JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Apr 2014 23:11

^^^^
sorry, but could not get the intent of above post.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 21 Apr 2014 23:25

Mahadevbhu,

The answer to sword is not sword but shield.
The russians/Indians need not replicate what Americans has done with JSF on their planes.
Russians have shown to know their limitations and work around it.
We need to learn it from them.
PAKFA is already build around with same limitation in mind.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2014 23:40

NRS: Sorry about that. It was a brain dump response to some of the posts by Philip. I can expand on them if need be.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Apr 2014 04:55

Philip wrote:Viv,stealth has its benefits vs non-stealthy aircraft,but has been over-hyped as being "invincible".

It has never to the best of my knowledge been advertised as being 'invincible'. I believe ^ is called a strawman.

It is why the FGFA has a large arsenal of missiles that can be carried in its internal weapons bays

So you keep saying, yet despite my prodding you have refrained from putting an actual number to the PAK FA's internal missile load, preferring to describe it as 'large' instead.

The PAK FA's weapons bay is about the same size as the F-35's.

A visual examination of the aircraft suggests that the PAK FA will carry either 4 regular R-77s or 6 clipped wing R-77s.

and has been designed for high agility in air combat,as Russian doctrine,as well as the Israelis understand that once a BVR shot has failed and BVR missiles are exhausted,the clash develops into a "knife-fight" with SR AAMs and guns where the more agile fighter has the advantage.

The DAS and VSI HMDS enable the F-35 to engage an enemy aircraft present at almost any aspect without maneuvering. So instead of an aircraft pulling 9Gs you have a missile pulling 80Gs.

The new radars are reportedly able to detect stealth birds around 50km. The JSF is less stealthy from the rear, has visible vortexes,etc.,drawbacks have been posted earlier.

The F-35 is stealthier than the PAK FA from ALL aspect - front, side and rear. Plus it has a much lower IR signature. And will likely feature a superior degree of EM control.

Its absurd to claim that the F-35 and PAK FA will be detected at the same range.

EW concerns have seen such vulnerabilities having to be protected by the acquisition of Growlers as well! Here is an AWST report.

So the poor JSF needs a Growler escort to survive,tch,tch!

Really?

Q. How many Growlers are the USAF and USMC purchasing?
A. None.

The USAF & USMC will transition entirely to the F-35 (plus a limited number of F-22s) replacing all F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, AV-8Bs & EA-6Bs.

The USN on the other hand will continue to operate over 400 F-18E/F, requiring Growler support.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Apr 2014 05:20

Philip wrote:As one can clearly see,there is a long way to go before the JSF can become an operational fighter,with many serious problems that need to be rectified.It would be very interesting to see a similar report on the LCA programme too.

Its curious that you demand such a report from the LCA program but not for the PAK FA/FGFA. All must be well on the Russian front?

Some problems experienced and reduced capability parameters:Xcpts from 2012 and 2013 US DOD reports.The report is most comprehensive.The problems are too numerous to list out in full.Pl. go into the link and read the details for yourself.Just a few are highlighted.
2013 Oct:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf

1. The software problems have already been described. Will lead to delays but won't affect the aircraft's cost or capability.
2. The purpose of fatigue testing is to identify stresses. They're running the aircraft all the way to 16,000 hours of flight; they're bound to identify cracks at some stage. That's the point.
(BTW do you think the PAK FA will be through equally rigorous testing?)
3. Lift fan problems have NO impact whatsoever on the CTOL variant.

2012
Delayed disconnects during air refueling required the program to implement restrictions on the F-35A fleet and conduct additional testing of the air refueling capability. The program added instrumentation to isolate root causes.

^2012. No mention in the DOT&E 2013 report.

Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher than expected temperatures during sustained highspeed/highaltitude flight, resulting in delamination and scorching of the surface coatings and structure.

Only during 'extended use of the afterburner not expected to be representative of operational use but which was necessary to achieve certain test points'.

(Quote from DOT&E report)

Finally,due to the above,maintenance times have actually increased.

The maintenance times clocked right now are hardly reflective of that clocked in operational use.

We have to leverage whatever we can get out of the FGFA JV,the LCA programme and use the experience,tech obtained and domestically developed, for the AMCA/UCAV programmes on the anvil.

Our involvement in the FGFA 'joint venture' consists of cutting the Russians a cheque and putting a HAL label on it, so a little circumspection might be merited there.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 22 Apr 2014 14:05

True, we forget that F-35 is being tested extensively, they seem to have a good amount of insight into the program and all issues are being highlighted. The engine fan burst for example happened on an engine that was already tested for over 9000hrs of flight, with the requirement for 8000hr life time. so indeed, they are trying to make the aircraft better than the requirement especially for fatigue and reliability. Also, aircraft still has time for FOC, any severe reliability issues at this point are merely discoveries with clear action points on fixes. The aircraft should be judged on costs and reliability and capability after FOC. What it already can do avionics wise is far beyond any thing that has been done, there is no match for DAS, EOTS, and the sensor fusion already achieved. The idea now is to fine tune the software, iron out the reliability issues and I am sure this will be done. FOC F-35 should technologically the most advanced bird out there.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Apr 2014 15:37

Please read this interesting analysis on the Russian bird and its conclusions.Some excpts. quoted.
The aircraft can carry upto 8 AAMs internally.

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2012/ ... ealth.html

American Innovation
Threat Analysis of Foreign Stealth Fighters Part II: Sukhoi PAK FA

For decades Russian aircraft designers have produced some of the world's best combat aircraft. In many cases, Russian engineers have built either comparable or superior air superiority platforms relative to their Western counterparts. The success of countries allied or affiliated with the United States during several of the proxy wars fought throughout the Cold War can largely be attributed to superior pilot training rather than vastly superior equipment in many cases. For example, during Operation Focus of the Six Day War, Israeli pilots flying the French built Mirage III interceptors were able to routinely dominate the formidable Mig 21's of several Arab air forces. When the pilot training advantage is taken away, dogfights between Western and Soviet/Russian aircraft becomes much closer. In several of the Indo-Pakistan conflicts, the Soviet equipped Indian Air Force kept toe to toe with the American supplied Pakistani Air Force. More recently, in joint exercises held by Germany with the United States in the 1990s, it became clear that with capable pilots flying the Mig 29, it could compete on even footing with the F-15C. In fact, with the use of an early HMD system, the German Migs initially had the advantage in visual range combat against the F-15s. (Federation of American Scientists, 2000) With the above in mind, the fact that Russia was the first country outside of the United States to produce a stealth fighter hardly seems surprising. If the advent of a Russian stealth fighter really came as a monumental surprise to Western intelligence agencies, perhaps its time to retool their methods of assessing the capabilities of the Russians (and Chinese). During the Cold War, Western intelligence agencies were incessantly worrying about the next Russian doomsday device. Ideally, it would seem that a point in between today's ignorance and the Cold War's panic attacks would be optimal.

Stealth factor.

Given that most Western countries do not feature extensive SAM (Surface to Air Missile) coverage, deep strike capability was not seen as a high priority in the PAK FA's design. (Sweetman, 2010) Thus, all aspect stealth was not required for the PAK FA design. The extent of stealth featured on the PAK FA coupled with its extreme maneuverability likely means it was intended to get in close to other 5th generation fighters e.g. F-35. Using its stealth to deny its opponents beyond visual range (bvr) missile kills, the PAK FA would close in on enemy jets and subsequently initiate visual range combat where the PAK FA is strongest due to extreme maneuverability.

