Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

[brar_w]

I'd take consolidation any day over just investments. The first can lend a very high degree of synergy and efficiency at a reasonable level of invest

But what does it translate to exactly? How much does MBDA offer to the French and what EW capability do they field as a result? You have to spend money on R&D, invest in a pipeline, field systems and then train with them. A consolidated industry won't develop future systems, field them and develop operational concepts on its own. And Consolidation isn't just exclusive to these houses. Look at the EA/EW capability of BaE and their synergy with Lockheed (its after all an Ex-Lockheed holding) or with Northrop Grumman and even Raytheon ( all in about 4-5 OEM's that can do end to end Airborne EA/EW systems and do so with decades of expertise behind them and with multiple successful integration efforts successfully completed for various kinds of airborne applications). All of these do end-end systems equal to or better than the above mentioned French or European firms. Its not something exclusive to them and you still have to see what work is being funded, whats in the 10 year R&D pipeline (assuming quite logically that not all will be shared) and whats currently being fielded and for what fight. Consolidation or synergies alone gets you the capability to deliver good products and advanced R&D..you still need to go ahead and fund it appropriately and France is generally equal or more expensive to do business than other NATO nations.

[Karan M]

I'd take consolidation any day over just investments. The first can lend a very high degree of synergy and efficiency at a reasonable level of invest

But what does it translate to exactly? How much does MBDA offer to the French and what EW capability do they field as a result? You have to spend money on R&D, invest in a pipeline, field systems and then train with them. A consolidated industry won't develop future systems, field them and develop operational concepts on its own.

Of course they field them per user requirements and what they do make are very likely to be much more effective than those of other folks because of the fact that Thales, MBDA & Safran all work together. MBDA makes missiles based on Thales seekers and Safran avionics. Fighters go out with Thales cockpits and Safran A2G sensors. Thales makes radars. All source critical EW systems from common french Govt funded state owned or private firms which collaborate with all three firms which work closely together for programs like Rafale. Its not even rocket science to think of the amount of synergy. The same way NIIP & GRPZ enjoyed and which is why Russia has now created KRET out of NIIP, Phaza, Leninets and all its larger houses. Same way DRDO benefits from having its missiles and EW programs having access to its radar developers.

And Consolidation isn't just exclusive to these houses. Look at the EA/EW capability of BaE and their synergy with Lockheed (its after all an Ex-Lockheed holding)

With all sorts of firewalls preventing US outflow of technology. Multinational in name. How many current FCRs in fighters are "pure" BAE as versus Selex? How many European fighters have export capability in terms of F-22 like ESM systems?

or with Northrop Grumman and even Raytheon ( all in about 4-5 OEM's that can do end to end Airborne EA/EW systems and do so with decades of expertise behind them and with multiple successful integration efforts successfully completed for various kinds of airborne applications). All of these do end-end systems equal to or better than the above mentioned French or European firms.

Equal to or better.. the acceptance that equal to is itself a good start.

Its not something exclusive to them and you still have to see what work is being funded, whats in the 10 year R&D pipeline (assuming quite logically that not all will be shared) and whats currently being fielded and for what fight. Consolidation or synergies alone gets you the capability to deliver good products and advanced R&D..you still need to go ahead and fund it appropriately and France is generally equal or more expensive to do business than other NATO nations.

The pipeline will be classified but with a history of joint missile-radar-EW development under the same national ambit of cooperation, it gets a high degree of credibility. And France is expensive, but what you get for the price, is often worth it (apart from that Chirac, very little meddling in your national affairs, as versus the US).

[brar_w]

Of course they field them per user requirements and what they do make are very likely to be much more effective than those of other folks because of the fact that Thales, MBDA & Safran all work together. MBDA makes missiles based on Thales seekers and Safran avionics. Fighters go out with Thales cockpits and Safran A2G sensors. Thales makes radars. All source critical EW systems from common french Govt funded state owned or private firms which collaborate with all three firms which work closely together for programs like Rafale. Its not even rocket science to think of the amount of synergy. The same way NIIP & GRPZ enjoyed and which is why Russia has now created KRET out of NIIP, Phaza, Leninets and all its larger houses. Same way DRDO benefits from having its missiles and EW programs having access to its radar developers.

Those synergies exist elsewhere as well.

Thales, MBDA & Safran all work together. MBDA makes missiles based on Thales seekers and Safran avionics. Fighters go out with Thales cockpits and Safran A2G sensors.

That is practically the same relationship that other advanced OEM's share with one another. In the TAC-Fighter domain Lockheed - BAE (ex Lockheed) Raytheon and NG all work together (have since the 90's) - BAE works on the EA/EW, Northrop and Lockheed on the sensors, mission systems, and electronics, raytheon as the lead supplier to both Lockheed and Northrop for these components and the primary end-end developer for majority of the weapons.

