Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 06 Feb 2016 04:33

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 133  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 05:34 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 11978
Location: Crime master Gogo naam hai mera !
Viv S wrote:
Applies to both aircraft. That way you'll never be able to compare any aircraft. It certainly didn't prevent us on the forum from drawing up cost estimates of the EF and Rafale based on their flyaway costs. Shouldn't be a hurdle in this case either.
Even there so what is the price of a F-35 today ?

That is why I am not the one who is emphasizing on the fly away cost price unless we have bought the two or have been made an offer. The cost of 126 Rafales to us is being pegged at ~11 billion USD and this includes offsets so a significant amount of that figure will be against helping HAL setup facilities here.
Quote:
Engines are budgeted for separately (P&W contract). Conventional F135 is priced at $16 mil, VTOL at $38 mil.
F-35A flyaway cost is therefore $114 million. During LRIP. When its not in full production.
Compare it to the flyaway cost of the Rafale - $140 mil/unit (2011). Lets say $130 mil for the Rafale C.

:) Now that F-35 consortium has recently made in fresh orders you get to play with numbers , koi nahin will concede this point for time being.


Quote:
I'd imagine the majority of bird hits would take place on take-off or landing i.e. similar flight profiles. But lets say that the Rafale being twin engined is somewhat safer to fly.
Bird hit is just one of the incidents which cause an engine flameout, it could be anything from a FOD to say sharpnel caught in the inlet or just a failure of one of those hudreds of moving parts inside an engine. As I said there is no arguing on aspects like these there is a reason why all USN jets are 2 engined.


Quote:
I'm talking about free-fall delivery being obsolete. And if stand off missiles are the preferred means of delivering a nuclear payload (as they should be), the utility of the Rafale's 'nuclear capability' fades away.

This is an absurd line of argument because stand off by definition implies that you will never be in enemy's range so why F-35 or even Rafale , I will might as well fire a 500km range ASM from a Tu-95 bomber and head home we are going no where with such arguments. Point is not about fitting a platform to your scenario it is about what capabilities that platform offers and to that end F-35's ability to serve as a platform for our nukes is questionable and hence it falls short there.

Quote:
I mentioned the number of aircraft served to illustrate the fact that any problem identified during operations isn't just India's problem, its a problem for each of the 15+ operators of the F-35.

No that is not how things work in the real world, BMW runs far better in Germany's autobahns and US freeways it will not run in similar fashion on India's roads.
If you visit are airfields even the IN's main aviation hub in Dabolim has a pretty bumpy airfield. F-35 hangars in the US look like some state of the art facility we will have to invest huge money for the kind of facilities which are taken for granted in the west.


Quote:
Applies to the Rafale as well.

Yes it does but then these are relative; a panel with a RAM coating built and shaped for F-35 will not cost the same as a panel on the Rafale which is a 4th gen AC. The weapons bay doors and actuators are a very complex sub-system they are supposed to open>eject a weapon at all points in an AC's flight envelope this in itself means as a complete system it too will have a MTBO such things are simply not existent on a 4th gen AC like the Rafale , if a weapon does not separate from the pylon we just bring it back and since the AC is designed to fly with weapons hung from the wings it is not a huge problem but is that the case with Acs like the F-35 when a weapon's bay gets stuck midway ? That huge gaping hole on the underside will simply fck up the entire aerodynamics of the AC.


Quote:
We don't have to give access to military installations or interrupt regular military operations.And as long as we haven't transferred an aircraft to another country or conducted modifications that weren't agreed upon in the contract, its hardly an overbearing concern. That's if the US wants to inspect it, which it doesn't. Plus in all likelihood, they'd be LM/PW support staff attached to the IAF, at least during the initial years. Yes, you'd have to integrate India specific add-on equipment - data-link, IFF. There will be some cost incurred of course, as it will be even in the case of the Rafale.

CISMOA is not just IFF and Data bus it is much more than that entire DAS is replaced.
As for your bolded part you must be kidding me; these things are not even negotiable at least forces in India don't do any such business.
You are being wishful here. Again this is one of those areas where F-35 falls short.


Oh by the way since now that F-35 prices have come down, LM has done some heavy lifting and people are writing good stuff about it and we are witnessing a support for F-35 against an already shortlisted platform like Rafale, I would like to just highlight one key point from the MMRCA trails which the IAF conducted.
Only the Rafale and EF cleared the high altitude tests in Leh and it goes without saying that T/W ratio of the two AC was a key performance spec responsible for that where does the F-35 stand in that department ? This is one more area where it cannot keep up with the Rafale (btw leh trials were with EFTs).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 07:45 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:
The French sold UAE the Black Shaheen. Why would it be strange for them to sell something similar to India if we coughed up the dough? They need not sell us a nuclear warhead directly, just the systems, software, and support that we would need to field one of our own. Like I said, it would be interesting to find out.


We could certain cough up the dough, question is, would we want to? Why give away the contract to the French instead of having a competition for the IAF's Long Range Standoff Weapon, with the Scalp-EG, KEPD 350 as well as the JASSM? Plus there's always the Nirbhay. Even ground launched, with a 1000 km range, it can strike almost any target that you'd hit with a Scalp EG. And you can equip it with a nuclear warhead, without the hassle.

So now we're talking about whether we would want to exercise the capability or not? Sorry, I have no comments to offer on that topic. The debate was about the nuclear strike capability being available, not about whether the IAF would actually choose to pay for such an option.

Viv S wrote:
Quote:
It is also before it can be considered serviceable. It can't fly properly, it couldn't take on a Sopwith Camel in combat, and has dozens of serious issues that are far from solved. How much will it cost to sort these problems out and then bring these "cheap" aircraft to the point where they can undertake a realistic sortie?


Weapons tests have already begun - the first AMRAAM launch took place this year. And basic combat capability will be available with the Block 2B, currently under testing. No problem, serious or minor is being overlooked.

Weapons tests have begun ≠ it can fire weapons. As it stands, the F-35 is prohibited from firing weapons. I have no idea when the tests will be completed and weapons certified to fly on regular sorties. We might see more problems crop up here as well.