From these figures, it is apparent that the PAK FA is on par with the F-22A in terms of maneuverability. In fact, the PAK FA might be slight more maneuverable in certain situations as it features 3D thrust vectoring engines (pitch and yaw) as opposed to only 2D (pitch) engines featured on the F-22A. The F-22A will likely be more maneuverable in vertical oriented maneuvers due to its higher thrust to weight ratio. After examination of these figures, it also becomes apparent that the F-35 is not nearly as maneuverable as the F-22A or PAK FA. Even with the higher end spectrum of thrust figures for the F 135 engine (thrust to weight ratio at 40,000 lbf is .9867 vs 1.065 with 43,000 lbf), the wing loading for the F-35 is much higher. Additionally, the F 135 engine lacks thrust vectoring. Modern F-15 variants can come close to the PAK FA in terms of wing loading and thrust/weight ratios but lack thrust vectoring. Only the Raptor can compete on even ground with the PAK FA in terms of maneuverability. The J-20 almost certainly does not match the PAK FA in terms of maneuverability due to ongoing engine development issues. Furthermore, if the J-20 has a similar role to the F-111, than it will almost certainly have a high wing loading.

Maneuverability Advantage:

PAK FA > F-35
PAK FA = F-22A

Armament

All 5th generation aircraft feature internal weapon bays in order to minimize their radar signature. This is the case for the F-22A, PAK FA, and F-35. The differences between these aircraft is the capacity of their internal weapon bays. Although there is no complete consensus on the exact number of missiles the PAK FA can carry within its four internal bays, eight air to air missiles is the most broadly made estimate. (Global Security, 2010) The Raptor was designed as the premier air dominance weapon of the USAF and subsequently carries eight air to air missiles internally. The multirole F-35 carries a meager four air to air missiles even in its dedicated air to air load out. The planned Block 5 upgrade will grant the F-35 the ability to carry six missiles internally but it is unclear when the entire F-35 fleet will be upgraded to the Block 5 standard (sometime after 2017). As mentioned in previous articles, the probability kill (pk) of advanced radar guided air to air missiles has been around 50% since Desert Storm. Modern electronic countermeasure systems, chaff, and AESA radars capable of jamming missile guidance systems have kept the pk of radar guided missiles relatively low. A similar trend has occurred with IR guided missiles. In the Falklands War, British Harriers used the IR guided AIM-9 Sidewinder to great effect and achieved a pk over 70%. By the time of Desert Storm, new countermeasures reduced the pk of the Sidewinder to 25%. (RAND, 2008) Both Russia and the United States have made modifications to their newest IR guided missiles to increase their resistance to IR countermeasures such as flares. Even with these improved seeker heads, it is unlikely that modern IR guided missiles with achieve pk's much higher than 50%. Essentially, multiple missiles are going to be required to achieve a single kill from either side. Until the Block 5 upgrade is complete, F-35's will be at a severe disadvantage relative to the PAK FA. (See proposed low observable missile pod in Murphy's Law at Work: F-35 Development and Performance Concerns article.)

In terms of the quality of American air to air missiles relative to Russian air to air missiles, both are very similar in terms of capabilities. At the moment, the 100 + nautical mile capable AIM-120D has a longer range than the latest R-77 variants missiles employed by Russian equipped forces. However, in a dogfight between stealth aircraft, standoff ranges are heavily reduced. Thus, extreme range isn't much of a concern in these situations. What remains a concern is if current missiles are even capable of acquiring low observable targets. Most literature on the subject automatically assumes that stealthy targets can be engaged despite their faint radar signature. From multiple accounts given by pilots in training exercises against the F-22A, its clear that their instruments are not even capable of detecting the Raptor let alone getting off a missile shot even when pilots can visually detect the Raptor. (Note 3)

Conclusion and Recommendations

Though the J-20 may look the part of a stealth fighter, it lacks the internal sensors, avionics, and systems that compose a true 5th generation fighter. It will likely be at least another ten years before Chinese engineers are able to close the gap with U.S systems (most pessimistic estimate, other estimates are 20+ years). Make no mistake, the PAK FA is not a third rate design and is not hindered by the same problems as its Chinese counterpart. The systems employed on the PAK FA are upgraded versions of advanced proven systems employed on tested Flanker designs. The PAK FA will pose a serious risk to all fighter aircraft employed by the USAF and its allies. By every dimension, the PAK FA is a 5th generation dedicated dogfighter. Though the F-22A is more capable than the current PAK FA design, by in large the F-35 is not. Public statements made by the USAF do not reflect this reality.

"I didn’t see anything … that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-22 or F-35,” Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, 2010

Without support from Raptors, the F-35 will be at a disadvantage. Updated versions of legacy fighters such as the F-16C Block 50/52+, F-15C, and even the F/A-18E Super Hornet are simply outclassed. Relying solely on pilot training advantages to carry the F-35 and legacy fighters to victory is not responsible nor practicable. It is very likely that the PAK FA will only be flown by the very best pilots within the respective Air Forces operating the aircraft (NOTE 1). The United States must give its pilots the tools they need to succeed, anything less is simply unacceptable.

There is only one tool in the American arsenal that will be able to consistently defeat the PAK FA without higher than acceptable losses. This is not a recommendation to end the F-35 program and halt planned production altogether. Such a plan would be impracticable on many levels. The F-35 has a very useful air to ground niche in the USAF and consequently will be instrumental in future USAF operations. However, dogfighting advanced 5th generation jets such as the PAK FA is not the F-35's strength. The F-35 can handle advanced 4.5 generation fighters and even low quality 5th generation designs such as the J-20. But the Lightning cannot comfortably handle the super maneuverable PAK FA. In two out of three of the critical core criteria of this assessment, the F-35 was at a disadvantage relative to the PAK FA. Upgrades to the F-35 could close the gap but in some aspects the F-35 will never be on equal footing with PAK FA due to inherent design features that largely cannot be changed e.g. wing loading. Keep in mind, the PAK FA and J-20 are only the first of many foreign developed 5th generation fighters to come. With this degree of uncertainty, America needs more Raptors, even if it means cutting a few hundred of the F-35A variant for less than half the number of new Raptors would be acceptable.

The groundwork to restart F-22 production has already begun. As always, RAND produced a thorough and comprehensive analysis of how to restart F-22 production and how much the process would cost to the United States Government. Rand concluded that it would cost $513 million dollars to restart F-22 production with an average unit cost of $227 million dollars per aircraft if a total of 75 were produced (reopen and production costs factored in). The cost of producing Raptors would decrease over time if the decision was made to purchase more aircraft. To put this in perspective, before Raptor production halted in 2012, the average flyaway cost was $150 million dollars. (Defense Industry Daily, 2012) The current cost of an F-35A is $197 million dollars. (Department of Defense, 2012) The F-35A will become less expensive as development issues are fixed and production expands but expect a flyway cost in upwards of $120-$150 million dollars.

Pending the deployment of the new emergency on-board oxygen generating system in 2014, the decision to produce more Raptors should be made if the new system is effective (e.g. hypoxia reports drop considerably). The author recommends that the U.S Government grants the USAF its originally requested 300 Raptors at a minimum. This would add 113 new F-22s to the USAF at the cost of sacrificing around 200-250 F-35As. Ideally, these new proposed F-22B Raptors should be built to the increment 3.2 standard with additional upgrades to ensure the F-22's dominance over future 5th generation fighters (e.g. originally planned electro-optical system). Given that the USAF is scheduled to receive in upwards of 1,700 F-35's, such a proposal would not detract much from the USAF's air to ground capabilities. Furthermore, considering that Lockheed Martin produces both aircraft, the powerful aerospace giant should not protest a great deal against this production order reversal.