All source critical EW systems from common french Govt funded state owned or private firms which collaborate with all three firms which work closely together for programs like Rafale. Its not even rocket science to think of the amount of synergy.

A similar relationship can be established for practically all advanced countries that have the capability to produce end-end EW systems using the public and private sector in different and innovative ways.

With all sorts of firewalls preventing US outflow of technology. Multinational in name. How many current FCRs in fighters are "pure" BAE as versus Selex? How many European fighters have export capability in terms of F-22 like ESM systems?

I wasnt even talking about outflow of technology, or the multi-national aspect of the parent organization. BaE's EW (Electronic Systems) division is ex-Lockheed and the reason Lockheed spun that out was because it was no longer exclusive domain for EW/EA funding and a 'separated' but close relationship allowed Lockheed to open up its supplier base to other advanced OEM's in EW/EA realm (Competition). Despite having spun it out, they have continued to work on the projects that they started together over the last 15 or so years and it is practically a given that for those products where BAE is great, they will team up with Lockheed when it comes to future capability. Northrop Grumman is another end-end EA/EW systems integrator that does everything from EW systems to Radars, to airframes and even dabbles in missiles. Raytheon does avionics, radars, EA/EW and weapons. Talking about synergies BaE (ex Lockheed) EW division, Northrop and Raytheon all have end-end capability when it comes to producing their own semi-conductors for EW and radar needs if they so choose to. In fact BAE has in the past competed (successfully) and demonstrated through DARPA their own GaN components to be superior to or at par than the best supplier base out there.

They have access to quite a bit when it comes to completely doing everything in house but they obviously do go outside where it makes sense - case in point - the F-35 capacity issue where Northrop Grumman just doesn't have foundry capacity to produce at the volumes therefore going out to Cree to co-produce RF components. Or Raytheon reaching out to Triquint (now Qorvo) for a similar deal on the AMDR. In fact the two firms that have the most end-end synergy (NG and Raytheon) have been trounced for a few very big EA/EW R&D contracts (and even procurement contracts) by BaE that has had success in working on next-generation EW systems and openly winning DARPA funding for experimentation and demonstrations for future systems. In that capacity they create synergies by working extremely closely with major integrators even before a project exists in the requirements phase. Synergies and doing everything in house is important, but so is the ability to compete and at times complete synergy dissuades one from looking at the competition that can not only delivery a better product, but at a lower cost.

Equal to or better.. the acceptance that equal to is itself a good start.

Equal or better in terms of synergies from doing the entire gamut of the EA/EW mission support. As far as projects are concerned some of these have had or currently have a significantly higher number of funded NG projects both on sheer numbers and dollar amounts in support of NG systems. At the end, synergies get you the capacity to execute on a project, you still need to have funding to work on products and deliver capacity to meet EA/EW system demands.

The pipeline will be classified but with a history of joint missile-radar-EW development under the same national ambit of cooperation, it gets a high degree of credibility. And France is expensive, but what you get for the price, is often worth it (apart from that Chirac, very little meddling in your national affairs, as versus the US).

It would be classified for all unless one assumes that France just gives blanked classifications to all EW's while others expose their crown jewels in the EW domain. Again, its better to try to gauge what sort of investments they are making in this domain compared to their peers outside and what sort of capability they are going to be fielding. I don't see any evidence that they are really gearing up to usher in a new era of EA/EW going forward while others have and are continuing (based on open source data - that naturally covers only a fraction of the investment) to over very very aggressively in that direction.

[Karan M]

Those synergies exist elsewhere as well.

Not to the extent in France and some other countries where Govt & other mandates including commercial pressures have consolidated major players into one.

A similar relationship can be established for practically all advanced countries that have the capability to produce end-end EW systems.

The competitive aspect prevents information sharing. Thales and Sagem don't compete for fighter radars.

I wasnt even talking about outflow of technology, or the multi-national aspect of the parent organization. BaE's EW (Electronic Systems) division is ex-Lockheed and the reason Lockheed spun that out was because it was no longer exclusive domain for EW/EA funding and a 'separated' but close relationship allowed Lockheed to open up its supplier base to other advanced OEM's in EW/EA realm (Competition). Despite having spun it out, they have continued to work on the projects that they started together over the last 15 or so years and it is practically a given that for those products where BAE is great, they will team up with Lockheed when it comes to future capability. Northrop Grumman is another end-end EA/EW systems integrator that does everything from EW systems to Radars, to airframes and even dabbles in missiles. Raytheon does avionics, radars, EA/EW and weapons. Talking about synergies BaE (ex Lockheed) EW division, Northrop and Raytheon all have end-end capability when it comes to producing their own semi-conductors for EW and radar needs if they so choose to. In fact BAE has in the past competed (successfully) and demonstrated through DARPA their own GaN components to be superior to or at par than the best supplier base out there.