Viv S wrote:
Quote:
It cannot fly in bad weather. Cannot fly supersonic. Cannot fire missiles or drop bombs. Cannot fire its guns. Cannot use the advanced HMD. That much touted commonality is a joke. Costs are heavily disputed and some organisations claim that they are higher than 200 million dollars. The proof is there for those who want to see it. Unfortunately, those "firm orders", "projections", and "estimates" that are being spoken and written about so enthusiastically are not solutions.


The F-35A has been flown to Mach 1.61 and touched 9.9G. The F-35B and F-35C have also been tested upto Mach 1.6.

That's your counter-argument? Seriously? That it was once flown at Mach 1.6? How does this in any way change the fact that the airframes produced till date are prohibited from flying at supersonic speed because the radar-absorbing skin peels off?

Viv S wrote:
Its fired missiles and dropped bombs.

See previous. It has fired missiles and dropped bombs in a few tests. Goody. It just can't do that regularly because, guess what? More problems.

Viv S wrote:
The advanced HMD is being used and the jitter issue is expected to be addressed with the next software iteration.

Thank you for helping me make my point.
"The jitter issue is expected to be addressed"
When?
"The next software iteration"
And pray, when would that be ready?
"Don't ask us, we're still struggling to get the first iteration up and running"

Viv S wrote:
The flyway cost for the F-35A has already dropped below $100 million and will fall much further once production ramps up.


The fly-away cost, according to one body, has apparently dropped below $125 million. It may possibly drop below $100 million per airframe (minus the engine, which I assume is an optional extra), but that hasn't yet happened. Others still claim that the real cost has soared past $200 million. All this money for an aircraft that can barely fly and the sum total of whose combat capability is that it could ram an enemy Zeppelin. On a clear, sunny day.

Viv S wrote:
Quote:
Maybe they will chip away at problems bit by bit. Perhaps, one day, the F-35 will be fielded as a combat-capable system instead of just posing for pretty pictures. But from where I stand, it looks like a complete disaster that will extract a heavy toll in terms of time and cost before it reaches that stage. I don't see why the IAF should hitch its wagon to such a program, when it's taking significant risk with the AMCA and FGFA as it is.


A lot of your information is out of date. I think you need to catch up with the latest developments.

And what developments would those be? Firm orders? Estimates? Expectations that long-standing problems will be addressed in the next iteration?


Last edited by Mihir on 24 Oct 2013 08:15, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 07:52 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
NRao wrote:
I would NOT depend on that Vanity Fair article on the F-35. Data is valid, but badly outdated.


Okay, you say that the data presented in that article is outdated. Where is the evidence of the same? Can the F-35 fly in inclement weather? Can it go supersonic? Fire weapons? Use that fancy HMD? Inquiring minds want to know. Let's see some solid data from authentic sources debunk all of those claims instead of the usual hand-waving for once.

NRao wrote:
Quote:
The proof is there for those who want to see it


Where? And please provide dates along with it too. Thx.

Read the Vanity Fair article please. There are many others to be found in magazines and web articles. Few of them have been countered with real data. What we get in response are more estimates and expectations that this time, things will be different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
I say do NOT read that Vanity Fair article and you come back and ask me to read it?

I can provide you with more current info, which is why I asked you to provide me with URLs and DATES.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
OK, here is a partial list of tests conducted in 2013:

https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/testing

Quote:
As of April 30, 2013 flight test totals for 2013, are:

F-35A Flight Sciences: 86 flights
F-35B Flight Sciences: 53 flights
F-35C Flight Sciences: 73 flights
Mission Systems test aircraft: 117 flights
Total: 329

Key flight test accomplishments to-date in the program include:
F-35 Mission Systems

Night Instrument Meteorological Conditions
Link-16 Communication for tactical data exchange between the F-35 and supporting forces with Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and multiple support aircraft
Countermeasures Separations
Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) Combat Laser Testing
Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Night Vision Camera testing, including operation during F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing mode night missions

F-35A

Completed clean wing flutter testing reaching speeds of 1.6 Mach and 700 knots with weapon bay doors open and closed
Night flight and night aerial refueling
Completed high angle of attack testing with external stores
Completed intentional departure testing with symmetric external air-to-air stores
Accomplished first high alpha tail slides

Inert weapon releases: GBU-31, AIM-120, GBU-12

F-35B

Flown at maximum speed of 1.6 Mach
Night flight and night vertical landing
Slow landing in short takeoff/vertical landing mode with external stores and 25mm gun pod
First developmental test of ship suitability testing with 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings on the USS Wasp
Inert weapon releases: GBU-32, GBU-12, AIM-120

F-35C

Flown at maximum speed of 1.6 Mach
Night flight
Land-based steam and electromagnetic catapult launches
Land-based fly-in arrestments
Carrier approach and bolter handling qualities
Completed initial pit weapon drop testing ground trials


Let me know if you do not trust this web site.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:17 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
negi wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE98Q18720130927

Quote:
The Pentagon's F-35 program office said the cost of each F-35 conventional takeoff A-model jet would drop to $98 million in the seventh batch of jets, excluding the engine, from $103 million in the sixth lot.

So this would be the tow-away cost, and not the fly-away cost, ja?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:27 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 11071
Mihir wrote:
So this would be the tow-away cost, and not the fly-away cost, ja?


I see what you did there. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Quote:
Can the F-35 fly in inclement weather?


Late at night, will get back to you in the AM. (Found out that it was grounded due to leaks in the fuel tank - have not foudn anything to do with skin. But, will get back.)

Quote:
Can it go supersonic?


2010 ::
F-35B STOVL Fighter Goes Supersonic


Quote:
Fire weapons?


Jan 2013 :: F-35 fighter jet conducts first in-flight missile launch near L.A.

Quote:
An F-35 fighter jet launched a missile in mid-flight from its internal weapons bay for the first time in a test flight for the Air Force.

The missile firing took place last week about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles at the Navy’s Point Mugu Sea Test Range after the plane took off from Edwards Air Force Base. It is a milestone that paves the way for targeted launches later this year.


Quote:
Use that fancy HMD?


Elbit is working on it (will find the article I posted on the F-35 thread.) should be available in the next software upgrade. However,

Oct, 2013 :: F-35 Fighter Helmets Now Made in Israel


BUT, I am extremely surprised (YOU are Mihir Shah right - of Shiv Arror fame?) that someone like you would not do enough donkey work by yourself.

