PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Jun 2014 06:52

Logically it makes sense for russia to share threat libraries for chinese version of S-300/400s.

In case of war if a PAK FA is shot down by S-300/400 the hekadi (insult) for russia's platinum bullet platform will be huge. The cheenis may even claim that it was shot down by j-20/31 or even j-11 etc. The market for PAK FA worldwide would suffer. But if PAK FA takes out S-300/400 batteries, cheenis are not going to even acknowledge for 'face-losing'. So that'll anyway remain a 'eta secret'.

Hope somebody from putin admin reads my post and brings sanity to russians.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2014 07:22

,stealth is being nibbled away as new countermeasures appear


It better be.

The process is called "progress".

The problems are those that are stuck thinking what they know is good enough. Aerodynamics.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 01 Jun 2014 08:02

Threat Libraries are never shared unless you are part of alliance like NATO/CSTO they are gradually built upon by painstaking work from SIGNIT/COMINT warriors over period of time and reassessed over time to keep it current or add new threats to it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 01 Jun 2014 09:21

If you read between the lines in the reams of JSF data available,including the latest posts,Israeli AF,etc.,increasingly,stealth is being nibbled away as new countermeasures appear.That's why there is such a great emphasis on EW in the US.Statements from the top US generals ("without the F-22,the JSF is irrelevant","needs Growlers",etc.).Packs of Growlers being recommended to accompany strike aircraft including the JSF.The Israelis have been so successful in their aerial missions because of their huge superiority in EW over their neighbours. It would be interesting to see what they add to the JSF and how they will deploy it in combat,most certainly along with other legacy aircraft


Those statements have been put into context in the discussions on the JSF thread. Secondly, the Stealth vs EW debate is moot, as we both performance and capabilities are highly classified and held close to the chests. Even the F-35 fanboy in Bill Sweetman wanted the pentagon to disclose classified information etc. Secondly EW protection is inherent to both the F-22 and F-35. The active element is restricted for emcon. There is plenty of space in the fighter to add EW packages for a greater active profile or for a third party or customer. The design, and requirements come from decades of operational experience in stealth and using stealth both succesfully and unsuccessfully in strike and SEAD. Israel has a long history of EW development, they have systems in place both for EW and for Tactical data links. They have to put those systems on the F-35 for interoperability, commonality that they so value for a small nation that seeks to have a qualitative edge. The US is spending many times the closest second competitor on direct EW R&D and procurement. Is there even a competitor for the EA-18 and the Next gen jammer combo? The PACKS of growlers you recommend are not going to be accompanying the F-35 according to the USN's own declared strategy. Not to say that the EW ability the Growlers provide is not required, but you do not need a non-stealty jet to accompany a stealthy jet just for the sake providing it EW protection. In fact this is the most ridiculous thing i have heard in a while. As the USN has said they are going to use the EA18G's to take care of the RF spectrum from the saturation angle and use the F-35C from the stealth and penetration angle. This is a very good strategy for them since they cannot saturate an IADS using stealth and tactical EW alone for they lack the firepower given that a carrier strike group is limited by design (as opposed to the USAF which can bring a host of assets from fighters to UAV's to flying big bombers). The USN has a long standing demand to take care of the RF spectrum over a potential battlefield. That demand does not change with the arrival of the F-35. The F-35 does give them penetration which would not have been possible with the F-18EF and Growler combo as quite a bit of sanitization would need to be done before the air space is opened up for penetrating ops. They could either wait, or as they have done in the past let the USAF big boys (B-2's, B-1's etc) take care of those missions.

Image

The JSF's cost factor,both acquisition and maintenance,still undeterminable,except that it has been rising and rising


What was the cost of the F-35 in LRIP 1? What is the cost of the F-35 in LRIP 7? What is the projected cost of the F-35 in LRIP 10 and Full scale production block 1/2 for 2019?

The 55 year operational costs have come down by 22%. These things have been presented with the required links to substantiate them in the appropriate thread.

I am not in favor of the IAF getting the F-35, but with the current cost estimates of the rafale i'd rather we stick to the MKI+LCA+FGFA for now with the AMCA coming in the future, that way we put all our eggs in "four baskets". However the cost argument for the F-35 is rather absurd since even at the early stage of production and with in testing phase the prices are trending downwards and projected to be very competitive with 4.5 gen aircrafts such as the rafale and the typhoon.

You also need to better understand payload centric concepts and net centricity. You cannot keep on piling up $hit on the Super Hornet and have it better at net centricity and call it a winner. Payload centric concept calls for sensors and weapons to be de-linked from the platform. You still need a sensor over the target and a shooter in the back end. Payload centric concepts call for the F-35C to penetrate deep into enemy territory and pass on targeting cues to the F-18E/Fs far back that cannot accompany it. The Super Hornets can then use things like JASSM's etc to attack targets long after the F-35C has exhausted its weapons. The F-35 and the JSF program by definition values the Payload centric concept through the enourmous amounts of sensors it provides and the fact that it has interoperability and SA prioritized at every level of its development.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2014 18:12

Threat Libraries are never shared unless you are part of alliance like NATO/CSTO they are gradually built upon by painstaking work from SIGNIT/COMINT warriors over period of time and reassessed over time to keep it current or add new threats to it


Normal wisdom.

But, in the Indo-China scenario we have a unique case. Both the S300/400 systems (in china) and the PAK-FA (in India), whose library would need an update, are supplied by Russia.

So, the question is why would India need to go through any pain? Update that library and "knock down the door".

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 01 Jun 2014 18:32

I am not much worried about the S400 system as that is likely to go to the bigger cities to protect vital air defences. What would be more interesting would be to see the advances china makes into its own AD kit post this acquisition and once they see some of the capabilities of the system and what they can bring into their own products.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1279
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby RKumar » 01 Jun 2014 19:53

NRao wrote:But, in the Indo-China scenario we have a unique case. Both the S300/400 systems (in china) and the PAK-FA (in India), whose library would need an update, are supplied by Russia.

So, the question is why would India need to go through any pain? Update that library and "knock down the door".


I don´t feel Russia will provide any info to India/China unless they are really pissed off with some party. In weapons market, you sell weapons to both parties and learn the weakness of these weapons n develop next wave by trying to fix those weak points. The long the war, you earn more. So keep the war going by being neutral and making both party your loyal customers (present and future).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 02 Jun 2014 01:14

Philip wrote:If you read between the lines in the reams of JSF data available,including the latest posts,Israeli AF,etc.,increasingly,stealth is being nibbled away as new countermeasures appear.