The United States needs an credible insurance policy against future advanced 5th generation threats such as the PAK FA. The F-35 has a place in future USAF operations and the program must not be terminated. Rather, it is important to realize the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the F-35 design. The decision to end Raptor production was made before the debut of a credible foreign produced 5th generation threat and consequently should be reversed. The arguments against the F-22 are in large part made by politicians and pundits who have no understanding of military systems, doctrines, and the extent of the deteriorating edge currently maintained by U.S forces technologically. Of course it is best to let diplomacy take its course and avoid conflict when possible but, at the end of the day, it is best to have Raptors and not use them rather than to need Raptors and not have them.

It is amusing to see how confident some posters are about the F-35 ,when the US DOD has listed out the huge challenge ahead and even the programme head has expressed his concerns.If the DOD report is studied in detail,it will be an eye-opener for those who think that the solution is at hand.Reminds me of an old Chinese joke."Man who go to bed with seks ploblem,wakes up with sorution in hand"!
This last line beggars the imagination!

Plan to conduct the operational utility evaluation of Block 2B using comparative testing of the capabilities Block 2B provides relative to the capabilities provided by legacy aircraft. This approach was used to test the F-22, and is particularly critical for Block 2B operational testing because no detailed formal requirements for Block 2B performance exists.

Another interesting analysis,with good diagrams/drawings of the fighter.
http://theboresight.blogspot.in/2010/01 ... -move.html
The Boresight
Air Power Focus
03 April 2013

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Apr 2014 16:27

Philip wrote:Please read this interesting analysis on the Russian bird and its conclusions.Some excpts. quoted.
The aircraft can carry upto 8 AAMs internally.

6 AAMs is the usual estimate. What's being referred to as a side-bay isn't big enough to accommodate a missile and an ejection system. No visible edges for a hinge either.

But for the sake of argument, even if you assume that its 8 AAMs, that's still only two more than the F-35. Hardly an overwhelming advantage.

http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.in/2012/ ... ealth.html

Stealth factor.
Given that most Western countries do not feature extensive SAM (Surface to Air Missile) coverage, deep strike capability was not seen as a high priority in the PAK FA's design. (Sweetman, 2010) Thus, all aspect stealth was not required for the PAK FA design. The extent of stealth featured on the PAK FA coupled with its extreme maneuverability likely means it was intended to get in close to other 5th generation fighters e.g. F-35. Using its stealth to deny its opponents beyond visual range (bvr) missile kills, the PAK FA would close in on enemy jets and subsequently initiate visual range combat where the PAK FA is strongest due to extreme maneuverability.

Deep strike may not be a requirement for the Russians facing limited SAM threats, but it certainly is an important consideration for the IAF. And the SAM threat facing us is... substantial, to say the least.

From these figures, it is apparent that the PAK FA is on par with the F-22A in terms of maneuverability. In fact, the PAK FA might be slight more maneuverable in certain situations as it features 3D thrust vectoring engines (pitch and yaw) as opposed to only 2D (pitch) engines featured on the F-22A.
Maneuverability Advantage:

PAK FA > F-35
PAK FA = F-22A

The PAK FA is very maneuverable. Granted. At WVR it'll still lose out to the DAS + VSI HMDS combination (something the blog post doesn't analyse).

Armament

Although there is no complete consensus on the exact number of missiles the PAK FA can carry within its four internal bays, eight air to air missiles is the most broadly made estimate. (Global Security, 2010)

The PAK FA has two internal bays not four.

And they're each roughly the same size as the F-35's.

In terms of the quality of American air to air missiles relative to Russian air to air missiles, both are very similar in terms of capabilities.

1. No PAK FA equivalent to the CUDA.
2. No PAK FA equivalent to the SDB/SDB II.
3. Aim-9X Block 2 features datalink, FPA & 90 deg off-boresight seeker. No R-73 variant in production can match that.

Even assuming future Russian missiles achieve parity, fact is the F-35 with its low radar & IR signature will be much harder to acquire than the PAK FA, for the same seeker range.

The F-35A will become less expensive as development issues are fixed and production expands but expect a flyway cost in upwards of $120-$150 million dollars.

The flyaway cost is already down to $120M with production at just 30 aircraft/year. When its boosted upto 120 aircraft/year, the price will fall to $85M, if not lower.

It is amusing to see how confident some posters are about the F-35 ,when the US DOD has listed out the huge challenge ahead and even the programme head has expressed his concerns.If the DOD report is studied in detail,it will be an eye-opener for those who think that the solution is at hand.Reminds me of an old Chinese joke."Man who go to bed with seks ploblem,wakes up with sorution in hand"!

Its amusing as well that the utter opacity of the PAK FA program is being interpreted as smooth sailing. Since the Russians haven't mentioned any problems (unlike the IAF), all must be well. Absence of evidence being evidence of absence.

And I have gone through the DoD/GAO/DOT&E reports from every year. And I've watched the hardware issues shrink away and the costs fall across the board. The only 'huge challenge' lies in delivering the F-35 within the stipulated timelines, which doesn't concern an export customer expecting deliveries only around 2020 or later.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 22 Apr 2014 18:32

Philip wrote:Please read this interesting analysis on the Russian bird and its conclusions.Some excpts. quoted.
The aircraft can carry upto 8 AAMs internally.

The Boresight
Air Power Focus
03 April 2013

None of what you posted talks about how American programs are the best run, most open about their flaws, most clear as regards RFPs and targets and of course, define the cutting edge rather than following behind.

The Russians are behind. Accept it. Accept that they will be behind for a long time as regards technology, and more importantly, the ability to manage technology programs to fruition - they just haven't had as many civilian successes and the thinking has not permeated their functioning.

They can make a few items that are defensively competitive.

Let's look at it from another way - what level do we have to reach, in order to match and raise the Americans - in theory - let's say we have to attack the US

- what level of national ability do we have to reach to do that.

let's learn from the best, is my point. For 67 years post independence we have fought off the west and western thinking and derided the East Asian slants for loving white skin too much.

How about we check it out for ourselves - the benefits of having American weapons? I do believe the IAF likes its recent purchases.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 22 Apr 2014 18:35

Viv S wrote:
Its amusing as well that the utter opacity of the PAK FA program is being interpreted as smooth sailing. Since the Russians haven't mentioned any problems (unlike the IAF), all must be well. Absence of evidence being evidence of absence.

True. They are not sailing smooth, I can tell you that.

And I have gone through the DoD/GAO/DOT&E reports from every year. And I've watched the hardware issues shrink away and the costs fall across the board. The only 'huge challenge' lies in delivering the F-35 within the stipulated timelines, which doesn't concern an export customer expecting deliveries only around 2020 or later.

Very true. Let's buy the JSF guys. It's the new F 16 - we missed out on the F 16 boat in the past , let's get onto it this time. It will keep us qualitatively ahead of the neighborhood for quite a while.

Let's do it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2014 18:49

Please read this interesting analysis on the Russian bird and its conclusions.Some excpts. quoted.
The aircraft can carry upto 8 AAMs internally.

The Boresight
Air Power Focus
03 April 2013

The F-22 is a 1980s designed plane, first flew in 1991 or so!!!

The PAK-FA, its equivalent - per Russians - when fully equipped, will come out latest by 2020!!!

that's still only two more than the F-35. Hardly an overwhelming advantage.

In a true network-centric env ........... none.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2014 18:56

What I would like to see is how these planes perform in a totally hostile environment. They can take assistance from any of their national assets that are available to them in that region.

So, I expect the Russians to do very well within and around their borders. But what happens in the middle of nowhere? Do we have any stats on such situations?