The F-35 WAS a Turkey. It could still slide back into being one, but I doubt it.

Also, as I posted above, here on out, there is NO financial risk for the clients!!!!! So please stop this nonsense about cost over run. They expect it to cost $85 mil per F-35A (A) adn LM will hit that price point. They have to.

Please let me know if I can be of any more help so you can go and post on a web site.


Last edited by NRao on 24 Oct 2013 08:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:35 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
NRao wrote:
I say do NOT read that Vanity Fair article and you come back and ask me to read it?

And why is that? Because it brings inconvenient facts to the fore?

NRao wrote:
Let me know if you do not trust this web site.

Regardless of whether I trust it or not, it doesn't address the problems mentioned in the Vanity Fair article (and several others) in any way. The aircraft can achieve a top speed on Mach 1.6. Good to know. One day, they may even stop the skin from peeling off when it does so. Let me know when the get that problem fixed.

The link just says "Night Instrument Meteorological Conditions". What does that even mean? That the instrumentation for night flying was tested? Was the test successful? Even assuming that the instruments work just fine, can the aircraft as a whole fly in bad weather? The truth is that it can't.

It dropped a few inert bombs. Is it certified to carry and release live ordnance yet? Can it fire it's guns? The answer is no.

Put simply, the data on this site could be 400% accurate and still not counter what Vanity Fair published in September.


Last edited by Mihir on 24 Oct 2013 08:46, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 08:44 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
NRao wrote:


Please see my replies to Viv S. I have addressed these points already?

NRao wrote:
BUT, I am extremely surprised (YOU are Mihir Shah right - of Shiv Arror fame?) that someone like you would not do enough donkey work by yourself.

What fame saar? I wrote a handful of articles on a few defence blogs. I'm surprised that someone still remembers those :oops:


Anyway, my last series of posts on the topic. We're repeating ourselves already, and further discussion would just lead to acrimony without bringing any new info to the fore. Let's just agree to disagree :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 09:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 14270
Location: India
The twin-seat MKI yes,but not the Tejas ,not yet,which still has many years before it becomes a weapon system that the IAF has in its order of battle.

The JSF is being built in so many 3-tier variables for allies,depending upon bum-chum status,that negotiating a version acceptable to the IAF and "exportable" by the US is going to be a very demanding task,infinitely more than finalising the Rafale.In any case having gone down some considerable way in the FGFA road,there is no going back for us there.The Q is at what speed of acquisition and affordable numbers.But till 2020 or thereabouts,with the retirement of hundreds of legacy aircraft,there is no alternative /Plan B according to the IAF.Costs of aircraft in service Super Sukhois too,are all going up.Somewhere the bullet has to be bitten.The IAF have to undertake a crisis plan in case the Rafale deal becomes unworkable-the local manufacture/TOT part and have options ready.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 17:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 152
Location: Germany
Viv S wrote:
The Su-30MKI complements every fighter aircraft out there, not just the Rafale. One of the advantages of being a gargantuan mini-AWACS. You could combine the MKI's long range radar with the Tejas (which has a low RCS of its own) and achieve a near comparable result.


Not really, since the long range radar is only one part, the passiv sensor and attack capabilities of Rafale the other! Tejas can be guided by MKI or Rafale (AESA has similar range like BARS), but don't have own passiv sensor or attack capabilities. So you can use the Tejas like the Mig 21s today, guided by external sensor infos, but to attack, it has to turn active again.


Viv S wrote:
With regard to passive detection, IRSTs have a very limited range (particularly in the frontal hemisphere) and need LRFs for tracking (which makes the idea of 'passive' detection redundant). ESM has its utility but is limited by the fact that its useful only against an emitting adversary and is blind to any and all silent aircraft in the skies.


The usual points stated on forums, but when you look at it from an Indian scenario, where most PAF fighters for example don't have laser warners (which can detect in very close ranges only anyway), or that they are dependent on their active radar for the most part (by the lack of passiv sensors), you will see that having such passiv sensors is a huge advantage.

Btw, why these useless discussions about F35 wrt MMRCA, when it didn't suited even the basic needs of the competition?
It is not available under a licence production deal, no ToT, the flight performance is below IAF requirements and is not available according to the MMRCA timelines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 22:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3793
Mihir wrote:
So now we're talking about whether we would want to exercise the capability or not? Sorry, I have no comments to offer on that topic. The debate was about the nuclear strike capability being available, not about whether the IAF would actually choose to pay for such an option.


Well lets break it down. We've already established that free-fall is an obsolete means of delivering a nuclear payload. Therefore, if a target has to be hit, a missile will be employed.

The sum of an aircraft's 'nuclear capability' is therefore the ability of carry that missile and launch it. How many aircraft in the IAF's fleet can do that? 270 Su-30MKIs and 49 Mirage 2000s for starters. And any and every aircraft that has a hard-point that can take the weight of a cruise missile (incl the PAKFA and F-35).

The preferred means will still remain the ground launched Nirbhay missile, with at least twice the range of the typical air-launched cruise missile. And being an entirely Indian missile, it can be customized for a nuclear payload without requiring any outside assistance.

So the Rafale's ability to carry a cruise missile is well and good, but hardly noteworthy.


Quote:
Weapons tests have begun ≠ it can fire weapons. As it stands, the F-35 is prohibited from firing weapons. I have no idea when the tests will be completed and weapons certified to fly on regular sorties. We might see more problems crop up here as well.


It has fired weapons = it can fire weapons. They'll be cleared for operational use with the Block 3B in 2015.


Quote:
That's your counter-argument? Seriously? That it was once flown at Mach 1.6? How does this in any way change the fact that the airframes produced till date are prohibited from flying at supersonic speed because the radar-absorbing skin peels off?


^^^ gives the impression that the aircraft's entire skin is liable to peel off on going supersonic, rather than the occurrence of bubbling on the skin near the exhaust.


Quote:
See previous. It has fired missiles and dropped bombs in a few tests. Goody. It just can't do that regularly because, guess what? More problems.

