added that all hurdles and bottlenecks in the procurement process should be addressed expeditiously so that the pace of the acquisition is not stymied.

The DAC also approved the purchase of equipments for special operations for the Navy which remained classified.

Sources said it is basically for the elite Naval commandos Marcos.

The decision for the purchase of torpedos for the scorpene submarines and heavy calibre guns were put off on Saturday on technical grounds, sources said,adding that they are likely to be cleared soon.

...
In a recent conference of top commanders of the armed forces, Mr. Jaitley had said that the process of military acquisitions, which had slowed down due to “some controversies”, will be speeded up with at least one meeting per month of DAC.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 25 Oct 2014 18:41

SSridhar wrote:Centre gives nod to defence projects worth Rs 80,000 cr - The Hindu
from the Ordinance Factory Board, Medak in West Bengal for Rs 662 crore.

Wow, quality of The Hindu editors is going down or some Chinese are doing the work for Chindu? Medak in West Bengal?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Oct 2014 19:03

So, 50000 cr for subs, another 2000 for mpa, 3200 for Atgms, 1400 for IFV and transports; where is the other 20000cr going?

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Oct 2014 19:13

NDTV is reporting midget submarines ...
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/6-mad ... res-611805

The Defence Acquisition Council of India today cleared defence deals worth Rs. 80,000 crore. The deal includes the acquisition of six conventional submarines to augment the aging and depleted submarine fleet and two midget submarines -- also known as 'Swimmer Delivery Vehicles' - which are used for special operations.

The midget submarines weigh less than 150 tons and are smaller than conventional submarines. They can carry between 8 to 24 fully armed commandos, who are ejected through the torpedo tubes some miles away from the target, from where they can swim towards their target, complete the mission and swim back; this is why they are also called 'Swimmer Delivery Vehicles'.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 25 Oct 2014 19:18

Wrt Defence acquisitions, in about 5 months Prime Minister Namo and Def Min Arun Jaitley have probably taken more critical decisions than UPA took in their 10 years. Seriously A K Antony is looking like an eunuch now.

member_19648 · Post by **member_19648** » 25 Oct 2014 19:19

OFB produced which IFV? Is,it abhay? Thought it was only a TD, it would have been good if they had considered a pvt co for the order.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 25 Oct 2014 19:28

Russian BMP

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Oct 2014 19:34

Okay, so more Diwali gifts to.come for jingo. Guess the Israeli upgrade for the bmp is on?

Will · Post by **Will** » 25 Oct 2014 22:07

The decision for the purchase of torpedos for the scorpene submarines and heavy calibre guns were put off on Saturday on technical grounds, sources said,adding that they are likely to be cleared soon.

Which heavy calibre guns are these?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Oct 2014 01:18

Naval

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 26 Oct 2014 01:35

Lacm ability via vl tubes or torpedo tubes?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 Oct 2014 07:11

Paul wrote:If Javelin is given a pass, then it is a failure of intensive US lobbying over the year to pressure India. John Kerry and Hagel were personally lobbying for this deal.

Last time, the US Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer resigned a day after MMRCA went to Rafael.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 26 Oct 2014 08:10

Quoting in full:

‘Midgets’ on navy mind

New Delhi, Oct. 25: The defence ministry today ordered the building of midget submarines, also called “manned torpedoes”, a super-special project to deliver and recover commandos in twos and threes.

Going by the innocuous abbreviation SOB/SDV, which expands to “special operations boats/swimmer delivery vehicle”, the two midget submarines ordered to be built in an Indian shipyard have been approved for an initial cost of Rs 2,000 crore.

The navy projected a need for midget submarines, which weigh less than 150 tonnes, after the 26/11 attacks.

In a typical operation involving midgets, the commandos in it “swim out” of either a larger vessel (a ship or a larger submarine) or a berth at a coast, go underwater to the intended target, attach mines and return to base without giving up their location. Midget submarines are capable only of short-range operations.