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 22 Apr 2014 19:40

Actually, buying the F-35 would be a boon to the Indian aviation industry. With a large enough order of let's say around 200 instead of the Rafale, I am sure we'll get local assembly, some basic TOT, we can customize it like the Israelis and India can be the local MRO and logistics point for F-35s in Asia/ Middle East. With hundreds that will be sold in this region, our suppliers could be an essential part of the regional and global chain.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Apr 2014 22:30

Yes,the JSF problems are falling like leaves from trees in the autumn! Did you not read that the maintenance time has actually increased? And talk about opacity,the JSF's costs are exactly that ,as the aircraft hasn't even been perfected.Let's wait for a couple of seasons and see how it progresses. There are definite deadlines for the JSF,a strict incremental testing regime,of which by the 2013 DOD report,studying the tables, barely half of them had been achieved. Let's see how fast the numerous problems that the DOD have listed out are fixed,and what the final price tag is.

Yes, I did congratulate the DOD for such transparency.but them you see if there isn't,the programme gets no money.That situ doesn't exist in India,where time and again,CAG reports show massive cost escalation and years of delays .Russia is a different case altogether.You perform or perish. It is true that they don't advertise problems encountered in their development phase,but look at the IAF's best bird,the MKI,which has proved itself all over the world,its Russian! Of which we're buying 270+.No reason to doubt that with the FGFA it will produce another winner.

The wisest decision the IAF made was to reject the offer of the JSF .It well knows the pitfalls and we don't have the financial wherewithal to acquire it,like the US at any cost.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2014 23:55

Background: JSF was never officially offered to India for India to have rejected it. LM happened to mention a proposal it could could put on the table, to which the Indian MoD stated that they already have one 5th Gen effort moving forward and that another could not be funded.

However, lol time: The *US* (NOT LM this time) is actually repainting the picture. Dynamics - on both sides - does not allow for open conversations, for obvious reasons. But, do not count the JSF out - as yet. The door is still cracked open.

Having said that I am not too sure that the JSF would be a good fit for India - at this point in time.

And, I still feel that India needs to pour their heart and soul and funds into the AMCA. ??????

On FGFA. Dunno. It is not even a shadow of what it was supposed to be. From 200 odd custom designed dual seaters (on the MKI lines), to 100 odd singles - that are from the Russian stable. That is a huge drop. IAF statement suffices and trumps any thing out there.

My take:
1) Cancel MMRCA
1) Make AMCA a top priority
2) Would prefer to cancel the FGFA. Else use ~~FGFA~~ PAK-FA as pure fillers (No Design, no ToT - let the Russians build and support the plane)
3) JSF

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2014 08:54

ACM Browne did say that the IAF was not interested in the JSF.It was reported in the media. True,we can't afford two firang stealth programmes. A few years ago ,I think about 3 now,when the FGFA/Pak-FA was still in its early developmental phase,the Russian ambassador,or another high ranking diplomat,said that we had still not responded or made up our minds as to which elements of the programme we wished to co-develop.This was reported in one of the def. mags,I think the F mag. Having dithered for so long,the FGFA that we will now get will have no doubt much less Indian input than hoped for.The "42" or so changes that we wanted will have to wait until we start manufacturing the bird locally.Remarks have been made about the % of composites in the aircraft,we want more while Russia plays to its strength in metallurgy,using more. Anyway,the most we can hope for is a larger % of customising than that on the MKI.In itself not a bad improvement,but hopefully which we will use to good effect on the AMCA programme. For that to succeed,there should be an accelerated development of the LCA MK-2,with alternative TVC engines,etc., shortening the time for parallel development of the AMCA if it is to replace the dumped MMRCA bird.Otherwise the time before the AMCA enters service will leave us with a huge gaping hole in capability and numbers as even LCA MK-1 production figures are too low for a one-for-one replacement of our legacy MIG-21s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2014 09:19

Australia to buy 58 Joint Strike Fighters

Australia will make one of its biggest ever military purchases with a $12 billion order for 58 Joint Strike Fighters in a move that will lift the nation's air combat power to among the world's most advanced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce the planned purchase in Canberra on Wednesday, confirming that Australia will join the United States and a select few other countries in adopting the fifth-generation stealth fighter as the backbone of its air combat power.

On top of the two fighters that Australia has already paid for, and a further 12 that have been ordered, the large new purchase will deliver the Royal Australian Air Force three squadrons of the planes and cement its place as the dominant air power in the region.

The government is keeping open the option of buying another squadron of up to 24 fighters, taking Australia's fleet of the cutting-edge planes close to 100.

The first Joint Strike Fighter – also called the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II – will be delivered in 2018 and begin service with the RAAF in 2020.

"The fifth-generation F-35 is the most advanced fighter in production anywhere in the world and will make a vital contribution to our national security," Mr Abbott will say on Wednesday.

"Together with the Super Hornet and Growler electronic warfare aircraft, the F-35 aircraft will ensure Australia maintains a regional air combat edge. The F-35 will provide a major boost to the Australian Defence Force's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities."

Defence Minister David Johnston said on Wednesday that the purchase would give Australia’s air combat capability ‘‘the sort of technological edge that it must continue to have’’.

He defended the billions in spending - less than a month before Treasurer Joe Hockey delivers a budget with expected cuts to health and welfare, saying the money for the fighters had been put aside since the government’s initial order of 14 aircraft.

‘‘The money is contained within the defence budget in the outyears of the budget and beyond,’’ Senator Johnston told ABC radio. ‘‘We are committed to defending Australia with the best available platforms. This clearly is a regionally dominant and cutting-edge platform that will see Australia right out to 2050.’’

Opposition leader Bill Shorten backed the purchase, saying the previous Labor government believed the Joint Strike Fighter was the ‘‘right way to go’’.

When asked if the order should be scaled back given the tough budget climate, Mr Shorten said the fighter program was a long term-investment.

‘‘These defence purchases are necessary for our forward security plans over a number of decades,’’ Mr Shorten told ABC radio.

The lifetime cost of the new batch of fighters, which includes maintenance, weapons and spares, will reach $12.4 billion, making it one of Australia's most expensive ever military acquisitions alongside the Collins Class submarine and the long-retired aircraft carriers.

The announcement is also a win for the RAAF bases at Williamtown in NSW and Tindal in the Northern Territory, which will be the home bases for the squadrons. They will need about $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure, Mr Abbott will announce.

The JSF will replace the ageing Hornet F/A-18, which is due to be retired from 2022. It means the RAAF will have a mixed fleet of fighters for the foreseeable future, with the JSF operating alongside 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growler radar-jamming aircraft.

The purchase continues the direction set out by the previous Labor government's 2013 Defence White Paper, which foreshadowed three operational squadrons beginning from 2020.

While most experts say the Joint Strike Fighter is set to be the most advanced fighter for years to come, critics have pointed out the many flaws, delays and cost overruns that have emerged during its development.

The Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter boss, Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan, said during a recent visit to Australia that many problems were still being ironed out, particularly the complex software – requiring more than 8 eight million lines of code – which he said was ''still a risky, risky business''.

He also said the planes were still unreliable and needed too much maintenance, with "pieces and parts ... coming off the airplane way too regularly because they are breaking".

Critics have also pointed out the new stealth fighters are actually less manouevrable manoeuvrable than some older planes, though supporters say it will never need to turn sharply because it will have shot down any enemy plane before it is seen.

Mr Johnston said the purchase would also provide a boost to the Australian defence industry.

"As a result of the Howard Ggovernment’s decision to join during the development phase, the Australian defence industry has been awarded over $355 million in work and stands to win well in excess of $1.5 billion in JSF-related production and support work over the life of the programme – creating long-term advanced manufacturing and engineering jobs," he said.

KEY FACTS

Maker Lockheed Martin

Cost per plane about $95 million, not including weapons

Strengths steath capability, advanced computer power, able to talk to all allied military systems around it

Weaknesses Not particularly manoeuvrable, faced problems flying during lightning storms

Weapons guided bombs, sidewinder missiles, radar-jamming electronic warfare capabilities

Special exterior features radar absorbing outer skin

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2014 09:32

For US, F-35 Engine Cost Up, Sustainment Down

WASHINGTON — Buying in bulk is key to lowering the cost of the F-35 joint strike fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, the general in charge of the effort said.