Thank you for helping me make my point.
"The jitter issue is expected to be addressed"
When?
"The next software iteration"
And pray, when would that be ready?
"Don't ask us, we're still struggling to get the first iteration up and running"


You do realise that the F-35 isn't expected to go into combat tomorrow and has a few years to work out these problems. Unless your case is that the problem are unsolvable or prohibitively expensive to address, it is a less than damning indictment.


Quote:
The fly-away cost, according to one body, has apparently dropped below $125 million. It may possibly drop below $100 million per airframe (minus the engine, which I assume is an optional extra), but that hasn't yet happened. Others still claim that the real cost has soared past $200 million. All this money for an aircraft that can barely fly and the sum total of whose combat capability is that it could ram an enemy Zeppelin. On a clear, sunny day.


Its dropped below $100 mil as per the LRIP contracts awarded to LM for the upcoming batch of F-35s. And despite the element of repetition, stating that an under-development aircraft is not combat-capable is hardly going to raise eyebrows.


Quote:
And what developments would those be? Firm orders? Estimates? Expectations that long-standing problems will be addressed in the next iteration?


Firing of missiles, dropping of bombs, going supersonic, falling unit costs...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 23:26 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 11978
Location: Crime master Gogo naam hai mera !
Viv S wrote:
Well lets break it down. We've already established that free-fall is an obsolete means of delivering a nuclear payload. Therefore, if a target has to be hit, a missile will be employed.

Hello ? Who is we ? Just go back to kargil we were using WWII vintage bombs rigged with M2K , ever wondered why ? Scenario building on forums and arm chair planning for top of the line equipment is fine and dandy but our procurement planning and methodology is not . Armed forces know that we cannot rule out some of the very basic and elementary requirements just because they are deemed obsolete to suit a pov. Classic example is usefulness of a canon on a fighter AC. Why does F-22 a uber top of the line 5th generation AC have a canon nested in it's wing shoulder ? What were the lessons learnt from the F-4 phantom ?


Quote:
So the Rafale's ability to carry a cruise missile is well and good, but hardly noteworthy.

Hain ? The only reason I can guess for such a statement is err umm because F-35 cannot carry a Nirbhay/Scalp class CM ? And if it does it will loose the only advantage it has over the Rafale i.e. stealth.


Quote:
It has fired weapons = it can fire weapons. They'll be cleared for operational use with the Block 3B in 2015.

You want MMRCA to be delayed until what 2020 ? Because if it is cleared for weapons by 2015-16 it takes time for us to issue RFP , conduct trials, negotiate, ink the deal and then be able to make jasmine garlands to welcome new planes.

Quote:
You do realise that the F-35 isn't expected to go into combat tomorrow and has a few years to work out these problems. Unless your case is that the problem are unsolvable or prohibitively expensive to address, it is a less than damning indictment.

So why F-35 over Rafale then ? It is like this one EXISTS and other DOESN't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2013 23:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Nov 2011 02:49
Posts: 2040
Location: krishna's thandai, Assi ghaat, banaras
negi wrote:
So why F-35 over Rafale then ? It is like this one EXISTS and other DOESN't.


To be fair to the IAF, the should not have to care about the scope of work of all other development agencies in the world. Their scope is specifically limited to fighting wars to the best of their ability. Thats it.


Having said that, why this argument is about going to Walmart, looking for a can of soda, then not buying one. In the meantime, one is wishing for this futuristic can of soda that has just been tested in Atlanta, Georgia, which will be coming soon to a store near you.

In the shallowest of terms, the IAF is an end user. Its beyond their scope to project. They want their planes yesterday. That's it.

And as a citizen of India, who are dependent on the IAF to possess their cans of soda in time, such that they can do their job of protecting me....it worries me no end, that they or their colleagues in the government are (may I use this term , mods?) w*nking away and not hurrying matters to completion.

Let's be very clear here. My taxes pay the IAF and MoD's salary. If I were to hypothetically influence this situation a little bit, more, I would say, enough is enough. Out with the Rafa, however good it is. Lets get the next best. And if that doesn't work, then next best.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 00:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3793
negi wrote:
That is why I am not the one who is emphasizing on the fly away cost price unless we have bought the two or have been made an offer. The cost of 126 Rafales to us is being pegged at ~11 billion USD and this includes offsets so a significant amount of that figure will be against helping HAL setup facilities here.


126 Rafales for $11 billion is $87 million per aircraft, all inclusive.


This is the Rafale's cost to the French state -



'Unit cost of Production' - €101.1 million. ($145 million in 2010 dollars)



Court of Auditors - Annual Public Report 2010.


This is distinct from the program cost which is €142 million ($203 million) per unit.



NOTE 1: This cost may include VAT. Disregarding VAT (which will not be passed to export customers) we get a unit cost of $121 million (still 50% higher than the supposed cost to India).

NOTE 2: The above is the cost in 2010. Cost for an aircraft delivered in 2017 will not be the same, to the say the least. Just for reference between 2005 and 2010, the Rafale's unit cost rose by over 100%.

NOTE 3: The expected build order for the Rafale was consistently pegged at 286 units throughout. Now in 2013, that number has apparently been reduced by about 60 aircraft to a figure of 225. At the same time export prospects have more or less dried up. The result; higher program cost, higher production cost and higher support cost (particularly with regard to upgrades).




BOTTOM-LINE: Any figure under $15 billion for the MMRCA contract needs to be discarded altogether. Whether it'll cross $20 billion remains to be seen. And this is not including the follow-on order for 89 aircraft.


Last edited by Viv S on 25 Oct 2013 01:22, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 00:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Posts: 2521
Location: जो हिंदू हित की बात करेगा वही देश पर राज करेगा !!!
negi wrote:
Is this even an argument ? Firstly who said that fighter AC will only deliver nuclear munitions via free fall bombs , stand off missiles are a real possibility and exist. What is the point in then buying a stealth aircraft ? I mean why am I even arguing over this we have a well established policy of maintaining a nuclear TRIAD and fighter aircrafts are still part of that equation.


Exactly:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Strategic-Command-to-acquire-40-nuclear-capable-fighters/Article1-599141.aspx
Quote:
Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters
PTI New Delhi, September 12, 2010

The Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has submitted a proposal to the Defence Ministry for setting up two dedicated squadrons of fighter aircraft which will act as "mini-Air Force", ministry sources said.