The navy’s marine commandos (MARCOS) will be expected to be given the midgets, which are also called “Chariots”.

The decision to order the midgets marks the revival of a nearly 45-year-old project. A few were also acquired and based in Mumbai in 1975, a few years after Pakistan’s navy too acquired midgets from an Italian firm.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 26 Oct 2014 11:49

Kakkaji wrote:Quoting in full:

‘Midgets’ on navy mind

New Delhi, Oct. 25: The defence ministry today ordered the building of midget submarines, also called “manned torpedoes”, a super-special project to deliver and recover commandos in twos and threes.

Going by the innocuous abbreviation SOB/SDV, which expands to “special operations boats/swimmer delivery vehicle”, the two midget submarines ordered to be built in an Indian shipyard have been approved for an initial cost of Rs 2,000 crore.

The navy projected a need for midget submarines, which weigh less than 150 tonnes, after the 26/11 attacks.

In a typical operation involving midgets, the commandos in it “swim out” of either a larger vessel (a ship or a larger submarine) or a berth at a coast, go underwater to the intended target, attach mines and return to base without giving up their location. Midget submarines are capable only of short-range operations.

The navy’s marine commandos (MARCOS) will be expected to be given the midgets, which are also called “Chariots”.

The decision to order the midgets marks the revival of a nearly 45-year-old project. A few were also acquired and based in Mumbai in 1975, a few years after Pakistan’s navy too acquired midgets from an Italian firm.

On a related note, L&T was showcasing it's proposal for coastal submarines a while back. Hopefully they have got something similar for this project.

chandanus · Post by **chandanus** » 26 Oct 2014 13:26

India-Russia jet deal hits turbulence over 'technical worries'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... rries.html

arun · Post by **arun** » 28 Oct 2014 17:16

X Posted from the "Transport Aircraft for the IAF" thread.

Airbus press release. C295 offered for the Avro Replacement programme:

Airbus Defence and Space and Tata Advanced Systems bid for the Indian Air Force’s Avro replacement programme

28/10/2014

Companies will offer Airbus C295 under new teaming arrangement.

Airbus Defence and Space and Tata Advanced Systems (TASL) have submitted a joint bid to replace the Indian Air Force´s fleet of Avro aircraft with the market-leading Airbus C295 medium transport.

The teaming follows a detailed industrial assessment and stringent evaluation of the Indian private aerospace sector by Airbus Defence and Space, which concluded with the selection of Tata Advanced Systems as the Indian Production Agency (IPA) exclusive partner for this prestigious programme.

A total of 56 Avro aircraft are to be replaced. In the event of contract award, Airbus Defence and Space will supply the first 16 aircraft in ‘fly-away’ condition from its own final assembly line. The subsequent 40 aircraft will be manufactured and assembled by Tata Advanced Systems in India. This will include undertaking structural assembly, final aircraft assembly, systems integration and testing, and management of the indigenous supply chain.

Airbus Defence and Space Executive Vice President Military Aircraft, Domingo Ureña Raso, said: “We firmly believe that, in the C295, we have clearly the best aircraft to replace the IAF Avro fleet and, in Tata Advanced Systems, we have secured the cream of the Indian private aerospace sector as our partner for this project.

“The C295 is a superbly reliable and tough aircraft with outstanding economics which is proven in the most difficult operating conditions all over the world. It has already been ordered by 19 countries, many of which have placed repeat orders. And just this year it has dominated the market with orders for no fewer than 20 aircraft from five countries.”

Mr. S. Ramadorai, Chairman,Tata Advanced Systems, said, “We are extremely pleased to announce our partnership with Airbus Defence and Space for the Avro replacement programme for the Indian Air Force. It is a landmark for the development of aircraft manufacturing capability in India, now that Tata Advanced Systems is poised to take this step toward building entire aircraft in India. The selection of Tata Advanced Systems by Airbus demonstrates the confidence that has been built in our ability to undertake this complex programme."