Which is an even more serious issue for the PAK FA, wherein like I said before, there isn't a lot of stealth to begin with.

That's why there is such a great emphasis on EW in the US.Statements from the top US generals ("without the F-22,the JSF is irrelevant","needs Growlers",etc.).Packs of Growlers being recommended to accompany strike aircraft including the JSF.The Israelis have been so successful in their aerial missions because of their huge superiority in EW over their neighbours. It would be interesting to see what they add to the JSF and how they will deploy it in combat,most certainly along with other legacy aircraft .


Q: What do the USMC, IsAF, RAF, RN, TAF, ItAF, JASDF, ROKAF, RAAF, NoAF, etc have in common?

A: Among other things, they are inducting the F-35 but operate neither the F-22 nor the Growler. Even for the USAF, F-22 deliveries have been capped at 187 units and its ORBAT does not include the EA-18G.

To deal with both,we need both numbers and quality.Affordable 4+,4++ and 5th-gen fighters ,with the IAF's strength raised by 20-25% at least. The JSF's cost factor,both acquisition and maintenance,still undeterminable,except that it has been rising and rising,makes it impossible for the IAF to consider acquiring,when there are much cheaper 4++ gen alternatives available for the strike role.


I think you mean falling and falling (and falling).

From $220M IIRC for the LRIP 1 aircraft to $112M for the LRIP 7 units.

At full production its expected to be about $75 million which is competitive with every 4.5G aircraft out there including the Gripen-E and Su-35.

If the LCA arrives in large numbers with ramped up production,the close-support role will have been plugged,at very low cost,if an LCA costs just $25M+ as opposed to the current $100-130+M tag for a JSF.


As good value for money as the Tejas is, it is not designed for high risk missions such as SEAD/DEAD, deep strike or EW in enemy airspace. Even CAS can only be delivered where the mobile SAM threat is low.

As costs have been rising,the orders from allies have been drastically reduced too,which in effect will ultimately raise unit costs unless the US buys it in bulk.Here,the US def. budget has also been downsized considerably as it exits its unsuccessful expeditionary wars,reducing its inventory significantly.


Israel. Japan. South Korea. Singapore. All reduced orders recouped. (Plus possible extras in the future from Spain, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Greece etc.)

Also, the F-35 has been walled off from the sequestration and the withdrawal from Afghanistan will increase the budget available to improve conventional capabilities.

As Adm. Greenert ,CNO of the USN has said,the time has come for "payload centric warfare ,not platform centric",with the advent of LR PGMs and NCW and the huge US demand for delivering ordnance on the battlefield,where in recent conflicts,more ordnance has been dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan than was dropped in WW2 and Vietnam.


Indeed. And the F-35 will be integrated with the widest selection of weapons of any aircraft in history including the most cost effective American munitions. SDB II. CBU-105. (Aside from the Paveway and JDAM families)

The FGFA's role in our context will primarily be to exterminate any enemy aircraft in the sky and dominate the airspace over any theatre of war that we are engaged in.We are not going to use it as tank busters,strafing enemy troops,etc.The bird has been planned to carry 400KM AAMs capable of shooting down enemy AWACS,and the like.


... as long as SEAD/DEAD, deep strike aren't required.

As far as its AD with Russian SAMs are concerned and their capability,one can only speculate.The S-300s/400s will be mainly used for ABM defence ,defending key N-command centres, etc.What level of capability the Russia have or will provide is another Q.However,in general,the Russians have always given India a level of capability above that given to China in similar weapon systems.Our desi improvements integrating western tech to Russian platforms has maintained the edge.


So we hope and pray that Chinese S-300/400s and equivalent systems don't end up deployed on the India front let alone tied into other ground and air based assets such as AWACS and ELINT units. And in the event that they are, we pray that Russia has hugely degraded them and the Chinese derivatives are correspondingly low tech.

One has no doubt that the FGFA will contain an EW package that meets the requirements of its end users in addition to its stealth package.Perhaps even the development of Flanker "Growler" equivs. may appear to augment penetration capability for both stealth and non-stealth 4th-gen aircraft.


The FGFA will have the same stealth and avionics 'package' as the PAK FA which is designed for the original end user i.e the Russian Air Force.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20879
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 02 Jun 2014 03:32

From all available open info,there is no way that the JSF is going to come with a price tag of $75M.The production aircraft from Bogged-down himself,have to be rectified for new found faults,adding to time and cost.The aircraft is still under development ,the definitive version has yet to be perfected,as new cracks,faults etc. arrive each month,and is being rushed through in production,something unheard of (the definitive production version of the LCA for example is just around the corner,after which series production will commence),adding to the turbulence in the programme.There is a 13 month delay in the USMC bird,software issues mainly and the USN version will debut only in 2019 at the current timeframe.We've got a long wait before prices are firmed up. As of now Let's wait and see what happens by Dec 2014 and the next Pentagon report in 2015.

For those who claim costs are coming down,please look upward!

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?m=201404
New F-35 Claim: Lower O&S Offsets Higher Acquisition Cost

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Washington - Last week the U.S. Defense Department released its new Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) on its major weapon programs. These annual reports are the Pentagon’s effort at definitive cost analysis; they come in two forms: the summary data on all 77 of DOD’s Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and separate reports on individual programs, such as the F-35—the latter put on-line without a pay wall by Breaking Defense.

As in recent years, the release of new data on the F-35 provoked press coverage, some of it quite thorough in summarizing much the new data and what the top F-35 defender, F-35 program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, had to say about it all. However, there are some important points that did not get the attention they perhaps deserve, and one key point seems to have been generally missed.

F-35 Acquisition costs increased US$ 7.4 billion

As the SARs and Department of Defense’s summary of them made clear:
The cost to acquire the F-35 has gone up compared to last year’s estimate. Page 6 of DOD’s summary of its SAR states that F-35 airframe “costs increased +$3.1 billion (+1.0%) from $326.9 billion to $330.0 billion” and costs for the separately accounted engine “increased +$4.3 billion (+6.7%) from $64.3 billion to $68.6 billion.”

The $7.4 billion cost increase comes in the face of promises, made by F-35 program manager Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan and DOD acquisition czar Frank Kendall to Congress, that costs are coming down and will do so in the future. Bogdan describes the new increases as due to higher than predicted actual labor costs and the decision of some buyers, including the US Navy, to delay their purchases—thereby delaying the onset of cost reductions from the so-called learning curve and economies of scale. Those developments should hardly have been a surprise, especially for someone as involved in the F-35 program as Lt. Gen. Bogdan.