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The SFC does not want untested fighters but the ones which are battle proven and have capabilities to deliver nuclear-tipped missiles, the sources said.

The aircraft planned to be procured are part of efforts to strengthen the nuclear delivery system which right now is based on land-based ballistic missiles such as the Agni and Prithvi and nuclear-capable fighters such as the Mirage 2000, Su-30 MKI and Jaguars.

Created in January 2003, the SFC is part of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) and is responsible for the management and administration of the country's tactical and strategic nuclear weapons stockpile.

Attempts are underway to complete the nuclear triad by developing the indigenous Arihant class nuclear submarine and under-sea launched versions of the existing ballistic missile systems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 00:22 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 11978
Location: Crime master Gogo naam hai mera !
We will do that in 2016/17 when F-35 is READY only then we can talk about it's unit price; as I said why are you comparing them when one is not even there , yet ?

One compares costs of two commodities when they are available . Where is F-35 available for induction in the IAF ? If an aircraft undergoing weapons integration is what would have made the cut then IAF would might as well considered Tejas instead of a platform like Gripen ? You could argue that F-35 is in may be much more advanced stages of development than the Tejas but at the end of the day you cannot deny the FACT that it is far from complete and ready and that is where this debate between F-35 and Rafale needs to end because MMRCA requirement was not for a new type of an AC requirement it originated as what was supposed to be a follow on order for M2k which did not materialize and our dilly dallying for all these years made it look like a completely new acquisition of a unique kind . The ones shortlisted were all READY and OPERATIONAL (you could argue about the Mig 35 but then it is more of a Mig 29 evolution and it did not make the cut).

This pitching of F-35 for India's MMRCA never happened for all these years because that program was in rough waters , suddenly GOTUS pulls strings gets the munnas in control and orders start flowing and we are discussing it as a option to Rafale ? This is absurd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 00:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3793
negi wrote:
Hello ? Who is we ? Just go back to kargil we were using WWII vintage bombs rigged with M2K , ever wondered why ? Scenario building on forums and arm chair planning for top of the line equipment is fine and dandy but our procurement planning and methodology is not . Armed forces know that we cannot rule out some of the very basic and elementary requirements just because they are deemed obsolete to suit a pov. Classic example is usefulness of a canon on a fighter AC. Why does F-22 a uber top of the line 5th generation AC have a canon nested in it's wing shoulder ? What were the lessons learnt from the F-4 phantom ?


Fine. Lets say free-fall delivery is very critical and an absolute must. Proceeding under those conditions; any aircraft can drop a dumb bomb (which is what gravity bomb is).


Quote:
Hain ? The only reason I can guess for such a statement is err umm because F-35 cannot carry a Nirbhay/Scalp class CM ? And if it does it will loose the only advantage it has over the Rafale i.e. stealth.


The RAF/RN's F-35s will be equipped with the Storm Shadow/Scalp EG. And yes, an air-launched Nirbhay can be adapted for it as well. And since its presumably being launched at standoff ranges, stealth is not a concern. Nothing unique about the Rafale's 'nuclear capability'.


Quote:
You want MMRCA to be delayed until what 2020 ? Because if it is cleared for weapons by 2015-16 it takes time for us to issue RFP , conduct trials, negotiate, ink the deal and then be able to make jasmine garlands to welcome new planes.


Whichever aircraft is inducted will be operational well past 2050. The choice of entire platform shouldn't hinge on wanting to avoid a period of negotiation.


Quote:
So why F-35 over Rafale then ? It is like this one EXISTS and other DOESN't.


Its no more non-existent than the HAL Tejas. Less so than the Tejas Mk2. In the next two years it'll surpass the Rafale in terms of total units produced. We're the only export customer for the Rafale and they're cutting their (already minimal) orders to pass on the burden to us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 01:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3793
Sancho wrote:
Btw, why these useless discussions about F35 wrt MMRCA, when it didn't suited even the basic needs of the competition?
It is not available under a licence production deal, no ToT, the flight performance is below IAF requirements and is not available according to the MMRCA timelines.

negi wrote:
We will do that in 2016/17 when F-35 is READY only then we can talk about it's unit price; as I said why are you comparing them when one is not even there , yet ?

This pitching of F-35 for India's MMRCA never happened for all these years because that program was in rough waters , suddenly GOTUS pulls strings gets the munnas in control and orders start flowing and we are discussing it as a option to Rafale ? This is absurd.


I wouldn't have expressed dissent at this stage, had we awarded the contract to Saab. By most measures, Gripen is good value for money.


The Rafale on the other hand, is painfully expensive and, as is becoming increasingly clear, its prices will only rise given the French state's flagging commitment and the aircraft's fading export prospects. Also the capability it brings to the table is good but not particularly impressive.

And I'm bringing up the F-35, because it can realistically perform, what the Rafale can only claim i.e. the ability to carry out unescorted strikes in hostile/heavily disputed airspace. It will comfortably exceed even the PAKFA in that role. This wouldn't have been relevant if not for the FACT that it costs less than the Rafale, even though its in the LRIP stage and irrespective of whether it achieves the $85 million unit cost target.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 01:22 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
I have an idea. We should scrap the MMRCA and FGFA programmes and acquire the AMCA in large numbers. It costs a only few hundred rupees right now, and this is even before a single prototype is ready for trials. For that price, you get a full set of drawings, but it comes without an airframe and engine, and the avionics are still under development. But remember, the FACT is that we could buy hundreds for the price of a single second-hand MiG-21, even though the AMCA is in the conceptual design stage. When it goes into mass production, the price will obviously drop even further.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 01:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3793
Mihir wrote:
I have an idea. We should scrap the MMRCA and FGFA programmes and acquire the LCA Mk.II and AMCA in large numbers. The LCA Mk.II costs a few hundred rupees right now, and this is before a single prototype is ready for trials. For the price, you get a full set of drawings, but it comes without an airframe and engine, and the avionics are still under development. But remember, the FACT is that we could buy hundreds for the price of a single second hand MiG-21, even though said aircraft are in the conceptual design/design development stage. When they go into mass production, the price will obviously drop even further.