Clicky

bharats · Post by **bharats** » 28 Oct 2014 19:01

To Counter China, Indian BrahMos Missiles, Patrol Boats for Vietnam?
By Sudhi Ranjan Sen
Link: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/to-co ... nam-612652

Will India sell military hardware, including BrahMos cruise missiles, to Vietnam? The move, which will definitely be viewed as hostile by China, will be the key point of discussion during Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung's two day visit to India, which starts today.

Equipping Vietnam - which is at the forefront of the escalating confrontation in South China Sea - with BrahMos may be interpreted by Beijing as a direct military intervention. BrahMos is primarily an anti-ship missile. Developed jointly with Russia, it is being manufactured by India. The previous UPA government had refused to sell military hardware to Vietnam. The question that confronts the Narendra Modi-led NDA government now is whether it would bite the bullet.Despite objections from China and the dispute about territorial limits in the South China Sea, India has fished in troubled waters, acquiring two oil blocks from Vietnam. And though China claims they are within its territorial waters, India has persisted with the exploration despite finding them commercially unviable.

As New Delhi widens the arc of its "Look- East" policy - building long-term strategic engagement in trade and military - Vietnam is emerging as one of key pillars. Last month, days before Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India, India had extended extended a $100 million (around Rs. 600 crore) export credit to Vietnam for defence deals during the visit of President Pranab Mukerjee to Vietnam.

At the end of his four-day visit, the two countries, in a joint statement, said the credit line would allow increased defence cooperation and the details of what Vietnam would buy from India will soon be finalised. Although New Delhi is tightlipped, sources said Vietnam is interested in buying Off-Shore Patrol (OPVs) vessels from India too. It is understood Vietnam wants four OPVs, which would be used to police the South China Seas.

India is already training the Vietnam Navy personnel in - among other things - operating the Russian-origin Kilo-class submarine. So far it has trained over 500 personnel of the Vietnamese Navy. But Hanoi wants more. In addition, India and Vietnam could arrive at an agreement to launch Vietnam's satellites into space. India is also keen on establishing a satellite tracking, data reception and processing centre in Ho Chi Minh city.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Nov 2014 22:15

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 4m 4 minutes ago

288 BMP-2 based armoured ambulances are on order with OF Medak.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 05 Nov 2014 01:24

^^ Why the trepidation in arming Vietnam ? Without cheap Chinese imports Pakis would have been toothless and let's not forget emergency shipment of 40 fighters to Pakistan during our last standoff.

Business is Business and as long as we are making money then why the heck not? Plus point been that Vietnam is not dominated by Islam like Malaysia and Indonesia. Supplying to Islamic states is tricky as US is finding out - they will default to supporting their Kin, no matter how egregious the crime.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Nov 2014 11:09

Should be a wake up call on how FMS procurements work out ...for lesser cost

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... de-406054/

BAE claims South Korea blames the company not for violation of the initial agreement, but on its “inability to force the US government to withdraw its proposed price increases”.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 16 Nov 2014 17:27

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iraq_se ... s_999.html

Iraq seeks rockets, vehicle spare parts
by Richard Tomkins
Washington (UPI) Nov 13, 2014

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only

The U.S. Congress has been notified that Foreign Military sales deals are in the works for Iraq for spare parts and more than 20,000 laser-guided rockets.

The required notifications were made by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which said both possible contracts -- worth a combined total of $697 million -- had already won approval from the U.S. State Department.

The proposed sales "will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner," the agency said, and "directly supports the government of Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and the United States."

The first deal, worth an estimated $600 million, is a Foreign Military Sales Order II contract to provide funds for blanket order requisitions under a Cooperative Logistics Supply Agreement.

The CLSSA is for spare parts to support M1A1 tanks, M1070 heavy equipment tactical trucks, M88A1/2 tank recovery vehicles, M113 vehicles, M198 towed Howitzers, M109A5 self-propelled Howitzers, High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles, and heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks.