Continued promise since 2007: “cost reduction as soon as new buyers commit to the F-35″

But all that now should be seen as stale history as Bogdan re-assures the press that new cost reductions will occur as soon as new buyers commit to the program—assuming they all do and that existing F-35 buyers do not balk even more than some have already.

In truth, the future of the F-35 program remains clouded, and most cloudy of all is the ultimate unit cost of the aircraft and the impact of that cost, as its reality unfolds, on existing and future buyers. As previously argued, there is good reason to think the real-world unit cost of F-35s, on average, will stay much closer to the $200 million level than it does to the dubious predictions of Lockheed and Lt. Gen. Bogdan, such as $75 million each. (Editor: 23-Apr2014, Australia announced to buy 58 “more” F-35As with a budgetted total acquisition amount of US$ 11.6 billion, or a unit price of US$ 198 million each).

Second, the F-35 acquisition cost increases revealed by the new SARs come as a major embarrassment to the Government Accountability Office that pronounced in a report released just last month that DOD SAR data showed F-35 acquisition costs coming down, not going up. As previously explained, GAO’s report used two year old data, thanks to the agency’s ponderous report writing process and the fact that the analysts and manager assigned to the report used a stunningly superficial analytical methodology. Not a single news article I read on the new SAR data recalled GAO’s miss-call of the acquisition cost vector.

Operating & Support Costs to be going down: yes or no?

Instead, the headline on many of the news articles on the new F-35 SAR data pushed the fact that DOD is now estimating the cost to operate and support the F-35 (O&S costs, which are quite separate from acquisition costs) to be going down. Beyond the increasing acquisition (research and production) expense, DOD announced that F-35 “operating and support costs decreased $96,8 billion (-8.7%) from $1.113,3 billion to $1.016,5 billion.”

Thus, there was a net “life cycle” (acquisition plus O&S) reduction in F-35 costs of $89.4 billion. The net figure gave Bogdan and Lockheed the pretext to say that, overall, F-35 costs were indeed coming down. However, that is not the acquisition price promise they have been making, and closer inspection of the reasons for the lower O&S cost estimate show that it too is a concocted estimate.

Closer analysis shows: lower O&S costs a false claim


DOD’s summary explanation says the lower O&S estimate is “due primarily to cost data updates including the application of historical cost escalation and an update to the Spare Parts Unit Database, revised labor rates, and updated technical inputs to include increased fuel efficiency.” But if you read the material buried at the end of DOD’s 97 page system-specific SAR on the F-35, some better insight creeps in.

Page 95 explains that “for the first time” the DOD cost estimators have “actual information on component reliabilities obtained from ongoing F-35 flight operations” including “actual reliability information on many F-35 components based on data collected during approximately 8,500 hours of flight operations.”
Based on that empirical data, the DOD cost estimators at the Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation (CAPE) office are saying the costs to maintain and repair the F-35 are going up, not down, by $15 billion. This is “because component reliability information obtained from actual flight operations data is not consistent with expectations.” (Bogdan tried to discount this information by saying his office’s even lower O&S estimate uses more recent, more extensive flying hour data, but he also let slip that his office also adjusted the data with more of those unrealized future “expectations” that his office insists on projecting.)

Empircial - real world - cost increase confirmed by CAPE

The empirical—real world—cost increase that CAPE found to mean a small increase in F-35 O&S was declared to be offset by four factors cited in the SAR by CAPE:

- The military services will achieve savings by flying the F-35 less, which on page 96, and elsewhere, is declared to be “fuel efficiency.”......*Ha!Ha!

- An update to the “Spare Parts Unit Database” predicts fewer, not more, future spare parts and/or lower, not higher, costs for them but without any explanation.

- Inflation during the projected 30 year service life of F-35s—out to the year 2065—is declared to be lower, and

- The cost for labor by military, civilian and contractor personnel—also out to the year 2065—is “updated” to lesser numbers.

Uncertain prognosted- virtual world - cost down by creative calculations

Thus, the cost increases from empirically demonstrated maintenance and support data from recent history are more than offset by future prognostications out to 2065. It is precisely matters like fuel costs, inflation and labor rates that can be unpredictable just for months ahead, let alone years—to say nothing of decades. Estimating them with such precision out to 2065 is an easy plaything for manipulation.

We already know DOD manipulates its own inflation prognostications for both its own budget history and for short term future predictions in the five-year Future Year Defense Program (FYDP). It stretches credulity past the breaking point to assert that the cost of a weapon program will be some precise lesser amount 30 years from now because someone has readjusted inflation and labor cost predictions.

In fact, in past inflation predictions for specific on-coming fiscal years (those just months ahead) DOD has proven inaccurate not just in the amount inflation has grown or declined but whether it has grown or declined. If they cannot even get the vector right a few months ahead, what business do they have asserting they can know it precisely 30 years from now? It is quite preposterous.

And yet, here we are, asked to believe that the cost of F-35 O&S will be, as DOD tells us, “decreased $96.8 billion (-8.7%) from $1.113,3 billion to $1.016,5 billion” by the time the program is done in 2065.

Conclusion:
What they are saying is that data from the immediate past—based on known production costs, actual orders from buyers, and real world maintenance expenses—are more than offset by future—unsecured—purchase decisions and unknowable inflation and labor costs out to the year 2065.

How do you write “bridge for sale” in a Brooklyn accent??

Author:
Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, CDI at POGO, POGO
Mr. Wheeler’s areas of expertise include Congress, the Defense Budget, National Security, Pentagon Reform and Weapons Systems


Increased orders:
Italian F-35 Order to be cut by half: only 45 remaining

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News
Defenseworld.net publicized an article Wednesday, April 23, 2014 about the Italian proposal to decrease the number of JSF further from 90 to 45.
Some interesting details:

Italy’s number of aircraft are down from 131 initialy to 90 (decided in 2012) to 45 now.

Why the Italian report state’s that: the 45 remaining aircraft would be slightly less than the 131 that Italy initially planned” is rather strange. Since when is a decrease of 65,65% in numbers a slightly less ammount?

No change in 6 aircraft buy planned for this year (2014)

Reduction in the number of aircraft for the period 2015-2019 from 40 to 29, this will safe over 2 billion Euros.

Next order (presumably the 2015 order) will be reduced from 8 to 5 aircraft.

Although the Air Force back’s the acquisition of the JSF, Italian defense plans have no requirement for a stealthy strike fighter

The new defense white paper whose publication, originally expected by year-end, will now be brought forward to the summer.