That's called co-opetition. Partnership on select programs does not translate into widespread cooperation as versus the examples I gave above. Besides, some of these firms may have end to end capabilities, but what they can offer for export & will cooperate on is limited by ITAR & also artificial mandated boundaries.

They have access to quite a bit when it comes to completely doing everything in house but they obviously do go outside where it makes sense - case in point - the F-35 capacity issue where Northrop Grumman just doesn't have foundry capacity to produce at the volumes therefore going out to Cree to co-produce RF components. Or Raytheon reaching out to Triquint (now Qorvo) for a similar deal on the AMDR. In fact the two firms that have the most end-end synergy (NG and Raytheon) have been trounced for a few very big EA/EW R&D contracts (and even procurement contracts) by BaE that has had success in working on next-generation EW systems and openly winning DARPA funding for experimentation and demonstrations for future systems. In that capacity they create synergies by working extremely closely with major integrators even before a project exists in the requirements phase. Synergies and doing everything in house is important, but so is the ability to compete and at times complete synergy dissuades one from looking at the competition that can not only delivery a better product, but at a lower cost.

BaE as in the US. Again, where are BaEs MNC fighter radars and BaE's missile seekers? You seem to be under the impression that winning DARPA or US contracts == best in the world.

That's a very US centric view.

Equal or better in terms of synergies from doing the entire gamut of the EA/EW mission support. As far as projects are concerned some of these have had or currently have a significantly higher number of funded NG projects both on sheer numbers and dollar amounts in support of NG systems. At the end, synergies get you the capacity to execute on a project, you still need to have funding to work on products and deliver capacity to meet EA/EW system demands.

FUnding one proper program and getting it done effectively can be worth much more than running around 100 places with confused ones.

It would be classified for all unless one assumes that France just gives blanked classifications to all EW's while others expose their crown jewels in the EW domain. Again, its better to try to gauge what sort of investments they are making in this domain compared to their peers outside and what sort of capability they are going to be fielding. I don't see any evidence that they are really gearing up to usher in a new era of EA/EW going forward while others have and are continuing (based on open source data - that naturally covers only a fraction of the investment) to over very very aggressively in that direction.

You don't see evidence because you don't have access to that classified information.

Judging everything via the view that only the US does everything because it releases funding roadmaps is a mistake.

[Karan M]

Also, even a cursory look at Thales, Safran & MBDA indicates a robust order book, revenue stream, and other key metrics indicating their current product portfolio will be kept upto date. Hardly see this earth shattering superiority being ascribed to the US in terms of EW.

[brar_w]

Not to the extent in France and some other countries where Govt & other mandates including commercial pressures have consolidated major players into one

Massive consolidation has occurred elsewhere as well but you don't even need to have consolidation in order to demonstrate end-end synergy. Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are perfect examples where there is complete end-end Avionics, Sensors and EW synergy.

would still characterize most of what they do as cooperation in the system supplier à Lead integrator chain. Coopetition would be more where say A Lockheed or Boeing do a pre-down select handshake and guarantee the loosing design team production work for airframe components or when Lockheed reaches out to Northrop to make certain airframe sections for its fighers. When a BaE joins a Lockheed team it does so on the back of a product and offering that exists in a domain that Lockheed does not compete in. Lockheed divested its Electronic Systems divison that focused on the sort of applications that BaE does now out of New Hampshire. They no longer compete there so BaE has had over the last decade + a very and highly integrated relationship with the integrator knowing full well that it (much like Thales, and others) isn’t a Prime and doesn’t do end-end systems so must fully integrated with the primes to actually win business for its unit. Same with Northrop, Lockheed goes to them for systems and mission system help in domains that it does not play in (airborne tactical radars etc) and therefore fully integrates them into the design of its future products from the start.



Similarly, end-end capability exists with Northrop – where they do everything from design and build of their GaA and GaN semiconductors from their company owned foundry and goes all the way to competing for EW applications (and winning programs of record), airframes (they are a prime), and even sensors across the entire spectrum (including IR). They also compete for missiles in the air to air domain (although they have been less succesfull there of late). Same with end-end unmanned sollutions. Raytheon does all of this but the airframes, and has a huge munitions portfolio and just as Northrop has its own design and build foundry and provides end-end RF sollutions for all applications. They still compete and still reach out to design teams that may have better capability elsewhere since there are suppliers that in their own domain or niche are ahead than Northrop and Raytheon hence they involve them into their teams. Consolidation and end-end synergy isn’t exclusive to the European but extends beyond their borders to the rest of the world (including the IDF’s supplier base), but there are niche players that have built tremendous capabiltiies that is at times deemed superior to what these end-end suppliers have and is therefore rewarded with business. These players have figured out ways to integrate themselves with other businesses across the integrator map (manned and unmanned) for cooperation and synergy is also vital to their business continuity and financial prosperity.