Cutting 33 planned F-35 purchases over the next four years was a key factor in the $7.4 billion jump in the program’s price tag, revealed in the Pentagon’s latest round of annual cost estimates for 2013. The total cost to procure and develop the F-35 is now pegged at $398.6 billion.

“For every dollar that we save in production cost on this airplane, 80 percent of it can be attributed to economies of scale,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manger, said April 17. “That’s just buying things in bulk. Instead of buying 10 titanium forgings, we now buy 100 and we get a good price deal.” The remaining 20 percent savings comes from efficiencies in the production process, he said.

Bogdan has encouraged aircraft-maker Lockheed Martin and engine-maker Pratt & Whitney to make “multiple-year buys and long-term arrangements” with their suppliers.

From a company standpoint, that could be seen as a risky move since the Pentagon has not signed a multiyear procurement deal for aircraft.

But Bogdan says DoD has shown its commitment to the program over the past two to three years. Despite defense spending caps and cuts made through sequestration, the F-35 program came out “basically unscathed,” he said.

“The business risk for [them] is much different than it was a few years ago where [they] were worried about whether this program was going to survive or not,” Bogdan said. “So with that reduced business risk, you need to go out and start getting long-term agreements with your suppliers so we could start taking advantage of the economies of scale in the supply base long-before statutorily I could ever do a multiyear.”

Pratt & Whitney has done this already since some components from the F135 engine, which powers the F-35, are the same as others used in their diverse portfolio of military and commercial engines, he said.

While the production and development cost estimate increased, the sustainment estimate decreased by $89.4 billion and now totals just over $1 trillion to operate 2,443 US F-35s through 2065.

“Year after year the price of the airplane continues to come down, and year after year we negotiate ... much lower than the [estimated aircraft] price,” Bogdan said. “The curve is still coming down, year after year after year. It’s not coming down as fast as we’d like it.”

This year’s procurement and development increase comes a year after the F-35 program posted a $4.5 billion decrease in DoD’s annual Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs), which provide cost estimates for the Pentagon’s major acquisition programs. The estimates reflect the lifetime cost to develop and acquire a system.

The cost of the F-35 itself increased $3.1 billion, according to the report — a number Bogdan said is primarily attributed to DoD jets from its budget plans between 2015 and 2018, when the purchase of 33 aircraft, mostly Navy, were delayed.

Foreign exchange rates also contributed to the increase, he said, noting that nearly 30 percent of the jet’s content is produced overseas. Bogdan said the aircraft cost increase is not attributed to poor workmanship by Lockheed. Foreign purchases of the aircraft are also expected to lower the overall cost.

More troubling to Bogdan was the $4.3 billion cost increase of the Pratt & Whitney-built F135 engine.

“We had a price curve for the engine. We thought we knew how much it was going to cost to build each engine,” Bogdan said. “Pratt’s not meeting their commitment. It’s as simple as that.”

Bogdan said Pratt assured the Pentagon “years ago that the engine was going to come down at a certain rate in terms of price. And they haven’t met it.”

“Some of their business base has dried up and other programs, projects, engines, both commercially and militarily,” he said. “And what they’re doing is they’re spreading their overhead costs and they’re spreading them right where they can. And I don’t like that.”

F135 engine cost estimates have increased $9 billion over the last three years, according to DoD documents.

Pratt & Whitney, through a spokesman, said it is “committed to delivering an affordable F135 propulsion system” for the F-35.

“We have a very aggressive cost reduction program in place,” the spokesman said. “We have invested more than $65 million into ‘war on cost’ activities and reduced the cost of the F135 engine by more than 40 percent. We are pursuing cost reductions in every aspect of the program, including supply chain, configuration changes, process improvements and overhead.

“The key factor in driving down cost, however, is to increase the ramp rate,” he said. “Delays in procurement have an effect on costs. We need production program stability in order to meet the cost objectives on the program.”

The SAR projects the total cost of the F-35 program through 2065. That includes 32 years of production and 55 years of support.

“This is really a tricky business when you try to project costs out that far,” Bogdan said.

Lockheed said it is “very pleased” with the overall reduction in program cost.■

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 23 Apr 2014 21:05

Australia to Buy 58 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters

Australia will buy 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) at a cost of more than $12 billion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Apr 2014 21:32

^^^^^

This DefenderRadar is becoming/is another cut-paste web site.

What is the purpose of such web sites? They bring nothing new to the table.

BTW:

Australia will buy 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) at a cost of more than $12 billion

I do not think that is there in the original ABC report.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 24 Apr 2014 00:04

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/a ... rs/5405236

Australia will buy 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) at a cost of more than $12 billion after the Federal Government gave the go ahead for the purchase yesterday.

The extra aircraft will bring Australia's total Joint Strike Fighter force to 72 aircraft, with the first of them to enter service in 2020.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2014 01:03

tushar_m wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/a ... rs/5405236

Australia will buy 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) at a cost of more than $12 billion after the Federal Government gave the go ahead for the purchase yesterday.

The extra aircraft will bring Australia's total Joint Strike Fighter force to 72 aircraft, with the first of them to enter service in 2020.

Ah. My bad.

Now. Does that not look and feel better - to provide the original URL?

Thanks for that. And please continue to contribute using the original sources.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2014 02:41

Yes in a true NCW environment the JSF requires a Growler to make up for its EW shortcomings! No nitpicking here,but the air dominance battle has got more complex with "the sum of capability" of diverse assets which matters more.Remember how our Bisons picked off US F-15s in exercises not too long ago,in combination with the MKIs. An FGFA with 8 AAMs internally is certainly a far better bet than a 4 missile JSF ; plus several US thinktanks' own analyses ,posted earlier,show the JSF at a disadvantage to the FGFA/T-50,inferior in the WVR battle.It is why numbers still and do matter.Stealth fighter costs both east and west cost far more than 4++ gen fighters and can be acquired only in smaller numbers,not on a one-for-one replacement basis.
It's like an old Wild West movie.How many bullets do you have left in your gun when faced with overwhelming numbers of gunslingers? That's what the Chinese are counting upon. The Russians too as they continue to build and buy as many SU-35s as possible and will even buy the smaller MIG-29/35 too in the near future.

In the IAF's future order of battle is to field more than 42+sqds 900+ aircraft,about 300 Flankers supported by another 150 FGFAs,200-300 LCAs (depending upon how many we can build in the next 10-15 years),need another 250-300 medium sized aircraft (now consisting of an assortment of MIG-29sM-2000,MIG-27 aircraft-all upgraded,),which will need to be replaced in the next decade.This is where the AMCA fits in,if work is carried out in parallel with the LCA MK-2,time can be saved and by 2025 series production can kick in.Firm target dates should be set and the most important factor the engine selected asap.This way in the future,the AMCA could be our equivalent of the JSF,with the FGFA playing the role of the larger F-22,with the 4++ gen. aircraft making up the desired numbers to fight a two-front war,esp. with respect to the Chinese numerical superiority.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 Apr 2014 02:44

The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter. One wonders how well it would perform in the key strike role in the thin air over the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau – the likely setting of any future India-China conflict.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, no further comment could do it justice.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 Apr 2014 02:52

India is not getting the JSF. Not for years anyway. Especially with the specter of Modi taking the helm. There will be numerous issues to work through depending how politically correct Modi wants to be about his choice of prospective equiment purchases. The safe route for you guys is self development where you can and buy Russian where you can't. You guys dream of expediting your forces in the fray to China or Tibet but really, except for Pakistan so far India has only shown proclivity towards home land defense. And that's another reason not to get too concerned about the JSF. Just my thoughts.....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2014 03:11

Very slow day.