The government wants to avoid (at least minimize) any cuts in production orders for the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility in Cameri, in Northern Italy.


And now Oz:

[b]Australian MOD: “If costs blow out, we may leave the JSF program”[/b]
Global F35 News

In essence this is the same trick the JSF-lobby pulled out in the Netherlands in early 2010. The question was whether the Netherlands would buy into the IOT&E phase of the JSF Program. An act which we had to do, there was no other option possible according Dutch MoD. The situation was that the coalition of Christian Democrats (CDA) Labour party (PvdA) and Christian Union (CU) “had” to decide on buying the test aircraft to participate in the IOT&A phase. This was a subject of discussion because the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin didn’t deliver what they promised. And they couldn’t give answers to specific requirements of the Dutch Parliament. Like the fixed price for example. The dilemma was that CDA wanted to proceed with the buy of two test aircraft and IOT&E phase for an amount of almost € 450 million. PvdA was reluctant and didn’t want it without answers to these unknown criteria. After hours of discussion they agreed the following:

“ We pay them, but we do not. buy them” De Vries (under minister of Defense at that time) wants to capture in a ’side letter’.

The suggestion was that it would be as easy to go back to LM/Pentagon and turn in the receipt to get our money back. Yes it looks funny… but this is real Dutch politics. Pvda agreed on this term!

The whole article below by Eric Palmer is equally the situation which describes best what actually happens in the Netherlands… and almost all partner countries, except maybe for Denmark.

Reposted opinion with permission from Eric Palmer blog! “Defenc(s)e analysis from my corner of the Internet.” (with thanks)

Australian Defence Minister Johnston was on a radio show to explain F-35 progress. (transcript below).


Not much of what he said is true. Either he is being poorly advised, or he is engaging in misleading the nation. As an aside, his history on Defence topics could be summed up by, “if it is expensive, it must be good.”. Fact free analysis.[b] For example, he wants the P-8A and Triton surveillance aircraft but both are immature and expensive. [/b]The entrenched Defence bureaucracy has a large history of getting it wrong, leaving a very small population of tax payers, to fund multi-billion dollar mistakes.

Again and again. The Australian public is stuck on the wrong end of an abusive relationship.

Johnston claims that the F-35 is “fifth generation” and by this alone it will defeat anything. Not true.

He claims that 4000 F-35’s will be built. No proof.
He states that costs are coming down on the program. Fairy dust. Since the F-35 development is so immature and troubled, there are a forest of billion-dollar fixes waiting.
He claims that there are 19 million lines of software code for the F-35 and this is …. wait for it… an advantage.
He states all of the industry/workshare talking points…

From about the year 2002 when Australia foolishly signed up for the program.

“It will affordable because already there are 3,000 aircraft on the order books.”
—27 June 2002, Air Marshal Houston, Defence press announcement, Australia joins the F-35 program—

The billions in Australian work-share Johnston has claimed have turned into a loss leader. This from 2010:

O’Donnell cited one family-owned business, Production Parts Pty in Australia, which made “a substantial investment because they expected production volumes to be twice what they are today.” Production Parts itself, he added, has enough other business to keep going, but others are not so well off.

Within 2 years, Production Parts went out of business. Why? Lack of F-35 orders. Why? Because no one wanted to buy lots of mistake jets.

Here is what we were told in 2003 about the F-35s’ future success.

That is a lot of lost money because of hundreds of jet orders that didn’t happen.

Johnston states that if there are cost blow outs, that Australia can leave the program. I suggest that we are already there:

“It’s about $37 million for the CTOL aircraft, which is the air force variant.”
- Colonel Dwyer Dennis, U.S. JSF Program Office brief to Australian journalists, 2002-

“. . . US$40 million dollars . . ”
-Senate Estimates/Media Air Commodore John Harvey, AM Angus Houston, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003-

” . . US$45 million in 2002 dollars . .”
-JSCFADT/Senate Estimates, Air Commodore John Harvey, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003/2004-

“. . average unit recurring flyaway cost of the JSF will be around US$48 million, in 2002 dollars . . ”
-Senate Estimates/Press Club Briefing, Air Commodore John Harvey, 2006

“. . the JSF Price (for Australia) - US$55 million average for our aircraft . . in 2006 dollars . .”
-Senate Estimates/Media AVM John Harvey ACM Angus Houston, Nov. 2006-

Johnston’s radio show transcript below.
TRANSCRIPT

CHRIS UHLMANN: The plan to buy these jets has been in the pipeline for more than a decade and supported by Coalition and Labor Governments.

The man who will usher in the next phase is David Johnston, the Federal Defence Minister.

David Johnston, why does Australia need these jets?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, fifth-generation technology means that the aircraft have a specific sense of capability that puts them clearly above anything else in terms of air combat capability or other jet fighters, to use the common parlance.

Now, the aircraft has a whole host of technological advances that any potential adversary that we might face in the next 30 to 40 years I don’t think has any opportunity to match, particularly in the medium term.

So 19 million lines of computing power on each aircraft. A Collins Class submarine has six million lines of code. So we’re talking about a highly advanced technological stealth weapon that can sense an adversary at a long, long range off and provide Australia with cutting-edge capability in terms of national defence.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And what you talk about at this stage in some cases is experimental. So when will these planes be combat ready?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, they’re very, very close. Now 14 have been deployed to the Marines in Yuma in Arizona. There’s 93 aircraft currently flying and they’ve done more than 14,000 hours. They’ve successfully fired a number of ranges of weapons.

They’re landing on helicopter dock ships at the moment. So that’s the STOVL (short take-off/vertical landing) version and the United Kingdom is getting the STOVL version. So the aircraft - we’re getting the A version, which is the standard take-off/landing hard strip version - the aircraft is well advanced.

But it’s a totally different and new concept that is concurrently being developed with its deployment into service. Now, this has not happened before. And I think given the technical risks surrounding such a complex program, I think it is actually going very, very well.

CHRIS UHLMANN: There are technical risks. There are also cost risks. You’re billing this cost at $12.4 billion. Is it possible that cost might rise, particularly if other countries don’t take up their orders for planes?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, low rate of initial production six, which contains our aircraft and low-rate LRIP (low-rate initial production) seven has seen a 4 per cent reduction in costs so that the cost schedule equation in terms of a graph is headed in the right direction from Australia’s point of view.

And I’m very optimistic that we are seeing as these aircraft develop - and bear in mind we’re looking to see probably around 4,000 of them manufactured for the 11 countries that are participating in the program - I’m looking to see the price come down over time.