The competitive aspect prevents information sharing. Thales and Sagem don't compete for fighter radars

There is plenty of information sharing where it is required. A BAE EW solution does not compete with an NG or Raytheon radar or other sensors. Even outside these examples, Both NG and Raytheon are at par and regularly compete with BAE and others for EW solutions and these have complete end to end solutions available. Raytheon beat both NG and BAE for a large RF Jammer contract (NGJ) for example, and Northrop beat both Raytheon and BAE for the Falcon Edge EW contract etc. If end-end delivers a better capability through synergy it would provide a competitive advantage and you will reap the rewards and they do at times (not always). They do but not always. Case in Point, Boeing chose BAE's GaN EW suite as the best capability for the US F-15 fleet modernization - when they could have chosen much more 'integrated' suppliers. EA/EW upgrade is of course the domain of the integrator to choose since it will be doing the integrating.

I’ll give you one S&T and one R&D example. Recently the US Navy, launched two programs with different goals and different timelines, one focused at conducting R&D to develop something in the short-medium term (say by 2025) and one meant for the 2030’s. The first was the continuation of an older program that was tasked to create an RF equivalent of EODAS in the sense that the goal is to create a highly compact, energy efficient extremely wide-band always on Staring (vs scanning) ESM setup that through one system covers huge swaths of the spectrum. The 2019 demonstrations for the program will result in demonstrating a tactically deployable and scalable system (for ships, fighters, and larger SIGNIT platforms) that through one receiver covers 550MHz to 100+ GHz in a staring fashion. It’s a relatively easy short step since it builds on work done in the last decade. Then, all of the big players competed for such an R&D project. You had the most ‘integrated, and synergized’ players in the domain such as Northrop Grumman (Synergy through consolidation over the years), and Raytheon (Synergy through consolidation much like NG) and you had other players that were more stand-alone but that had decades of experience on working on similar systems and working hand in hand with lead integrators for that’s the only way they can flourish. Besides NG and Raytheon, there was ITT and BaE and a few others that are even smaller players. BaE won on the back of their decades of work on creating advanced solutions (though not as capable as these requirements of course) for the 5th generation tactical fighter EW suits in a way trumping other’s more integrated status by sheer knowledge and experience in the domain that as being sought. Similarly they are in a very competitive place to compete for another that expands this wideband EW to cover Electronic Attack (active) in the 1 to 100 GHz frequency range (through essentially one setup) something that is currently a good 15-20 years away (but the seeds are being planted now).



My point is that synergy and integrated end-end solutions exist in the US just as they exist outside but individual mission sets within the EMS warfare realm can have domains where smaller players have built up high competency on the back of decades worth of work and at times do end up outcompeting these integrated players. The burden to integrate seamlessly with the ‘lead integrators’ or mission system developers is paramount to these suppliers survival just as staying competitive in all realms is to the larger, more end-end integrated players.

Besides, some of these firms may have end to end capabilities, but what they can offer for export & will cooperate on is limited by ITAR & also artificial mandated boundaries.

Now we are getting into export and ITAR when we were talking about EA/EW capability in general..

BaE as in the US. Again, where are BaEs MNC fighter radars and BaE's missile seekers? You seem to be under the impression that winning DARPA or US contracts == best in the world.

I am afraid you are twisting my words here. All I said was that synergy need not always translate to a competitive advantage and result in the best systems. While it most certainly does in many cases there are umpteen programs where those that competed with higher degree of end-end synergy were deemed to have an inferior offering. No where did I say that DARPA is the gold standard or to win a DARPA contract would automatically make you the best in the world.

FUnding one proper program and getting it done effectively can be worth much more than running around 100 places with confused ones.

OK. So could you point me to a few really effective proper Next Generation programs that these firms have executed in the EA/EW domain vs a 100 confused ones elsewhere?

You don't see evidence because you don't have access to that classified information.

Classified programs aren't exclusive to France and no one here has access to theirs or anyone else's classified programs.

Judging everything via the view that only the US does everything because it releases funding roadmaps is a mistake.

Quite the opposite. I am saying that every one plays in the 'classified' realm and not exclusively France, or MBDA, Safran and Thales. The US has a huge Black budget, and by all accounts would treat EA/EW as a high priority in it. The US does not release a complete roadmap for EW/EA..the last document released was practically useless because of the level of classification and redactions. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of OPEN research, fielding of systems and capabilities that one can look at to develop an understanding on how they are gearing up for the Next Generation EW/EA missions. To simply say that others are too we just don't know about it is not very persuasive especially if one wants to be considered a major player in the domain. Every nation has classified and non-classified elements to their EW program and we obviously can only have access to the latter and compare. You can't really say France is at par or ahead of any other equally well funded nation in the classified domain so you must see what they have openly claimed to be developing or fielding in this domain and from that its essentially a few SIGNIT platforms and defensive EW suits on their tactical fighters. Future EW R&D is promising for Europe but again much higher investments are being made elsewhere based on OPEN data.