Amusing. The difference being the LRIP F-35s are production units and in terms of hardware are near identical to units delivered post-FOC. And even assuming the most pessimist estimates for retrofitting them and upgrading the software, its still far cheaper than the Rafale.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 01:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Quote:
The difference being the LRIP F-35s are production units and in terms of hardware are near identical to units delivered post-FOC. And even assuming the most pessimist estimates for retrofitting them and upgrading the software, its still far cheaper than the Rafale.


All things equal, the Rafale will turn out to be a lot more expensive in the longer run. It has to.

Also, technically, the rafale does not exist - as far as the MMRCA is concerned. There is a French rafale, but the one for the MMRCA is still a paper plane. IIRC it will need integration with Indian and Russian stuff and perhaps with some Israeli things too. And, as with anything they need to be tested (IOC/FOC) and like some are arguing, things can go wrong. It is further down the development stream, but, there is no MMRCA based rafale (as far as I know).

The MKI took some 5 years to redesign, test, etc.

The F-15 that Singapore bought and got in 2010 took 3 years to achieve FOC.

The rafale presents a lesser risk for the immediate future. But it also presents a far higher risk for the distant future. Of course in-my-humble-opinion.

Quote:
The Rafale on the other hand, is painfully expensive and, as is becoming increasingly clear, its prices will only rise given the French state's flagging commitment and the aircraft's fading export prospects. Also the capability it brings to the table is good but not particularly impressive.


And, they are ever eager to sell advanced techs to the Chinese too. What a cost multiplier that would be.

India would also be a captive client - and given the M2K, imagine a rafale MLU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 04:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31
Posts: 2655
On the one hand we have Rafale costs going up and on the other, F-35 costs are coming down. If we think Rafale is expensive, wait till we back pedal to the Typhoon and deal with the real shopkeepers.

Russians have basically told us to buy FGFA off the shelf or take a hike and this is a plane which may or may not even be certifiably 5th gen.

If we cut our losses on both programs, the F-35 can do both jobs for half the price in about the same time frame. The smart thing to do is ask to join the F-35 program now and lock down as much as we can on offsets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 05:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24
Posts: 2482
Location: Been there, still doing it
NRao wrote:

And, they are ever eager to sell advanced techs to the Chinese too. What a cost multiplier that would be.

India would also be a captive client - and given the M2K, imagine a rafale MLU.


But they are our friends right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 05:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
^^^^^

France? Lol

They are not even their own friends. Ot for here, but they will sell their grandmother if they could.

(I know your question was rhetoric.)

However, with both the Russians and French, I am betting they are technologically relatively bankrupt. Their industries IMHO need funds badly and that is not coming from their own governments - they have no major threat and therefore no need. But, they cannot allow their industry to be idle either. Thus my fear of long term high risk for India.

The risk is not in their technologies, but in their financials.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 08:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42
Posts: 1587
The countries which are signing up for the F-35 now are expecting their first deliveries in 2018. Even in the best case scenario the IAF will get start getting Rafaels only from 2017. To say that one "exists" and the other "does not exist" is absurd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 14:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 152
Location: Germany
Viv S wrote:

I wouldn't have expressed dissent at this stage, had we awarded the contract to Saab. By most measures, Gripen is good value for money.


The Rafale on the other hand, is painfully expensive and, as is becoming increasingly clear, its prices will only rise given the French state's flagging commitment and the aircraft's fading export prospects. Also the capability it brings to the table is good but not particularly impressive.

And I'm bringing up the F-35, because it can realistically perform, what the Rafale can only claim i.e. the ability to carry out unescorted strikes in hostile/heavily disputed airspace. It will comfortably exceed even the PAKFA in that role. This wouldn't have been relevant if not for the FACT that it costs less than the Rafale, even though its in the LRIP stage and irrespective of whether it achieves the $85 million unit cost target.


There are a lot of mistakes in your argumentation! For example, you complain about Rafale coming only in 2017 (because the contract might be signed only next year), but prefered a fighter that is only fully developed by 2018?
Not to mention that Gripen would come mostly with similar costly European weapons that you criticised for the Rafale too (IRIS-T / METEOR, Taurus, RBS15), so the only cost advantage of the weapon pack could be SDB compared to AASM, if it's integrated.
Also keep in mind that the value of the price is not only calculated by the performance of the fighter, but also by the industrial, or political advantages, both areas where the Gripen falls short.

Your figures of Rafale and F35 costs are also flawed, the offer for MMRCA was submitted long ago and can't have a relation to the possible reduction of the French budget.
And as said by other members, you only took the cost for an F35 airframe, without engine or electronics..., the latest defence budget on the other side shows a price of $164 million each F35A, while the B and C versions are much higher and still rising:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudge ... 014_p1.pdf

(Page 149, 150)

And the part about F35 doing unescorted strikes is just funny, when you take to account that it's requirements gets constantly reduced, because it doesn't meet them, or that it carries only 2 missiles in strike configs. It has the stealth advantage compared to Rafale, but lacks behind in many areas to FGFA and would fall short in performance, industrial and cost requirements of the MMRCA competition, which once again shows that it's a useless discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 14:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Posts: 152
Location: Germany
NRao wrote:
The risk is not in their technologies, but in their financials.


By that logic, we could only buy German arms today, since they are the only western country without big financial problems and we shouldn't go for US arms at all don't you think?

On the other side we see Dassault, Thales, or EADS making more and more deals (even with Russia), we see Russian industry recovering and going more and more to co-developments with European partners, which makes them more attractive for export customers again and share the costs. Just like nearly any major European defence project is a joint one today (NH90, A400, nEUROn,) and sooner or later they will form joint a European military as well, to counter the budget cuts of the countries alone and share budgets and responsibilties, so no need to worry about European defence. That's actually something that we have to learn and follow, but we still think about fully indigenous projects only, instead of joint developments with the Europeans and more with the Israelis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 15:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Nov 2011 02:49
Posts: 2040
Location: krishna's thandai, Assi ghaat, banaras
NRao wrote:
^^^^^

France? Lol

They are not even their own friends. Ot for here, but they will sell their grandmother if they could.

(I know your question was rhetoric.)

However, with both the Russians and French, I am betting they are technologically relatively bankrupt. Their industries IMHO need funds badly and that is not coming from their own governments - they have no major threat and therefore no need. But, they cannot allow their industry to be idle either. Thus my fear of long term high risk for India.