Now we will place an order hopefully this year for a further eight but we will have three combat-ready squadrons by 2023 and one training squadron stood up. We’ll have our first squadron standing up by 2020 and I expect the costs to be continuing to head in the right direction from an Australian perspective.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, you talked about 19 million lines of software code. That’s extraordinarily sophisticated and, as I said, experimental. What happens if the cost does blow out? Who pays for delays or mistakes: the contractor or Australia?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, the situation is this: if Australia decides that the costs have blown out to such an extent, we are not bound to continue. We are committed to the program. Every indicator at the moment indicates that the costs are headed in the right direction for us so I’m not anticipating any drama, but should there be a major turnaround in cost then, you know, the option is available for us to leave the program.

Now, I don’t want to do that because this aircraft is simply the best thing happening in air combat at the moment. I think, given the 11 countries that are committed to it, all of whom are our friends, I think the costs will continue to come down.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What about skills and technology transfer? Of course, this plane is being built in the United States at the moment, but what are the benefits for Australian defence industry?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, currently there are more than 30 companies in Australia that are benefiting from the Joint Strike Fighter program. Now, most of those companies are in Victoria. There is more than $330 million worth of work currently on the table.

I anticipate within the next little while, maybe the next three to four years, there’ll be more than $1.5 billion worth of work for Australian skills and technical manufacturers. We already manufacture the tailplane and a whole host of other accessories for the aircraft.

Now, there is a total up for grabs of more than $7.5 billion. I expect Australian companies to be getting a very significant slice of that action and I will certainly be working with Lockheed Martin and the United States government to see that this commitment rewards Australian industry who have had a bit of a rough time of it lately, defence industry. And we want to see a significant slice of the action coming to those companies.

Now, I want to say that I think this announcement gives them greater confidence, gives them a bit of a fillip as to the good work that they’ve done so far. And we want to see them continue to win more and more of this work.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The Defence Minister David Johnston.

Apr 23 2014
UPDATE - Australia will get less capability by replacing the F-18s with F-35s

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Reposted opinion with permission from Eric Palmer blog! “Defenc(s)e analysis from my corner of the Internet.” (with thanks)
Defence wants to buy 58 more F-35s (approved). This is on top of a previous want for 14 (approved). Currently 2 are in the production line.

The goal is to replace 71 highly upgraded RAAF F-18A/Bs.

Many problems
The legacy Hornet has more combat capability. It can fire high-off-bore-sight dogfight missiles like the AIM-132 ASRAAM. The F-35 can’t carry this class of missile internally. The enemy can fire this kind of highly capable missile, from a higher performance aircraft, which can find the F-35. The F-35 will have two 2 AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Which against high end threats that can jam, might have a probability of kill as bad as the Vietnam-era Sparrow (very low). It is likely that the F-35 will lose an air to air battle.

The only way to confirm this is the following:

Can the F-35 beat an F-22 in practice combat? Can the F-35 beat a Typhoon in practice combat? Important because those two aircraft approximate some of the capability of emerging air to air threats in the Pacific Rim over the alleged lifetime of the F-35.

The Hornet has a gun. The F-35A has a gun but can’t use it. The helmet cueing system does not work (source: DOD DOTE).

The F-35 is unlikely to perform strikes against heavily defended targets. The same goes for the Hornet.

Sort off.

The Hornet is cleared for the JASSM cruise missile. The F-35 is not.

The F-18 costs Defence $11,770 per flight hour.

The F-35? USAF figured $35,500 per flight hour. And that assumed a working jet with reliability metrics that met the Joint Operational Requirement Document.

The F-35 is yet to prove any useful mission reliability or mission systems capability.

For Australia–given an inept DMO–F-35 cost per flying hour could be $40,000 to $50,000. The F-35 maintenance system called the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which all of its alleged operational affordability was based on, does not work (source: DOD DOTE, F-35 JPO, GAO).

The Defence budget is a zero-sum game. The federal budget is deep in debt by hundreds of billions.

So, given today’s operational budget. RAAF could only afford to fly 30-40 F-35s a year.

Conclusion: The RAAF will fly a less capable aircraft than what was replaced. It will fly fewer of them. The replacement will be less reliable. There will be a decrease in useful combat capability.

The Prime Minister and the Defence Minister have been poorly advised. They are trying to buy an aircraft with no fly-before-you-by justification. Fly-before-you-buy does not work with under-developed, under-tested, non-finished, aircraft that are closer to prototype than final product.

The Defence Minister made several misleading statements today. Only one of many examples, he stated that “operational” aircraft were at places like Yuma. This is not true. Those aircraft are in no way close to operational trim. To date, no F-35 has passed a test to declare initial operating capability. That is still years off.

It is best to start a federal investigation now to find out how this happened. Waiting, will not improve the situation.


More opposition from Oz:

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen attacks Joint Strike Fighter order as a ‘dud’ decision

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

The Sydney Morning Herald; published an article with a reaction of Member of Parliament Dennis Jensen on 23th of april concerning the proposed Australian buy of additional 58 Lockheed F-35 combat jets.

[b]MP Jensen: No full analysis of capabilities[/b]

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has launched an extraordinary attack on the Abbott government’s multibillion-dollar purchase of fighter jets, suggesting his colleagues lacked the competency and the courage to stop the order:
“It’s a dud decision,” said Dr Jensen, a former Defence Department analyst, on Wednesday after the Australian Abbott government revealed it had ordered 58 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of A$ 12,4 billion (US$ 11,5 billion; € 8,3 billon; unitprice US$ 198 million).
Dennis Jensen: “No one has had the balls to call a halt to it or to even call for a full capability analysis against requirements.”

Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed on Wednesday 23-Apr-2014 that Australia would join the US and a select few other countries in adopting the so called 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.

“Significant problems……..”

But Dr Jensen, who has studied the Joint Strike Fighter for years,
said the purchase of the planes had been a “bipartisan stuff up”, set in train by the Howard government, continued under Labor and completed under his own government.
Dr Jensen said: “The last couple of [US operational testing] reports … have shown very, very significant problems with this aircraft.” And: “Once you’ve made a decision like this, it takes more balls to actually say the emperor’s got no clothes than to continue pretending that the emperor in fact has clothes. We should be ensuring that this aircraft is defined as fit for purpose before we purchase it. We haven’t done that.”