Also, even a cursory look at Thales, Safran & MBDA indicates a robust order book, revenue stream, and other key metrics indicating their current product portfolio will be kept upto date. Hardly see this earth shattering superiority being ascribed to the US in terms of EW.

Are we still looking at their order book with EA/EW systems in mind, or everything combined?

Judging EW/EA Prowess or capability for any nation is pretty straight forward . Look at these (among others) –



- Current Operational Capability – Quantity and Quality of available EW assets, across the spectrum

- Training resources and readiness – Look at what the level of resource commitment is to training, developing operational concepts, and how well is the dedicated EW community funded (if one exists) – This is one area where even in the US, the VAQ community of the Navy Is the envy of even AOC retirees . All they do is focus their resources when it comes to ranges, threat simulations, training and concept development on ONE MISSION – EMS Warfare.

- R&D – Look at the R&D funding, types of projects currently funded etc – R&D gives a snapshot into whats coming 10-15 years down the road

- S&T – Look at the Basic S&T investment, types of projects and concepts being worked upon for an indication of what’s coming 15-30 years down the road

. Hardly see this earth shattering superiority being ascribed to the US in terms of EW.

Let's break EMS Warfare down to the various mission sets and look at current capability across the mission set, known short term capability in the pipeline across the mission set and known S&T efforts across the mission set to provide an order of magnitude more advanced capability over the medium term. Without such a review you can't really claim the presence or absence of parity or superiority. JED is a great source to start from but there is plenty more out there that one could look into.



The main mission sets could include –



Offensive Ops – Leveraging EW/EA to support destruction or suppression of Air Defenses, suppression or destruction of bi-static or multi-static setups, passive systems on the ground. To disrupt (to any degree), degrade or destroy enemy Communications, Data Links and C2 setup . To defeat agile waveforms, in the RF spectrum and to destroy the opponents ability to maneuver using these systems (solid state systems have and are proliferating rapidly)


Defensive Ops – Leveraging EW/EA to defeat or deny the enemies control of the EM spectrum, thwart enemy offensive EW efforts aimed at destroying or degrading your own RF emitters and data-links and closing the feedback loop to stay on top of the active and cyber threat and go after Jill chains



Mission Support and Combat Ops Enabling missions – Leverage EW/EA to support other mission needs and to make sure that the offensive capability is unaffected amidst constant manipulation and adaptation of the enemy as it maneuvers within the spectrum – Here what you need is the EA/EW community to support the joint air, sea and land forces in executing the CONOPS amidst challenges that the opponent throws at you. Here the EA/EW community is tasked with determining the scope and extent of the enemy’s EW/EA and now days increasingly cyber capabilities and helping the operator develop wideband waveforms that are resilient, diverse and that can be managed through a short cycle (feedback loop again) so that the EA/EW community can keep other assets informed in near-real time as to the changing nature of the threat so that they can modify their own waveforms to perform in areas that may be less threatning or those that the EA/EW community can deal with the easiest. (This is the single most important, time consuming, and resource constraining mission of all and why the USN and USAF no longer relies solely on the NATO standard L-16 as its mainstay waveform with the USN adopting the TTNT software based structure, and the USAF pivoting to NSA approved IFDL and MADL on the way to even longer ranged ADL – The Growler’s as tasked with informing the joint forces as to how to set up their agile waveforms with the ultimate long term goal being to be able to do this on the fly through a webbed system – using the capability highlighted above in the two Navy programs).


Cyber and EW Missions – How the EA/EW communit blends the Cyber and EW domain and prefroms network penetrations, cyber battle damage assessment (you don’t want to give away an exploit or capability if its not working) and supports defensive missions or what is these days being refferd to as – Cyber/EW escort. – This is an area you are unlikely to get a whole lot of open source info for any nation but still plenty out there to develop a basic understanding.

Anyways this is getting OT. I had been meaning to share some of my favorite EW articles and chapters and had been requested by a few here earlier. I'll try putting something together in a couple of days.

[Cain Marko]

Hi,
It's been a while since I posted. The discussion over the last few pages has been very enlightening, so I figured my 2 cents may be added. .....

Wasting further time and effort in the medium category appears futile at best, with mission creep in the low end and numbers at the high end eating into the fundamental requirement for the mid. Mediums were supposed to be better than light fighters and procurable in numbers much greater than heavy - if that's not the case, time to question the basics.

Just my 2 cents, please tear away.

Cheers
Aharam

+ 1 to this and Srai's reply post. At current prices the mid level is becoming increasingly untenable. Plus, the mk2 lca should be close enough to the original medium requirement, the mirage.

The lca should be ordered in more numbers until the amca comes along....200mk1a and 200 mk2 till 2035 by which time amca should be online. If needed,a small procurement of 40 additional heavies in the interim could help.

It is interesting however that the GOI sees it very differently. The plan IS to have a second line going for the mediym category with a private player at what could only be a colossal price. We are looking at $25 billion plus..along with another $10 billion for the 36 raffle. Incredible India.