The risk is not in their technologies, but in their financials.


NRao ji....you have a lot of exposure to the French and their ways of working with the world? Those are pretty strong blanket opinions for an entire country.

My perception of French technology is a little bit different from the above. It's : 'French stuff is expensive+works and designed very well '.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 15:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 15 Nov 2011 02:49
Posts: 2040
Location: krishna's thandai, Assi ghaat, banaras
Sancho wrote:

On the other side we see Dassault, Thales, or EADS making more and more deals (even with Russia), we see Russian industry recovering and going more and more to co-developments with European partners, which makes them more attractive for export customers again and share the costs. Just like nearly any major European defence project is a joint one today (NH90, A400, nEUROn,) and sooner or later they will form joint a European military as well, to counter the budget cuts of the countries alone and share budgets and responsibilties, so no need to worry about European defence. That's actually something that we have to learn and follow, but we still think about fully indigenous projects only, instead of joint developments with the Europeans and more with the Israelis.


And thus, we, as Indians, should move to a defence co-production future in which we have a lot of influence over European and American and Russian defence production companies. The Chinese are and should be left out of all of this activity. Long live totally indigenous Chinese design and production, and co-produced desi screwdriver technology!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 15:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11083
Location: Following the ice sheets back out over the steppes to the north
the french view aerospace technology as being critically strategic - and invest much more heavily in it than other europeans (also nuclear power tech)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 16:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
{Very slow AM}

Quote:
By that logic, we could only buy German arms today, since they are the only western country without big financial problems and we shouldn't go for US arms at all don't you think?


I suspect you missed the point. It is not just the well being of the nation, but more so the need of that nation, which then will infuse the funds (if there is a need).

Quote:
On the other side we see Dassault, Thales, or EADS making more and more deals (even with Russia), we see Russian industry recovering and going more and more to co-developments with European partners, which makes them more attractive for export customers again and share the costs. Just like nearly any major European defence project is a joint one today (NH90, A400, nEUROn,) and sooner or later they will form joint a European military as well, to counter the budget cuts of the countries alone and share budgets and responsibilities, so no need to worry about European defence. That's actually something that we have to learn and follow, but we still think about fully indigenous projects only, instead of joint developments with the Europeans and more with the Israelis.


Fine and dandy. But, which of these applies to India? And, even if they do not will France/Dassault divert funds from such projects to the continued development of the Rafale?

This is not a new point I am making. There used to be a French person who used to post very regularly on BR (some 7-10 years ago) and I used to debate him on this very point. Even the AESA radar that Thalle has - IMHO of course) was a semi-NEED for the French (nice to have, but we do not NEED it right now). Many items on the Rafale were funded by the French Gov, but not because they wanted/needed it - but to make the plane more exportable.

That support has/will vanish (with the current reduction in the French purchase of the Rafale AND their Govs instructions to Dassault to look at exports - I think that support HAS vanished).

So, if you were to look out into say 2030-40 time period, India will still have a HUGE need to maintain the Rafale fleet and France with a very, very low threat level will have even a further reduced NEED to keep the Rafale going.

Furthermore, the point you make that Europe will coalesce is proving my point.

Quote:
Those are pretty strong blanket opinions for an entire country.


Apologies. That was a going joke on BR in the late 90s.

But supposedly the word on the street is that India is paying France to keep them from selling to Pakistan. And, as I noted, France has been at the forefront to sell high tech stuff to China. Nothing new in what they do, just that perhaps you have not heard that sentence before.

Quote:
It's : 'French stuff is expensive+works and designed very well '


Very, very true.

But you are missing the point. In 2040 the Rafale MLU would be through the roof - India would be the only export nation to be running around using the Rafale.



Folks, The question I have is is the Rafale worth the cost? (I just happen to feel it is not worth it. The plane is great, France will part with MOST techs (NOT all), very well designed, built, support, etc, etc, etc. Cost is bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 17:17 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 11978
Location: Crime master Gogo naam hai mera !
I think we need to desist from bringing in variables like weak financial system, cultural leanings of a nation and such stuff into these kind of threads . Firstly such sweeping statements are difficult to substantiate and secondly they are tangential to the topic at hand . The MMRCA deal took more than a decade to materialize and mind you we are yet to actually ink the details with the French with this in mind it is only kiddish and absurd to question the merits of a platform chosen by the IAF post exhaustive trails and that too what has been the trigger for this debate ? That LM have in recent months has been reported to bring the unit cost of F-35 airframe sans the engine below 100 million USD a piece ? Isn't this being too fickle ?

Al that being said where is the JSF even ready ? The Rafale actually operates as we speak it has served in operations where a platform under test is not even sanctioned to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 17:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 13227
Location: Revive Sanskrit
"fickle"? Perhaps. Not an issue here - but understand that it could be to most.

Specifically on the JSF (which I do not think is coming to India) the costs are nailed down - LM and partners are bearing any cost over runs here on out. So, the thinking that they are struggling to keep the cost low really does not apply - LM will pick up whatever it is struggling with. Furthermore, the JSF is a FMS contract - again the cost is a known factor.

And, when one takes into account that the JSF will be around for a while - meaning proper support, spares, the very best in supply chain (even France does not come close - at cost). IMHO, it is the lowest "risk" (with teh highest techs - so the RoI (IMHO) is the best of the lot).

WRT the Rafale - the M2K is a great example of what can happen.

But, I think the Rafale will come. And, it will be a huge expense to India in the future - short and long. But, if that is what India wants, that is what she should
get.

Quote:
such sweeping statements are difficult to substantiate and secondly they are tangential to the topic at hand


Totally disagree. But, that is a diff matter. SO carry on. I will perhaps slide out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 19:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3793
Sancho wrote:
There are a lot of mistakes in your argumentation! For example, you complain about Rafale coming only in 2017 (because the contract might be signed only next year), but prefered a fighter that is only fully developed by 2018?


On the contrary, what I was pointing out was that an aircraft delivered in 2017, would presumably be priced differently than one delivered in 2010.

And I brought up the F-35's 2018 schedule to illustrate the fact that its not some 'future' fighter being compared to 'here-and-now' Rafale. Thanks to the delay in the MMRCA's schedule, they're both available in almost the same time frame. Difference is that in 2017, the Rafale will be a mature but still aging fighter, while the F-35 (like the IN's P-8s) will be at forefront in terms of technology.