The West Australian MP said he had warned his colleagues about the Joint Strike Fighter purchase in the most recent party room meeting but lamented that Defence Minister David Johnston had said nothing. I wouldn’t be critical of the Defence Minister only,” Dr Jensen said. “It shows a lack of judgment on so many levels. Successive Australian defence ministers had lacked the “technical expertise” to cut through Lockheed Martin’s “extremely convincing” sales pitches, Dr Jensen said

“Defense officials acting as Lockheed salesmen”

He also blamed Defence Department officials, whom he said had been “acting as salesmen for the Joint Strike Fighter” rather than doing their jobs and being “critical buyers”. Responding to the criticisms, a spokesman for the Defence Minister said: “Obviously Mr Jensen’s views do not reflect those of the Coalition government.

The first Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II – when no new delays will occurs, will be delivered in 2018 and begin service with the RAAF in 2020. 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.

Labour MP’s also critical

But not everyone from Labor welcomed the purchase. West Australian senator Sue Lines tweeted on Wednesday: “12bl+ on fighter planes, PPL for the rich, paid for cuts to welfare, charge on Dr visits. Disgraceful!”
Acting Greens leader Adam Bandt agreed with Dr Jensen, saying the planes were wasteful spending “at a time of supposed budget restraint”. “Tony Abbott’s priority should be pensions not poorly performing planes,” Mr Bandt added.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20879
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 02 Jun 2014 03:47

And now for how our great "strategic partner" plans to harm India even further by supplying (usual service) more billions to boost Pak's air capability!

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/51b ... #more-2396
Billions to Upgrade and Up-arm Pakistan’s F-16s
May 22, 2014

*The report is long,will post full details in an appropriate td.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 02 Jun 2014 04:15

Philip wrote:From all available open info,there is no way that the JSF is going to come with a price tag of $75M.


Not too long ago they were saying that there is no way it'll come under $200M.

To repeat the trend is - $220M -> $180M -> $140M -> $112M.

The cost needs to fall by just another 22% in TY dollars. And this while the production rate increases by over 400%.

The production aircraft from Bogged-down himself,have to be rectified for new found faults,adding to time and cost.The aircraft is still under development ,the definitive version has yet to be perfected,as new cracks,faults etc. arrive each month, and is being rushed through in production,something unheard of (the definitive production version of the LCA for example is just around the corner,after which series production will commence),adding to the turbulence in the programme.


^^ This has ZERO impact on the post-SDD phase unit cost. At worst it'll increase the retrofit costs for already built units.

Not to mention the issues requiring rectification have dwindled away - the cracks identified in the durability testing relate primarily to the 'B' variant NOT the CTOL 'A' variant under discussion.

There is a 13 month delay in the USMC bird,software issues mainly and the USN version will debut only in 2019 at the current timeframe.We've got a long wait before prices are firmed up. As of now Let's wait and see what happens by Dec 2014 and the next Pentagon report in 2015.


Fortunately, the timeline of induction of the F-35B and F-35C are immaterial as far as the current debate is concerned.

For those who claim costs are coming down,please look upward!

New F-35 Claim: Lower O&S Offsets Higher Acquisition Cost


Back to quoting Winslow Wheeler?

As previously argued, there is good reason to think the real-world unit cost of F-35s, on average, will stay much closer to the $200 million level than it does to the dubious predictions of Lockheed and Lt. Gen. Bogdan, such as $75 million each.

Heh heh!!

Its currently $112M. Maybe around $120M including retrofit costs and long lead expenses.

Increased orders:
Italian F-35 Order to be cut by half: only 45 remaining


Reduced orders:

Israel

IAI's contribution to the programme is part of an offset deal stemming from Israel's decision to purchase an initial 20 examples of the F-35A for its air force.

The company's contract with Lockheed Martin covers 10-15 years of production and could be worth as much as $2.5 billion.

Israel has expressed its intention to purchase as many as 75 F-35s.
(link)

South Korea:

The Republic of Korea has officially selected the F-35 as its next-generation fighter, the government announced this morning.

The country has agreed to purchase 40 of the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) design, with first delivery planned for 2018.
(link)

Singapore:

In July 2013, U.S. Air Force General Herbert Carlisle seemingly let the cat out of the bag when he disclosed that Singapore’s Chief of Defense Force, Lt. Gen. Ng Chee Meng, told him that Singapore had decided to buy the B version of the F-35. General Carlisle also indicated that the timing of Singapore’s decision to announce its procurement of the F-35B was related to its budgetary cycle. (link)

And now Oz:

More opposition from Oz:

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen attacks Joint Strike Fighter order as a ‘dud’ decision


Meanwhile -

Australia to buy 58 new F-35 fighter jets - Takes the tally upto 72 aircraft


Australia could buy F-35B

Australia will consider buying the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in addition to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant to which it has already committed, a spokesman for Defence Minister David Johnston confirmed on 26 May.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 02 Jun 2014 04:31

Philip wrote:And now for how our great "strategic partner" plans to harm India even further by supplying (usual service) more billions to boost Pak's air capability!


Great strategic partner - Jordan?

So the fact that the US did not interfere in the sale of second hand aircraft from Jordan to Pakistan should be matter of concern, but the sale of the S-400 to China doesn't matter because Russia 'offered' it to India as well?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 02 Jun 2014 05:09

Cain Marko wrote:Just out of curiosity:

What happens when two stealth fighters with virtually equal sensor/VLO profile face each other? Will they even detect each other at BVR ranges?

If not, the HMDS + HOBS + Gun might become crucial. So will super maneuverability.


Its depend on who's got superior situational awareness and who can take the first shot. This is where something like the EODAS will come in handy along with the 'God's Eye' view conferred by the VSI HMDS.

Even if it comes to a guns-only fight, I won't count the F-35 out - it has a high ITR and an max AoA in excess of 50 degrees. It'll lose energy fast, but until it does its quite lethal.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 02 Jun 2014 05:35

May 28, 2014 :: Russian air forces started the state testing of T-50 fighter

{No mention of "India"}, else everything is OK and on time.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 02 Jun 2014 09:14

@ Phillip, specific points on the JSF should be moved to the appropriate thread rather then bringing the JSF to every possible thread on this forum. Your assertion that cutting european order means that the jet is not capable are crap to put it mildly. Go check on the state of the Italian and Spanish economies and you'll see why they are planning massive cuts in defense expenditure. Italians will however be assembling the F-35 at home for themselves and for other european customers, they'll also have a maintenance facility for the next 4-5 decades.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 02 Jun 2014 18:01

welcome to the real world.

Russia may supply ‘night hunter’ to Pakistan

Image

“Such a decision was made. We are negotiating the sales of Mi-35 helicopters to Pakistan,” Chemezov said on Monday.