HAL and Russian preponderance must be creating a condition that is truly the pits if the govt is so desperate to get a private player going...can't imagine any other reason.

[Karan M]

Brar, you are just posting a ton of text without any corroborating information or making a case that somehow France is behind the rest of the world or the US. Just stating the US has more resources, doesn't cut it. For all your statements of US supremacy in radars etc, there are tieups Thales has with US firms to market its radars. Not every segment has the US as the only answer. Selex is busy selling compact AESAs to the Coast Guard or some such force. Point is the world is not merely the US and only the US does not lead everything, merely because it pumps a lot of resources.

Here is what you should do,take a look at the entire Safran, Thales and MBDA portfolio. See the systems that go into them. As versus positing only on US EW systems. Then seeing the amount of cooperation (answer, eons ahead of most countries because they dont compete with each other except in relatively niche areas like thermal imagers and even the detectors for those come from a central french agency). Then see the amount of revenue these firms pull in together & realize that they are not exactly struggling for financing on their own - and on top of it, they work for the French Govt, together.

Not the pork barrel and pie US set up, where multiple firms compete for the same program but end up replicating efforts. The Rafale program management versus that on the JSF for instance, without the USAF, USN and USMC all setting all sorts of differing program goals and objectives for their respective programs and ending up with a hodge podge of a fighter which will be redeemed by its stealth and advanced avionics and which could have been so much more. The fact that you won't accept this as well, is also a given. But 99.9% of the world who have tracked the JSF program would.

This cooperation is because Sagem will happily sit & share data about its avionics to Thales which will work with Dassault to design the overall system and MBDA will develop missiles uniquely tailored to the Rafale or tweak them & the setup proceeds with full data transfer within all three orgs.

This is the standard practise with French programs since their basic product lines don't overlap for the most part, this does not require specific input or programs launched with strict French Govt oversight.

MBDA is not concerned that its seeker information is "lost" to Sagem or Thales when they work on Spectra. The French Govt works together to keep all three on track & its much easier because the three firms don't compete with each other on critical RF tech. Unlike NG vs Raytheon and so forth.

This is the reality. In contrast, most WW orgs are often a maze of bureaucratese & jumbled up regulations prohibiting them from even working together unless specific program heads butt heads. The fact that you didnt't understand how ITAR and other regulations even affect how advanced features cannot be shared with prospective customers who then suggest improvements, or would even be willing to fund those efforts, speaks volumes. The UAE and the Block 60 improvements for instance. India & Moog actuators for Rustom-2 for instance.

BTW if it makes you feel better, Russia was much the same way as the US, with Phazatron and NIIP replicating efforts and wasting scarce resources on similar programs. It has taken a presidential decree to fix that and create KRET.

All you are telling me is that US is great because US spends resources and you have not posted anything about how France is behind in EA or EW.

All the stuff you are posting about R&D budgets, S&T is funny because its nearly always classified and any analyst would know that its a common practice across the world that they are redacted even in company Annual Reports & even sectoral profits & revenues are not reported because it gives an indication of the order book, and hence its up to the company's discretion as to what they choose to report (and don't). See a few analyst calls sometimes and see what that goes on as folks try to guessestimate these details.

Hence a good proxy is to see what is available via product lines and in the case of missing product lines (often deliberately classified), to look at proxies for similar products. For instance to judge any countries capability in EW you would look at radars. If both are deliberately missing, then look at radar warning receivers. If all three are missing then look at commercial capabilities which involve complex RF networks & the efforts they have managed there. Look at test facilities. Look at customer claims. Look at what happens with exports. And so forth.

In each of the cases above, what France does is at par or ahead of many WW firms & capabilities.

These are merely the basics, though doing the above is easier said than done & in short, that is why the generalities you are postulating are in not making a definitive case and won't either as everything available suggests the exact opposite.

Even that is not required, if one merely looks at what France provides via Thales, Sagem, Safran et al, they are every bit on par with worldwide firms in many critical areas.

France makes state of the art radars, ESM suites, datalinks, software defined radios with proprietary waveforms, has the entire end to end foundry to embedded software bit within Europe via state owned firms or partnerships, strategic to tactical missiles with all subsystems, naval, land based EW suites... in each case equivalent to or even leading the rest of the world in specific attributes.. something few if any countries could manage at even a fraction of the sophistication French firms do at the depth and range... and somehow, their EW aids portion is where they are behind, because you believe it to be & not because the French deliberately don't advertise certain niche capabilities such as the capabilities of their fighter EW suites for custom makes (unless somebody is willing to pay for it & keep it quiet). From CATIA to providing TOT, the French are at the edge of every aerospace domain.

In commercial aerospace as and when they chose to compete with the US, with Airbus, they hit a home run, in your parlance.

To then imply that somehow they are behind, doesn't pass the smell test.