Yes in a true NCW environment the JSF requires a Growler to make up for its EW shortcomings! No nitpicking here,but the air dominance battle has got more complex with "the sum of capability" of diverse assets which matters more.Remember how our Bisons picked off US F-15s in exercises not too long ago,in combination with the MKIs.

NP. Only till the next iteration. Not a big deal.

Let Boeing get the 6th Gen deal? That too may not happen, but ...................

An FGFA with 8 AAMs internally is certainly a far better bet than a 4 missile JSF

6 missile JSF.

And a better supporting cast.

; plus several US thinktanks' own analyses ,posted earlier,show the JSF at a disadvantage to the FGFA/T-50,inferior in the WVR battle.

Time to start your own think tank. Cut-n-paste stuff from all other web sites and there you have a quotable masterpiece.

It is why numbers still and do matter.Stealth fighter costs both east and west cost far more than 4++ gen fighters and can be acquired only in smaller numbers,not on a one-for-one replacement basis.

"West" is acquiring some 2500+ 5th gens - total should be around 3000 (including the F-22). East, last could 600 (not including China - so, what, a 1000?).

It's like an old Wild West movie.How many bullets do you have left in your gun when faced with overwhelming numbers of gunslingers? That's what the Chinese are counting upon. The Russians too as they continue to build and buy as many SU-35s as possible and will even buy the smaller MIG-29/35 too in the near future.

Did not know that the WW guys had eyes in the sky and networks to rely on. Heck if a MKI and a MiG-21 could bogey, wonder what a JSF could do with all the boat load of stuff itself carries and that from other disparate sources.

Just wondering.

In the IAF's future order of battle is to field more than 42+sqds 900+ aircraft,about 300 Flankers supported by another 150 FGFAs,200-300 LCAs (depending upon how many we can build in the next 10-15 years),need another 250-300 medium sized aircraft (now consisting of an assortment of MIG-29sM-2000,MIG-27 aircraft-all upgraded,),which will need to be replaced in the next decade.This is where the AMCA fits in,if work is carried out in parallel with the LCA MK-2,time can be saved and by 2025 series production can kick in.Firm target dates should be set and the most important factor the engine selected asap.This way in the future,the AMCA could be our equivalent of the JSF,with the FGFA playing the role of the larger F-22,with the 4++ gen. aircraft making up the desired numbers to fight a two-front war,esp. with respect to the Chinese numerical superiority.

300 MKIs, 300 AMCAs, 400 LCAs. And, chiller.

I seriously think India should get the AMCA before Sweetman - the thinker - proposes the Grippen instead.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2014 03:26

TSJones wrote:India is not getting the JSF. Not for years anyway. Especially with the specter of Modi taking the helm. There will be numerous issues to work through depending how politically correct Modi wants to be about his choice of prospective equiment purchases. The safe route for you guys is self development where you can and buy Russian where you can't. You guys dream of expediting your forces in the fray to China or Tibet but really, except for Pakistan so far India has only shown proclivity towards home land defense. And that's another reason not to get too concerned about the JSF. Just my thoughts.....

There are too many international events that will influence such deals. IF such events trump the thinking of an Indian leader then they will work out a compromise. I do not see an issue on the political front.

Whichever way they decide to go, I expect a clear cut decision. Up or down vote.

However, IF the JSF is absorbed into the IAF/IN/??? then a boat load of other technologies will have to come with it. India, today, does not have the means to make a "JSF" a complete player.

On Russia, I just do not see them being able to make India a full/complete player. A better one - sure. Russia, today, does not have the proper tools to compete.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Apr 2014 06:57

Philip wrote:Did you not read that the maintenance time has actually increased?

That has little bearing on the maintenance times delivered operationally. The ALIS is still in development and the maintenance 'manuals', as they are, are still in the process of being written.

And talk about opacity,the JSF's costs are exactly that ,as the aircraft hasn't even been perfected.

Perfected?!

I can give you the costs of every production tranche of the F-35, starting with the AF-1 & AF-2. Can you tell me what the PAK FA's currently flying prototypes costed? Or what the production model will cost to acquire? Or what it'll cost to operate? Or exactly how many the Russians will acquire (rather than pie-in-the-sky estimates)? What is the IOC target? What is the FOC target?

Let's wait for a couple of seasons and see how it progresses. There are definite deadlines for the JSF,a strict incremental testing regime,of which by the 2013 DOD report,studying the tables, barely half of them had been achieved. Let's see how fast the numerous problems that the DOD have listed out are fixed,and what the final price tag is.

By all means, lets wait. But lets also hold off on pouring cash into the Russian kitty for a farce of a 'joint venture'. And then have a formal head-to-head comparison run by the IAF & MoD. If the PAK FA comes out ahead, well and good, if not....

Russia is a different case altogether.You perform or perish.

Perish? Do you get dispatched to a gulag or something?

It is true that they don't advertise problems encountered in their development phase,but look at the IAF's best bird,the MKI,which has proved itself all over the world,its Russian! Of which we're buying 270+.No reason to doubt that with the FGFA it will produce another winner.

That's a curious logic. 'The Su-30MKI was a success, therefore the FGFA will be a definite success.'

The wisest decision the IAF made was to reject the offer of the JSF .It well knows the pitfalls and we don't have the financial wherewithal to acquire it,like the US at any cost.

Can you share with us the financial terms of the FGFA/PAK FA acquisition. Fly away cost, acquisition cost, life-cycle cost... anything really.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2014 07:07

It is true that they don't advertise problems encountered in their development phase,but look at the IAF's best bird,the MKI,which has proved itself all over the world,its Russian! Of which we're buying 270+.No reason to doubt that with the FGFA it will produce another winner

Brahmos with Sukhoi-30 fighters to improve India's strike options

Besides the Brahmos project, HAL's Aircraft Upgrade R&D Centre has developed over 40 modifications to enhance the performance of the Su-30MKI. It has also developed almost 400 types of ground equipment, such as oxygen chargers, nitrogen chargers, mobile air charging trolleys and cooling trolleys.

And the cost of the MKI has bloated from $30 million to a cool $70 million.

Bet that is what will happen to the FGFA too. Start at $100 million and soon it will be $150 million - and climbing.

And, then:

........................... The Indian Air Force (IAF) challenged both Sukhoi and HAL to propose competing solutions for integrating missile with aircraft. The Indian solution won out handily, and a contract was signed with HAL in January. Already the Brahmos has been mounted under the Su-30MKI's belly, secured on two mounting stations that replace hard points that were designed to carry ten 250-kilogramme bombs.

"The Russians are most interested in how HAL is integrating the Brahmos. We beat them out in the contract and now they want to know what we're doing," says RP Khapli, who is leading HAL's design team in the project.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Apr 2014 07:11

Philip wrote:The "42" or so changes that we wanted will have to wait until we start manufacturing the bird locally.

The '42 changes' were recommended by an IAF team after studying a PAK FA prototype. They have nothing to do with the production variant PAK FA which will be identical to the so-called FGFA in nearly every respect.

Philip wrote:Yes in a true NCW environment the JSF requires a Growler to make up for its EW shortcomings!

'EW shortcomings'? That's absurd, Philip. Unless you actually think that the PAK FA or J-20 will feature EW system superior to those on the F-35.

An FGFA with 8 AAMs internally is certainly a far better bet than a 4 missile JSF ; plus several US thinktanks' own analyses ,posted earlier,show the JSF at a disadvantage to the FGFA/T-50,inferior in the WVR battle.It is why numbers still and do matter.Stealth fighter costs both east and west cost far more than 4++ gen fighters and can be acquired only in smaller numbers,not on a one-for-one replacement basis.