LoL.

I guess India did not buy them, so why not, sell them to Pakis.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3031
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby abhik » 02 Jun 2014 19:51

^^^
No worries the nooklear subs armed with superduper sonic missiles etc that they gave us more than compensates for it. Right?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 02 Jun 2014 21:35

Well they are showing pictures of Night hunter but negotiating the Mi-35 sale , Pak newspaper needs to get the right picture also they misread the Iraq deal to Iran guess they are Indian version of Pakistan PDM ( Pakistani Dorki Media ) :D

IAF has been using Mi-35 for now nearly 25 years if I am not wrong.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 02 Jun 2014 22:34

Russia is stabbing Bharat in back by supplying RD-93, Mi-35 to porkis and S-300/400 to cheen!

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 02 Jun 2014 22:44

Dhananjay wrote:Russia is stabbing Bharat in back by supplying RD-93, Mi-35 to porkis and S-300/400 to cheen!

But USA is helping global peace and balance in south Asia by doing exactly the same - only much more and for decades, including helping paki side in UN during bangla genocide.

What can a country gain by arming pakis? May be pakis would want signatures of made in Russia fighter jets that Indians have such as Fasola oops I mean Migs.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 02 Jun 2014 23:05

Thinking from Russian perspective - I guess India needs to pick a side and stop these one night stands with the West.

Buying from French, Americans, Germans, British and now possibly Japanese at 3X expensive prices. They must be kicking themselves for selling defense gear so inexpensively to Indians in the first place.

India needs to mature and stop buying platforms (Submarines, Jets and Tanks). We should buy sub-systems from the world now. Let stop fretting and let Russia, China, US supply to whomsoever they please.

We can make 3 x the platforms and overwhelm Pakis with numerical strength. So Boys let's grow up and walk on our feet now!

Sorry to Phillip sir - no more RUssian gear for you. But at least we will get the icing from Russia, Cake will be Indian henceforth!

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby negi » 02 Jun 2014 23:16

Facts without perspective are of little use, lahori logicians can might as well argue that since most of the terrorists use AK-47 it follows that Ru is worser than America when it comes to sponsoring Pak based terror.

If Pak is the uterus where egg of terrorism was fertilized then the condom that failed which lead to that tragedy was being worn by none other than Unkil; be it supply of Chinese M11s missiles, AQ khan's clandestine nuclear project or even supply of state of the art F-16s (yes there is a difference in supplying F-16s to TSP almost 20 years back as against Ru supplying Mi-35 to TSP today). Doing an equal equal between Ru and USA in this context is like bringing up facade of Saffron terror when nothing is left in the armory to defend the green terror.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 02 Jun 2014 23:47

nik wrote:Thinking from Russian perspective - I guess India needs to pick a side and stop these one night stands with the West.

Buying from French, Americans, Germans, British and now possibly Japanese at 3X expensive prices. They must be kicking themselves for selling defense gear so inexpensively to Indians in the first place.

India needs to mature and stop buying platforms (Submarines, Jets and Tanks). We should buy sub-systems from the world now. Let stop fretting and let Russia, China, US supply to whomsoever they please.

We can make 3 x the platforms and overwhelm Pakis with numerical strength. So Boys let's grow up and walk on our feet now!

Sorry to Phillip sir - no more RUssian gear for you. But at least we will get the icing from Russia, Cake will be Indian henceforth!


So russia is wanting india to not look after its best interest but submit to its best interest? No thank you, we should buy what we want from who we want, both Russia and amrika should be shown the middle finger when its in our best interest to do so. Do you think that if we sign a written contract with russia only to buy their military hardware for the next 2 decades they would break their military deals or abstain for any military sales/collaborations with the chinese? Its high time we learn that every nation on this earth watches out for its best interest. The amrikans do it the russians do it, the Pakis do it and the chinese, french..they all do it. Not doing so amounts to treason on part of the leadership of those nations.
Last edited by brar_w on 03 Jun 2014 00:00, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 02 Jun 2014 23:56

"India" has to stand up and be counted.



This old thinking of this country did that and that country did this ............................... needs to be buried for ever.

Apne bhale ke liya socho aur kaam karro.

Strategy!!!!

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 03 Jun 2014 02:23

vishvak wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Russia is stabbing Bharat in back by supplying RD-93, Mi-35 to porkis and S-300/400 to cheen!

But USA is helping global peace and balance in south Asia by doing exactly the same - only much more and for decades, including helping paki side in UN during bangla genocide.


That usa is an enemy is known to us, not only during cold war did they raise kashmir in UNO again and again only to be vetoed by Soviet Russia our friend.

But currently too amrikan attitude is of enemity as another minister in NaMo cabinet is now known to be rejected US visa due to his expressing opposition to article 370. We know the amrikan b%$**$trds hates Bharatvarsh and Hindus. That same amrikis won't have any problem giving visa to people like musharraf who triggered war in kargil or committed genocide against Bugti tribe, is known.

But russia can't be expected to behave like usa, how would russians feel if we start selling Nirbhay missiles and Rudra + Janmay jai helicopters to Georgia? They may not damage russia much in next georgian-russia war but how would russia feel about it?

So no equal equal with dirty slimey crusader amrika, just not expected from friend Russia.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 03 Jun 2014 02:46

brar_w wrote:
So russia is wanting india to not look after its best interest but submit to its best interest?


Yes, Russia always was looking out for their interests and does not care a damn about India. For proof, look at their stance during recent border dispute with CHina. In fact, we went begging to US for defense equipment during the 1962 Chinese war.

We have to look out for our own as*. At some point the Army+IAF will have to give up their infatuation of 'Best-of-the-Best' as it means outright Imports. Every company, state and nation will have to go through a learning and growing up process, things improve incrementally not overnight - First Generation products are one step behind but make up in Quantity, serve as a foundation for 'state-of-art' follow ons.

The trouble is India wants to keep 'losing' out and giving up hard earned capabilities (Gnat is a good example, so is recent imports of trainers, T-90s is another joke). The Army+IAF need to just follow the route taken by Chinese, Russians, Japanese and even Americans pre-WW2. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20879
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 03 Jun 2014 05:54

Keep the issues separate .Russian assistance to India ,both diplomatic and military far outweigh anything that the US has given us,or offered us (Nuke subs,N-sub tech,MKIs,diplomatic support during '71,etc.).