Dont give me generics about what EW/EA constitute. I know that, heck most of the folks discussing these topics would too. Tell us the specific areas that France is behind the US or the rest of the world in those areas. Anyone reasonable though, would look at all the above areas and come to their own conclusions. As far as I am concerned the US, France and a couple of other countries lead the world in EW aids - Elettronica of Italy for instance & Indra of Spain have long maintained state of the art capabilities and programs like the EFA helped them. Where French firms differ is that they don't need to rely on the occasional EFA to sustain them. They have constant local programs like the Rafale & other ones plus a huge exports apparatus to make sure the engine keeps chugging. Guess what, they don't even need to attend international seminars like many of the US/Euro firms do to hawk their capabilities because their local programs are adequately funded and hence they don't need to drum up interest.

To deny all this is to then engage in semantic quibbles about what shade of blue the sky is.

[brar_w]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5092&p=2020921#p2020921

[deejay]

HTT 40 was seen moving around the tarmac and on the runway under own power. CJ report.

[Kartik]

So ground runs have begun

[deejay]

So ground runs have begun

Ground runs have been on for some time. They have begun ground maneuvering and taxi trials.

[JTull]

Repeating post from Space thread about potential implications of a RLV for IAF.

This mission costed less than IAF deployment to Red Flag!

If ISRO could 'boost' RLV-TD enough to make round the world trips and perfect spacecraft recovery, then this could be a very useful spacecraft even with the 'TD' size.

It could have significant uses to the Aerospace command with low cost of the mission on an Agni type booster. It could serve some short term surveillance mission profiles like our own mini X-37B. Also potentially a small fleet ready to target LEO satellites in the event of a conflict.

ISRO could also retain this to test various technologies.

Long way to go in order to achieve all the inherent technologies, but I wouldn't discard the TD sized version.

[Kartik]

So ground runs have begun

Ground runs have been on for some time. They have begun ground maneuvering and taxi trials.

Good to know that. HAL has been awfully quiet on this program's progress.

[Austin]

Interview with MOD Parrikar

http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/n ... 42764.html

[sankum]

The Design and Development contract for the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) with Russia will be signed soon. It will take 8-10 years. Three squadrons of Sukhoi will reach India.

He means direct import of 3sq of FGFA.

[Viv S]

The Design and Development contract for the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) with Russia will be signed soon. It will take 8-10 years. Three squadrons of Sukhoi will reach India.

He means direct import of 3sq of FGFA.

He means three squadrons of Su-30MKIs (with 11 out of 14 squadrons are up and running).

Three squadrons of Sukhoi will reach India, followed by the Tejas and Rafale.

[Philip]

Are these (MKIs) ones on order or new ones?

[kit]

Are these (MKIs) ones on order or new ones?

the Super Sukhois more likely .. the gate crashers

[Austin]

AFAIK the total sukhoi squadron target strength for long is for 272 aircraft , don't know of new order

All these are to be made by HAL so I don't know what mod means by 3 squadron sukhoi reaching India its not outright purchase of mki

What he likely means is that 3 PAK-FA squadron will be out right purchased , while in 8-10 years india specific fgfa is developed

[Karan M]

Austin, even I read the account the same way.

[Viv S]

AFAIK the total sukhoi squadron target strength for long is for 272 aircraft , don't know of new order

All these are to be made by HAL so I don't know what mod means by 3 squadron sukhoi reaching India its not outright purchase of mki

What he likely means is that 3 PAK-FA squadron will be out right purchased , while in 8-10 years india specific fgfa is developed

There's no way delivery of the PAK FA deliveries can begin "before" that of the Rafale and Tejas.

If there were three squadrons of PAK FAs were inbound, it would have been huge news (much more so than the Rafale). And the RM would have certainly taken the time to properly present it as a major step taken by the govt to reinforce the IAF's position. He would also not have referred to them as 'Sukhois' even though technically the PAK FA is a Sukhoi-design.

Much more likely that he misspoke when he said they will 'reach India' as opposed to outstanding orders being 'delivered to the IAF'. I think we may be over-analysing the RM's words here.

[Viv S]

S.M Hali interviews PAF chief ACM Sohail Aman -

[Austin]

It is equally doubtful that 3 Squadron of Sukhoi will be delivered to IAF followed by Tejas and Rafale .....Likely we would see Tejas entering 1-2 squadron before all the 3 MKI squadron will enter IAF service perhaps even few Rafale might enter if not squadron if deal gets signed by June.

What RM says can be interpreted in many ways , we will have to want and see what he really means

[Viv S]

It is equally doubtful that 3 Squadron of Sukhoi will be delivered to IAF followed by Tejas and Rafale .....Likely we would see Tejas entering 1-2 squadron before all the 3 MKI squadron will enter IAF service perhaps even few Rafale might enter if not squadron if deal gets signed by June.