It's like an old Wild West movie.How many bullets do you have left in your gun when faced with overwhelming numbers of gunslingers? That's what the Chinese are counting upon. The Russians too as they continue to build and buy as many SU-35s as possible and will even buy the smaller MIG-29/35 too in the near future.

The 'FGFA' will have 6 AAMs. The same as the F-35 Block 4+/5.

Whatever number its ordered in, the F-35 will deliver lower absolute costs as well as better value-for-money than the PAK FA. The PAK FA is simply not being built on a large enough scale.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 24 Apr 2014 08:04

Ah. My bad.

Now. Does that not look and feel better - to provide the original URL?

Thanks for that. And please continue to contribute using the original sources.

If you have time to surf the web for all the news yourself Don't use the url provided

no personal attack man not cool, you are a senior member

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 24 Apr 2014 10:06

TSJones wrote:India is not getting the JSF. Not for years anyway. Especially with the specter of Modi taking the helm. There will be numerous issues to work through depending how politically correct Modi wants to be about his choice of prospective equipment purchases. The safe route for you guys is self development where you can and buy Russian where you can't. You guys dream of expediting your forces in the fray to China or Tibet but really, except for Pakistan so far India has only shown proclivity towards home land defense. And that's another reason not to get too concerned about the JSF. Just my thoughts.....

When you say "You Guys" you might remember that there are MANY Indian-Americans on this board.
And Indian immigration to America is increasing - and they constitute a very politically suave and active group generally arguing IN FAVOUR of the old country, as compared to the Chinese-Americans or the Russian-Americans who campaign against the ruling dispensation in power in the old country.

There will come a time when India becomes more like a (~more powerful~) UK in terms of the relationship it has with America.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 24 Apr 2014 10:11

NRao wrote:
On Russia, I just do not see them being able to make India a full/complete player. A better one - sure. Russia, today, does not have the proper tools to compete.

As long as they do not have fabs , chip making and defence electronics at par with the West - they will be unable to do that.

The Fabs need scientists to run? Apart from gorgeous Russian women and some money- I do not see the friendly liberal democracy attracting them there.

East Asia - Taiwan China Japan will be closer to supporting defence electronics in the coming generations.

Far East Asia is basically American territory.

Makes sense to jump on the American bandwagon NOW, rather than do a Nehru, and say "fk off, we hate your domineering ways", to the Gora, and then realize 60 years later that Bangladesh or Nigeria has lapped us in these years, just as South Korea and Taiwan had in the preceding 60.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Apr 2014 11:28

mahadevbhu wrote:Makes sense to jump on the American bandwagon NOW, rather than do a Nehru, and say "fk off, we hate your domineering ways", to the Gora, and then realize 60 years later that Bangladesh or Nigeria has lapped us in these years, just as South Korea and Taiwan had in the preceding 60.

No need to get onto any bandwagons. But yes forging closer strategic ties with Japan, Singapore, Vietnam (and perhaps South Korea), in addition to the US would go some way in offsetting our equation vis a vis China. And do so without joining any overt military alliances. One can take a page out of China's relations with Pakistan, wherein its nurtured a second front against India at minimal expense, gotten a captive market for its exports, all without the commitment of a formal military alliance.

As far as defence imports go, it'll serve us better to disregard elements which don't have a quantifiable value; most importantly politics, but you can even extend that to ToT.

Simply buy what offers good value. If its Russian (such as the Mi-17s), so be it. If not, that's perfectly fine as well.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2014 12:20

Talking about "bandwagons",here is some practical joint cooperation being worked out to support our regional interests.There was another report about India and Russia reverting back to the Rupee-Rouble trade agreement of yore.Similar arrangements may be worked out with Iran in our owns elfish interests.We are also p*ssed off with Uncle O'Bomber for the US's cretinous Bangladesh policy,where we have an excellent relationship with Hasina.The US has been trying to unseat her and bring in Khaleda to pamper the ISI. A top ISI agent running cells in India was recently deported by the BDeshi govt. and is singing like a canary.

Under Mr.M,these ties are only likely to get stronger.

http://rt.com/op-edge/154288-afghanista ... ssia-arms/
India-Russia-Afghanistan synergy: India to pay for Russian arms supplies to Kabul

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Apr 2014 16:11

Philip wrote:Talking about "bandwagons",here is some practical joint cooperation being worked out to support our regional interests.There was another report about India and Russia reverting back to the Rupee-Rouble trade agreement of yore.

Please share this report. Here's the first article thrown up by a google search.

India, Russia mulling return to rupee-rouble trade - This is from 2009.

The second result was an old article from 1992 - Row over rupee-rouble exchange rate hits Indo-Russian bilateral trade.

The interesting part - The Russians, desperately seeking dollars, are reneging on commitments - 27,000 tonnes of non-ferrous metals promised by the Soviet Union never made it to India, but was shipped to hard currency areas. Only a fourth of ammonia commitments were shipped to India. (Practically a tradition, eh?)

We are also p*ssed off with Uncle O'Bomber for the US's cretinous Bangladesh policy,where we have an excellent relationship with Hasina.The US has been trying to unseat her and bring in Khaleda to pamper the ISI.

So the US president/State Dept is on the ISI's payroll?

This is minor issue, if not a total non-issue. The US isn't too concerned with what's happening in Bangladesh. And if it does issue some perfunctory criticism of the state of democracy there, it makes little difference to India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2014 18:30

tushar_m wrote:
If you have time to surf the web for all the news yourself Don't use the url provided

no personal attack man not cool, you are a senior member

Since another web site did exactly the same thing, the matter, a long time ago, was discussed on BR.

For your consideration, from my recollection in brief, two issues that prior discussions dealt with:

1) Redirecting BR traffic, using content that is not their own, to drive up their internet numbers. 'not cool' was the feeling then. Redirection based on your own content, that is fine and welcome and more power to you.

And,

2) Introducing a bias on BR, because of inability to post every article that is out there on a given topic. Again 'not cool' was the feeling then.

Up to you.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 24 Apr 2014 19:16

BR traffic is not even 10% of total traffic of the website, the back-links of the website is done on different forums of french , Russian ,Chinese & other military forums.

for ur information please check the website for original content you will definitely find some starting from the first post on the website.

regarding ur complaint that i am redirecting BR traffic , please note that no further link post will be made my me on this forum.

one of the things i liked about BR is that people are not personal & take military issues very seriously , but you have proved me wrong.

Please note that ur problem about me posting direct links is solved as i will only post content not links (so that my devious plan to get crores of traffic from BR does not materialize ).So rest this case as we are polluting the forum with bad posts that is not good for one of my favorite forum BR.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Apr 2014 17:37

Russian operations in Ukraine seem to have rattled its other neighbours. Finland is now considering switching to the F-35, according to its defence minister.
While LM can't match the Gripen's lifecycle cost, at least acquisition cost (at full production) will be within 20% of SAAB's offer.

Finland should opt for F-35 over Gripen if the price is right, minister says

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

Finland should reject overtures to procure the Saab Gripen E fighter aircraft, if the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be acquired at a comparable cost, the country's defence minister said on 22 April.

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.

The proposal to strengthen Finland's defence ties with its Nordic neighbour Sweden through a Gripen E buy was made by the speaker of parliament, Eero Heinäluoma, and the country was named by Saab officials in March as a potential future customer.

While Haglund's comments would appear to indicate Finland favours the F-35 as a potential replacement for the air force's current 55 Boeing F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornet fighters, his use of the word 'if' would suggest the Gripen E might be best placed to secure any such requirement.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Apr 2014 09:06

Bad news for the JSF.AWST reports march 31/14 ,"Fix it or Else" by Bill Sweetman,quoting JSF program Dir.,Lt.Gen.Chris Bogdan (Gen."Bogged Down") in his report to the "House Armed Forces Committee" that unless there is "better performance",contractors fail to correct problems with the aircraft and its support systems, "increases in production rate will be deferred".