Spare parts and other items covered include heavy and light machine guns, common repair sets, and additional authorized items with associated equipment and services.

"Iraq requires continuing procurement and repair of spare parts through the U.S. Government's FMSO II program in order to maintain its military fleets of tanks, vehicles, and other associated equipment," DSCA said. "The spare parts and repair sets to be procured under this proposed sale are critical for maintaining these ground transportation vehicles in operational condition."

The principal contractor would be General Dynamics Land Systems in Michigan. U.S. government or contractor representatives would not be required to travel to Iraq.

The second proposed contract is for as many as 20,000 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems, or APKWS, and associated equipment, parts and logistical support.

The APKWS is a 70mm Hydra rocket fitted with a laser guidance and control section between the warhead and rocket motor with standard tools. It is fired from helicopters.

"The proposed sale will improve Iraq's capacity to sustain security operations and strengthen its internal and external defense capabilities," DSCA told Congress. "The sale of APKWS will increase the Iraqi Army Aviation Command's ability to carry out operations against terrorist forces while significantly reducing risk to civilians."

Included in the sales package would be weapon and test support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, transportation, and technical and logistics support services.

BAE Systems in New Hampshire would be the principal contractor. Multiple trips to Iraq by U.S. government and contractor representatives would be required over a three-year period for program management, technical reviews, training, maintenance support, and site surveys, the agency said.

Coincidently, the FMS notifications follow a Department of Defense statement that it will not deliver F-16 fighter aircraft to Iraq due to the security situation in the country, where the government is battling the terrorist army of ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is also known by the acronym ISIS.

Eight F-16 Fighting Falcons were procured by Iraq through the FMS program and the first three were to be delivered next month to Balad Air Base, located in the so-called Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad. Gains in the area by ISIS, however, forced the evacuation of contractors from the base who were to have provided support for the aircraft.

The planes are now to be delivered to a U.S. Air Force base in Arizona, where Iraqi pilots are training on F-16s.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 17 Nov 2014 06:43

US firm set to pocket navy's copter contract

New Delhi, Nov. 16: US firm Sikorsky looks set to bag an Indian Navy order for 16 multi-role helicopters (MRH) and place itself as the top contender for another order for 123 helicopters in deals totalling billions of dollars

The 16 MRHs, for which contract negotiations have begun, would be imported under the US Pentagon's foreign military sales programme. Under the terms of a new policy, the next 100-plus "naval multi-role helicopters" (called NMRH to distinguish them from the first order even though the technical specifications are likely to be the same) would be under the "make in India" condition.

If Sikorsky emerges as the selected partner, it would be expected that it will collaborate with an Indian firm to create manufacturing facilities in India to supply the NMRHs.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 19 Nov 2014 10:08

RM Manohar Parrikar's interview with EconomicTimes

He definitely seems to be a man of action. Sounds very hands on - just what India needed after 10 yrs of St Antony's inaction.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Nov 2014 11:49

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/535005276110209024

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618

The purchases from the United States have yielded nothing for India except unmet offset requirements and skewed capital budgets.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 22 Nov 2014 08:03

India scraps Rs 2,700-crore deal to acquire minesweeper from South Korean company

NEW DELHI: The Defence Ministry has scrapped the Rs 2,700-crore deal for acquiring two minesweeper vehicles from a South Korean firm after it was found that there were violations of tender conditions as agents were in the play.

The Ministry has terminated the tender for the Mine Countermeasure Vessels (MCMVs) and has written a letter to South Korean firm Kangnam Shipyard.

Sources said the Defence Acquisition Council, which will meet on Saturday, will decide the next course of action.

The sources said GSL could be asked to build eight such specialised vessels with foreign collaboration through a fresh tender in which Kangnam could also participate as the firm has not been banned.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Nov 2014 08:15

Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/535005276110209024

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618

The purchases from the United States have yielded nothing for India except unmet offset requirements and skewed capital budgets.