The deliveries/raising/conversion of the 3 remaining MKI squadrons will begin ahead of the Tejas and Rafale. There's no possible way for the PAK FA to enter Indian colours before them. Even if the MoD sanctions an interim PAK FA purchase, there is no realistic scenario under which a contract get signed before 2018 (and that is a very very optimistic timeframe) which means deliveries will begin no earlier than 2021 (probably later since the requisite infrastructure for mass-production is still very much a work-in-process).

What RM says can be interpreted in many ways , we will have to want and see what he really means

The simpler explanation is usually the likelier one.

[Austin]

The deliveries/raising/conversion of the 3 remaining MKI squadrons will begin ahead of the Tejas and Rafale. There's no possible way for the PAK FA to enter Indian colours before them. Even if the MoD sanctions an interim PAK FA purchase, there is no realistic scenario under which a contract get signed before 2018 (and that is a very very optimistic timeframe) which means deliveries will begin no earlier than 2021 (probably later since the requisite infrastructure for mass-production is still very much a work-in-process).

If you check the MKI thread HAL clearly states all the MKI delivery will be completed by 2020 and its unlikely we wont see more than 1 squadron of Tejas or few Rafale before that.

Like I said its open to interpretation ,we will see in coming days and months what he means

[sankum]

224 nos Su30 have been delivered by March2016. The last 48 nos will be delivered by 2020 @12/year by HAL.

There were reports that 40-80 Su30 mki more will be ordered. It may be 3sq Su30 or 3sq Pakfa will be direct purchased from Russia to shore up the IAF strength seeing the limited production capacity of HAL.

[Viv S]

If you check the MKI thread HAL clearly states all the MKI delivery will be completed by 2020 and its unlikely we wont see more than 1 squadron of Tejas or few Rafale before that.

Like I said its open to interpretation ,we will see in coming days and months what he means

Yes the Tejas & Rafale deliveries will begin before the Su-30MKI. He was speaking quite casually, as opposed to reading off a prepared and proofread script. All the same, he made no mention of the PAK FA anywhere (the 'FGFA' was referenced separately), so I don't see how it enters the picture.

[chiru]

Amazing footage of LCH. TD-4 in all its glory. Love the trishul on the bird. Apologies if posted earlier.
Rudra in IAF colours.

[Viv S]

Replace https://youtu.be/OvT1gm_I5lY with OvT1gm_I5lY.

[Cain Marko]

If you check the MKI thread HAL clearly states all the MKI delivery will be completed by 2020 and its unlikely we wont see more than 1 squadron of Tejas or few Rafale before that.

Like I said its open to interpretation ,we will see in coming days and months what he means

Yes the Tejas & Rafale deliveries will begin before the Su-30MKI. He was speaking quite casually, as opposed to reading off a prepared and proofread script. All the same, he made no mention of the PAK FA anywhere (the 'FGFA' was referenced separately), so I don't see how it enters the picture.

There is also the possibility, however remote, that 40 additional mkis were purchased without much fanfare ala the s400. Not too long ago there were reports suggesting that this was already done..

[Austin]

There is also the possibility, however remote, that 40 additional mkis were purchased without much fanfare ala the s400. Not too long ago there were reports suggesting that this was already done..

There are no additional order beyond 272 even the HAL charman says that in as many words

[nirav]

Could be a direct buy and not from HALs line ..

[KBDagha]

Source : ‏@writetake

HAL's #HTT40 during HSTT (95 knots) held on Sunday. The BTA is expected to have its maiden flight soon

[shiv]

Source : ‏@writetake

HAL's #HTT40 during HSTT (95 knots) held on Sunday. The BTA is expected to have its maiden flight soon

95 knots! 175 kmph. Either the thing actually took off or it was forced to stay attached to the tarmac by holding it down.

[deejay]

Source : ‏@writetake

HAL's #HTT40 during HSTT (95 knots) held on Sunday. The BTA is expected to have its maiden flight soon

95 knots! 175 kmph. Either the thing actually took off or it was forced to stay attached to the tarmac by holding it down.

The second half underlined is correct. 95 knots is surely above its take off speed.

[Singha]

blow after blow must be landed on the backsides of the arms merchants by inducting desi products in volume

[K_Rohit]

Has this been posted before. Great read. Great nuggets including that of the intercept.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160511/j ... 0vJoPl96Un

[Austin]

Do Saal Modi Sarkar: Interview with Union Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOwFr0Dy_M

[JayS]

95 knots! 175 kmph. Either the thing actually took off or it was forced to stay attached to the tarmac by holding it down.

The second half underlined is correct. 95 knots is surely above its take off speed.

Perhaps flaps weren't deployed?? W/o high lift config and the pilot actually pulling back on the stick, it could stay on ground for speeds higher than normal V_rotation.

EDIT: I saw the pic on twitter. Flaps were deployed and it looks like its few inches off the ground, unless my eyes are cheated by some spell.