Xcpts:
Bogdan says that there are "4 areas": Software dev.,reliability,which is not growing at an acceptable rate";the "poorly performing logistic system (ALIS);and "closure of previously identified design issues",

He threatened to "strip" LM of their status as "Product Support Integrators" (PSI)[/b],responsible for the bulk of F-35 sustainment activities,describing them as "interim PSIs",dependent upon performance.

Latest Govt. Accountability Office's latest JSF report says that estimates of JSF's operations and support (O&S) could "surpass the cost of legacy aircraft by 40% or more," against original estimates of lesser cost ).The GAO also said that the "picture is unlikely to improve without a focussed ,aggressive and well-resourced effort".

More problems cross-posted from the FGFA td. How the head of the USAF's Air Combat Command says that the JSF is NOT an air-superiority fighter while LM is touting it as such!

DID

Feb 3/14: F-22s needed. USAF Air Combat Command’s veteran leader, Gen. Michael Hostage, offers an interview answer that ignites much more controversy than he expected. After firmly stating that he intends to defend every single one of the 1,763 F-35As in the program, and adding that “adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade”, he’s asked about expensive upgrades to the F-22:

“A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console…. I have to… try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet [of under 200 F-22As], I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.”

Gen. Hostage’s views are more complex than this, and his ideas concerning “the combat cloud” with F-35s as its backbone are especially interesting. His position is also operationally prudent. The problem is that Lockheed Martin and the USAF have been selling the F-35 as an air superiority aircraft. Meanwhile, outside commenters have been skeptical based on design tradeoffs and test data, and pointed to fighter design advances outside the program. Now, the head of USAF ACC has just confirmed their skepticism. Can a political military and industry handle that? Sources: Defense News external link, “Interview: Gen. Michael Hostage, Commander, US Air Force’s Air Combat Command” | The Aviationist, “”If we don’t keep F-22 Raptor viable, the F-35 fleet will be irrelevant” Air Combat Command says” | Canada’s National Post, “Canada’s multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says” || Breaking Defense external link (2013), “Why Air Force Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On The ‘Combat Cloud’”.

At AWST's "Def, Tech and Requirements" conference this month,Bogdan said that JSF reliability "was woefully below the curve" compared with project reliability at the current level of flight hours". Parts we did not think would break are breaking quicker than we thought",characterising the problem as a "monumental fix- we are NOT going to see results quickly.But if we do not get it right,the availability will plummet and O&S costs skyrocket".

The "readiness cell" which is tasked with reviewing the problems,are looking at "20 parts that fail most often,the top 50 that take too long to fix and the 20 parts that cost the most when they come off".

Another reliability-related issue: "We assumed that the aircraft would be smart,and ALIS smart,but neither is smart today". (!!!)

Due to software related problems,the verification has achieved only 13% vs 27% expected at this timeframe and an estimated 13 month delay in delivering Block 2B. Bogdan however differed saying that only 20% was remaining and within a month of completing 2B within time.

The "long pole in the tent" is the modification of the USMC's F-35Bs into IOC configuration."We need aircaft for flight-test and aircraft for pilot training,and the same to be modified to IOC configuration" said Lt.Gen. Robert Schmidle,the Dy.Commandant for USMC aviation.

The GAO report also raises a longer-term concern about the ability of the service customers to sustain the program as planned.The GOA warned that while projected costs had been stable since 2012 through restructuring,the total acquisition cost averaging $12.6B /yr through to 2037,with several years above $15B,"does not appear to be achievable in the current fiscal environment",consuming 25% of the Pentagon's major acquisition funds over its lifetime.

Here is another AWST article on JSF-centric warfare and the doctrine by its proponents,an interesting read,which Sweetman challenges.This tangential to the basic issue of the JSF program,but shows up the contradictions in how some of its proponents view it in the battlefield.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/jsf-centri ... SF-Centric Warfare
Feb 20, 2013 by Bill Sweetman in Ares

Now charging into the Joint Strike Fighter debate is the American Enterprise Institute, with what they call “a comprehensive case for the F-35”. It’s not exactly surprising that the AEI supports the F-35, since the right-wing think tank has never met a weapon that it did not like, and has long been a home for China hawks.

What is interesting about the document is the strategic thinking behind it, which strongly downplays the Air Sea Battle concept in favor of a “forward strategy” that relies more on the Army and Marine Corps. Alone among F-35 operators, the Marines rate a whole chapter in the report, while the authors tout the Marines’ short take-off, vertical landing F-35B, in dispersed and hardened bases, as a solution to anti-access problems.

The authors are big on partnership-building and using short-range aircraft and land forces to ensure that allies are drawn into the fight, along the same lines as the Cold War confrontation in Europe. They go as far as to state that "ensuring that Chinese aggression draws blood from many nations is a critical element in raising the bar of deterrence".

A force heavy on long-range aircraft and warships does not do that, the AEI argues, and “without the mass and flexibility that [the F-35] provides, any first strike by China will fall on an inherently brittle defense.”

The writers push the notion of dispersal and base hardening, citing the Swedish air force’s Cold War practice, and then talk about an air force that is "essentially a light raiding, or ... a scouting hit-and-run 'cavalry' force that can fight for information and begin to shape the battlefield for larger and more powerful forces to exploit."

My italics. They have to mean land forces because there is nothing else in the picture that meets the description. This isn't even 1970s Cold War doctrine. The AEI is channeling Douglas Haig.

One question: Are the authors constructing a “boot-centric” forward strategy in order to justify spending every airpower cent on JSF, or are they using JSF and its industrial lobby to promote a forward strategy?

Either way, it does not help their case that the report and its associated web page are full of misinformation, distortion and unqualified assertions. For instance, the introductory Q&A website for the report says:

Why have program costs increased so dramatically?

First, costs have gone up because of changing government requirements.

There is no evidence to support this statement in the report itself, because no such evidence exists: The only changes have been diminutions, such as changes in mission profile to help the aircraft meet its range capability, while the contractor team has been given more time and money to do the job.

The report does say that the challenges of building the F-35 can be blamed “most of all” on “irregular funding”, even though systems development and demonstration budgets have never been raided or made conditional on arbitrary goals, and delays in production have simply reflected delays in development.

Other signs of weak editing, at best: The report touts the idea that India will buy the JSF, without telling the reader that India has an active program to collaborate with Russia on the T-50. It talks about "the implosion of the European fighter-making industry" – an industry that in 2012 delivered more operational fighters than the US, launched a 126-jet program with India, kicked off the JAS 39E, qualified an AAM that outclasses AMRAAM, and flew a stealth unmanned combat aircraft demonstrator.

The writers enthuse about the Flight 0 ships of the America class (LHA-6 and LHA-7), with their increased aviation capacity – “these truly are small aircraft carriers” – but don’t tell their readers that the Flight 0’s no-well-deck design has already been trashcanned for later ships.

Another piece this week makes an F-35B-centered pitch for the JSF, from retired Adm. James A. Lyons, now a defense consultant. What’s interesting is that both are placed on the political right. Lyons’ story is in the Washington Times, and AEI is not trying to sway any San Francisco or Boston Democrats.

This is aimed at cheap hawks of the Teapartyish and other persuasions – people who may be ready to believe that government shilly-shallying is to blame for overruns and that Air Sea Battle is an Obama-administration way of getting out of paying for real armed forces. So you wonder: are people getting worried about a bipartisan attack on the JSF?
[/quote]