Quote:
Not to mention that Gripen would come mostly with similar costly European weapons that you criticised for the Rafale too (IRIS-T / METEOR, Taurus, RBS15), so the only cost advantage of the weapon pack could be SDB compared to AASM, if it's integrated.


My criticism was that the Rafale's weapons complement far from being an advantage (as some were claiming) is a liability. Even assuming the Rafale purchase goes through, my (fading) hope is that the munitions will be sourced from Raytheon/Boeing instead of Sagem/MBDA.

In the event of a Gripen purchase too I'd have hoped for an US weapons package; the AIM-120, AIM-9, SDB, JDAM are already operational on it, as is the Litening III pod. As for the cruise missile, its already being acquired by the IAF independently for the entire fleet. The KEPD 350 is the running, but the JASSM and JSOW probably have the edge.


Quote:
Also keep in mind that the value of the price is not only calculated by the performance of the fighter, but also by the industrial, or political advantages, both areas where the Gripen falls short.


Political concerns are (or at least should be) secondary, since there's no way to accurate measure their value. The benefits accrued via the commonality with the Tejas on the other hand can be ascertained in monetary terms.


Quote:
Your figures of Rafale and F35 costs are also flawed, the offer for MMRCA was submitted long ago and can't have a relation to the possible reduction of the French budget.


First off, the figures I quoted were for 2010. Hardly irrelevant to the MMRCA.

Secondly, the commercial bid placed by Dassault expired on 31st March 2013. Unless the company's decided to pass on the cost of inflation to its shareholders, fact is those figures are no longer valid.


Quote:
And as said by other members, you only took the cost for an F35 airframe, without engine or electronics..., the latest defence budget on the other side shows a price of $164 million each F35A, while the B and C versions are much higher and still rising:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudge ... 014_p1.pdf

(Page 149, 150)


Those aren't production costs. :)

Not unless the F-22A is still in production. You may have attached the wrong document, suggest you check it again (page 149-150 had nothing to do with the F-35).


Quote:
And the part about F35 doing unescorted strikes is just funny, when you take to account that it's requirements gets constantly reduced, because it doesn't meet them, or that it carries only 2 missiles in strike configs. It has the stealth advantage compared to Rafale, but lacks behind in many areas to FGFA and would fall short in performance, industrial and cost requirements of the MMRCA competition, which once again shows that it's a useless discussion.


The Rafale cannot enter airspace as well as defended as the PLAAF's, without featuring prominently on its AEW&C and ADGE network, while its still a long long way off. This isn't Libya with an abundance of holes in its tattered air defences, to be exploited.

The F-35 can carry upto 8 SDBs internally for tactical strikes in a stealth configuration. And in a relatively low threat environment like Libya, it can match the Rafale, with a payload of two fuel tanks, 16 SDBs, 4 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs.


Last edited by Viv S on 25 Oct 2013 19:13, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 19:11 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 677
negi wrote:
Al that being said where is the JSF even ready ? The Rafale actually operates as we speak it has served in operations where a platform under test is not even sanctioned to go.

There are far more pretty pictures and documentaries and yee-haw Popular Mechanics fluff pieces on the JSF than the Rafale. Why would that be the case if the JSF weren't already better than the Rafale? My sources also tell me that the LRIP-8 cost is expected to fall even further since they won't include the wings in their calculations :rotfl:

In the meantime...

Quote:
Among the numerous oversight shortcomings, the IG found that JPO failed to:

  • Ensure that Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors were applying rigor to design, manufacturing, and quality assurance processes.
  • Flow down critical safety item requirements.
  • Ensure that Lockheed Martin flowed down quality assurance and technical requirements to subcontractors.
  • Establish an effective quality assurance organization.
  • Ensure that the Defense Contract Management Agency perform adequate quality assurance oversight.
  • In addition, the Defense Contract Management Agency did not sufficiently perform Government quality assurance oversight of F-35 contractors.

After all this, we still have people believing that it was a good idea to build 75 aircraft (with more on the way) while basic problems still haven't been solved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 19:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 726
NRao wrote:
Very, very true.

But you are missing the point. In 2040 the Rafale MLU would be through the roof - India would be the only export nation to be running around using the Rafale.


are you saying even till 2040, Dassault will not be able to sell Rafale to any other customer (other than India)?? what do you base it on that makes you so sure??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 19:49 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 11978
Location: Crime master Gogo naam hai mera !
Nrao sir

We all are entitled to our opinions my question is in your post what are the hard numbers there for anyone to make a case ?

Lets step back a little and see what we have.

1. Rafale is OPERATIONAL JSF is NOT , Can you or me say or predict as to when will it be ready for any user to evaluate it ? It will be a GUESS.
2. JSF is by and large a US product it WILL COME with EUMA and CISMOA , you cannot refute it just because you wish otherwise there is simply no precedent to indicate otherwise. Is it a BIG deal ? For you may be NO for me YES , do you know about the IAF ? I guess your guess is as good as mine.
3. Rafale has cleared the IAF's evaluation , it has met the Ministry of Finance's numbers in terms of the lowest bidder . JSF is not even in picture there. Just based on LRIP numbers being pubished by LM you can only make educated guesses about it's cost to India but it is a guess at the end of the day . Rafale has been sanctioned by an otherwise frugal MOF which has in the past turned down platforms just because they were expensive and this despite IAF clearing them (I think the Airbus tanker was one such example).


Apart from unit fly way COST (again just the unit FLY away cost , no one knows here about actual lifecycle costs not even the USAF, yet ) number what are your or Viv's arguments to call for cancellation of a deal which has been struck after a rigorous series of field tests ?

I already see other tangential excuses creeping in as to how Dassault has failed to sell Rafale to other countries and hence we should not buy it seriously ? Guys for a moment can we put a little faith in our processes and no not the MOD at least the IAF ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2013 20:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 33019
Location: sky-high@saikanomie
our processes has to be time bound .. no? how can I put a 'little faith' in a process that has taken 15 years? now tell me did we change our requirements over the 15 years of wait? can we table what are the requirement changes here if available?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 ... 133  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alka_P, Exabot [Bot] and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group