In one of his tweets he says " One C-130J has crashed already. Of course it was only pilot error as always, wasn't it?" . ". Way to go Mr Smarty pants..I guess anyone can say anything when one doesn't have to prove it.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 22 Nov 2014 08:28

brar_w wrote:...

In one of his tweets he says " One C-130J has crashed already. Of course it was only pilot error as always, wasn't it?" . ". Way to go Mr Smarty pants..I guess anyone can say anything when one doesn't have to prove it.

While S Jha is good to follow on technical developments of weapon systems and platforms in India, his biases make his reporting unreliable specially when dealing with analysis, cause, effect, etc of the Services. Not the first instance and I am sure we will see more.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 22 Nov 2014 08:33

brar_w wrote:
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618

The purchases from the United States have yielded nothing for India except unmet offset requirements and skewed capital budgets.

In one of his tweets he says " One C-130J has crashed already. Of course it was only pilot error as always, wasn't it?" . ". Way to go Mr Smarty pants..I guess anyone can say anything when one doesn't have to prove it.[/quote]

So you dispute his claims on unmet offset requirements. Care to offer some substantive proof that he's wrong?

Otherwise you may find..

brar_w wrote:I guess anyone can say anything when one doesn't have to prove it.

to be quite applicable to your claims in these fora isn't it?

Looks like Saurav Jha really touched a raw nerve with you...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Nov 2014 08:39

So you dispute his claims on unmet offset requirements. Care to offer some substantive proof that he's wrong?

I did not even raise the issue of the unmet offsets. I clicked on the twitter handle to check what this journo was tweeting about. I could give you my opinion on the matter, but even that would require at least some sort of evidence. A tweet without any substance to it really doesn't count. Do I need to start giving my opinion on each and every tweet of his ever made? As far as that goes, it is a legal matter. If indeed offsets have not been met, the proper way to deal with it is take the matter up through legal channels. You know with the parties that agreed to meet the offsets in the first place. Blacklist them if necessary, but at least investigate this legally with proper representation. Kind of tough to do this just based on a tweet. If he has something that is clear, he should do proper investigative journalism, or move into the court through a Public interest litigation or something. If it is just something he heard, someone say and felt like tweeting it..then its up to his "followers" to be smart enough to take it for what its worth

Care to offer some substantive proof that he's wro

On what offsets or the C-130 comment? If the former, I cannot, only folks that can offer you proof are the parties that signed the offset agreement and those that have any grievance about it. If it is the latter, what sort of proof do you want me to provide? I can say whatever I want about the C-130 crash, heck the Martians did it. Now go and find proof to prove me wrong. The bottom line is that the C-130's safety record on the global fleet is quite open. Multiple nations operate it. Clearly this person is not fond of the US, or India buying anything from them, so even the C-130 that is a proven and reliable aircraft couldn't be spared. It must be something wrong with the Technical ability of the aircraft, because it is American...the overall tone of his tweet was what caught my attention and what reeks of a bias.

A general rule regarding off the cuff remarks that spread around twitter is that the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation not on the person who goes up to that person and says..You have made so and so allegation, can you provide something to substantiate that claim? If I tell you that that India and the US have worked a secret deal to acquire F-16's and you come to me asking for evidence..And I tell you to go find evidence that a secret deal has not been struck..How would you feel

.

to be quite applicable to your claims in these fora isn't it?

I am not a journalist who covers the defense sector, nor what I say gets passed along as something that is accurate enough to be spread around as if it were gospel.

The only time I do not do my best to provide detailed references in support of my comments is when I am stating an opinion. Of course an opinion is usually just that, and most folks here are intelligent enough to treat that as a discussion. I may hold a different opinion to Karan or Austin, but I hardly go around asking them for proof on their opinion. One simply takes that as a different view point and moves on. I don't start treating their opinion as if its an established scientific piece of work and start linking posts to it.. or expect them to do the same on my opinion.

Having said that, if there is any post of mine that is not an OPINION and deals with technical matters, where I have not provided reasonable references, do call me out and I will do my best to dig those for you.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Nov 2014 00:18

kit wrote:Should be a wake up call on how FMS procurements work out ...for lesser cost

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... de-406054/

BAE claims South Korea blames the company not for violation of the initial agreement, but on its “inability to force the US government to withdraw its proposed price increases”.

It serves as a wake up call for all those Private corporations that are looking at doing business outside of there traditional sphere of influence. BaE along with Boeing have chosen to invest in creating a program to upgrade Lockheed built F-16's. That deal has components, that BaE can upgrade, that the engine makers can upgrade and still yet other that only lockheed martin can upgrade. The workaround for this for these private firms is to :

A ) License or procure limited rights to overhauling and upgrading systems owned by Lockheed martin
B ) Source that bit of work to lockheed martin
C ) Develop a hybrid upgrade and modernization model whereby the work is split between the OEM and you
D ) Have systems in house to completely replace the lockheed systems

In this case, BaE failed to properly account for the piece of work that was to be carried over by Lockheed, and the IP to which was owned by the US Department of Defense because they funded its development. There could be an easy work-around for this. BaE should have taken the time to incorporate either of the above mentioned things into its program or develop something similar. They did not. As a result of their management decision, the cost that was to be a fixed price contract failed to properly account for the modernization work on the components outside of BaE's sphere of work. As a result SOKO had an opportunity to get out of the deal as most customers would have on a fixed price contract. This can happen to anyone. If for example, HAL exports the LCA and 20 years from now An international corporation decides that it can make some money by modernizing the Tejas but fails to properly account for the fact that some of the stuff inside is actually property of HAL, then it would run into roadblocks. The winner here is Boeing, that now will learn and tweak its own program that lost out to BaE and LMA. Another lesson learnt is that dealing with the pentagon is time consuming and cannot be taken lightly by these private corporations. Its a large organization that takes its good old time to clear things. The upgrade market for the F-16 is large enough, that both the firms will no doubt compete with LMA for more work in the future. After they get their project management and business plan in order.

South Korea in November canceled its contract with BAE, which is now suing the country’s military purchasing authority over the botched deal.

An industry source tells Flightglobal that South Korea dropped BAE because its low bid failed to factor in work it could not perform because of proprietary mission computer equipment owned by Lockheed.

“The reason why you saw failure with one of the primes was that company was not a fighter integrator,” he says. “If you’re a fighter integrator, that’s not a problem. If you look at Raytheon with RACR, they had no F-16 experience, but the harvested knowledge from F-18 and F-15 and won an export contest.”

In the UK, BAE is part of the consortium that developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, but the US-based subsidiary is not a fighter manufacturer.

Boeing has hands-on experience with the F-16 now that it has successfully completed a development programme to convert the jets to remotely piloted drones used for target practice. The company’s success with what is called the QF-16 suggests being a non-OEM is not an insurmountable hurdle.

The proprietary wall that BAE seems to have hit in South Korea is not as high for companies with prior fighter integration experience and would be non-existent by hiring Lockheed to do the work, though non-OEMs have touted their solutions as significantly less expensive. Despite BAE’s ultimate failure to seal a deal with South Korea, the episode at least demonstrates that F-16 operators are open to hiring non-OEMs to upgrade their jets, the source says.

As mentioned, its an issue of having a flawed strategy and was a budgeting issue with a difference in the amount they bid vs the amount that would actually cost. Boeing got around and did the Drone conversion, because the IP was owned by the developer and they simply gave Boeing the authority to do so. If Boeing has to do so for a third party, they simply have to either work with lockheed, seek clearance from the pentagon, or bring lockheed in to do the work on the components which they cannot do so.