Now in the current context,we are supposedly part of a JV for the FGFA.There are issues which need to be sorted out and hopefully the new dispensation along with the IAF will spell out India's needs,etc. and work out the same with Russia.The FGFA has not been offered to Pak, or China.There are a number of weapon systems that have been offered to India.We cannot buy everything in the shop window.Some suit us some don't.If we reject them,Russia is perfectly open to sell it to whomsoever it chooses.There are also better western systems too,and as I've always maintained,"horses for courses" should be our policy.Now there are also cost factors too.Russian eqpt. is generally cheaper than western.Take the Scorpene subs for instance.Our Kilos (almost half the price of a Scorpene) have served us extremely well,we were the first non-Soviet nation that was given these subs way back in the '80s.They have a healthy respect from the USN, and are in trouble right now because of asinine UPA /AKA policies of not maintaining them,upgrading them and replacing them at the right time.

However,if one looks at Russian sales to China and Pak,they have always given China less capable aircraft,etc. to the same systems that we have.Pak have not been offered MIG-29s,SU-30s,etc.,but on the other hand,it is the US that is beefing up the PAF as I've posted recently,with upgrading and adding to its F-16 fleet,with a range of associated missiles,radars,etc..

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8186
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Indranil » 03 Jun 2014 06:06

Philip wrote:However,if one looks at Russian sales to China and Pak,they have always given China less capable aircraft,etc. to the same systems that we have.Pak have not been offered MIG-29s,SU-30s,etc.,but on the other hand,it is the US that is beefing up the PAF as I've posted recently,with upgrading and adding to its F-16 fleet,with a range of associated missiles,radars,etc..


True for the past, not true for the present.

US gives away Orions, F-16s to Pak which are way behind cutting edge. In contrast Russia sells Su-35, RD-93, Al-31F, Mi-35s, S-300/400 to Pakistan/China, the best that Russia has to offer.

Let us not be so blind in our support.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 03 Jun 2014 06:15

Soviet assistance, followed by Russian is to be acknowledged for sure. No two ways about that.

But, that cannot be and should not be confused with Russian interests. Russia will and actually should act in her own interests. When she has supported India, even that is actually because of self interest. And, that came out very clearly and loudly when the decision to buy the C-17 was announced - Russians said so. But, that is not a -ve, that is how nations act, normal stuff.

Like it has been repeated umpteen times - "Nations" act in their own interests.

Exception seems to be "India", with her CBM, closing vibrant intelligence groups, etc.

Don't blame Russia for selling these gizmos to anyone. For that matter don't blame any nation for selling anything to anyone. If it is not liked then get up and act.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 09:01

Even if Mi-35 deal goes through Indian MOD is not going to sweat over it as its an old chopper which IAF would be retiring soon from service. Its not a balance of power changer unlike the Teens and other stuff US sells.

Having said that Russia and India both would need Pakistan in some ways to ensure the Taliban dont run havoc in Afghanistan once US forces leave in 2016 and we are not back to 1995 era.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby merlin » 03 Jun 2014 12:16

indranilroy wrote:US gives away Orions, F-16s to Pak which are way behind cutting edge. In contrast Russia sells Su-35, RD-93, Al-31F, Mi-35s, S-300/400 to Pakistan/China, the best that Russia has to offer.

Let us not be so blind in our support.


Gives away. Sells. Big difference, no?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 12:52

merlin wrote:
Gives away. Sells. Big difference, no?


They do sell them, they just don't get paid in cash

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9831
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Jun 2014 13:22

I am quite sure that Russian intelligence knows the extent of US penetration of Indian establishment. We have in fact became US cham chas under mafia rule.

Can we blame them if Russians want to sell things to Panda after that??? In fact I am surprised that Russia supported our SSN efforts and continue to do so in spite of all this. May be for money. But still selling to Panda is a serious threat to Russia itself quite soon.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 03 Jun 2014 14:05

All that matters is what India does or does not do.

That is it.

Rest is all waste of time.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 14:24

The notion that Russia is doing such and such because we are going out to the americans and europeans for our equipment is rather funny. China is aiming for one of the largest military modernization investments the world is going to see for a long long time. Russians which are strategic allies of china on many matters will not pass on a chance to be a part of that, especially given the nature of their defense industry and the balance between foreign exports and domestic purchases. Even with Russia's defense modernization exports would be a key contributor towards the growth of its MIC. The Rafale was selected after a tough and detailed evaluation in which the russian offering was considered inferior to the Typhoon and the rafale. Same applies for most other options we have exercised in which we have had evaluation of competing offerings from Russia, europe or the US.

Even the entertainment of such thoughts such as "Russia is doing this as a payback for our american and european purchases" is rather ludicrous. If we are to subscribe to such a POV and do something about it, we are in effect giving a remote control to Russia on our independence from the foreign policy, military relations and strategic defense modernization point of view. It would be akin of us over relying on the americans who then turn around and say buy 20 billion dollars worth of F-35's or we'll sell F-22's to the Pakistanis. Both situations are bad for our independence in foreign policy and must be avoided at all costs. Lets develop an indigenous capacity FAST and get out of all this mess. Strategic posturing and diplomacy beings with a single underlying premise that each nation watches out for its own best interest not doing so would be treason as per most accepted definitions/ applications of the term. Russia is doing whats best for its strategic interest and the health of its MIC. China is doing whats best for it (Access to cutting edge russian technology, purchase of some capability in which its local expertise is deficient, closer strategic ties for energy security, having russia on its side so that it can become a dominant force in the pacific), and so are we. The attitude that we "brought it to ourselves by getting close with america and europe" is completely wrong.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20317 » 03 Jun 2014 14:51

The fact that PAKFA is going to be made available to the world when the JSF is available only to Amerikhan bia_tches speaks for the 'actual costs' of the systems. Besides do not forget where the support for anti-nuke plant agitators, came from.

On top of that only the Swedish, Indian & Russian made fighters are gonna be able to fly from the Leh type kacha-pakka arrangements. The Amerikhans and its biatches can afford the costs of peripherals. We OTOH would have a hard time trying to figure out the inventory of these peripherals across a continent sized country with a third world budget.

Compared to the others, that could not even start their engines in Leh, a JSF is a massive post term pregnancy. Just imagine a scenario where IA has made advances into Tibet and needs IAF support pronto. Would you want to return to the nearest full services air base or would you want to tank up in Leh and return to the battle. With JSF you will most likely have to return to Hindon (runways like Hema Malini ke cheek - A laloo chaap plane :P).

Besides with JSF acquisition will be an existential risk to AMCA, Astras and air launched Brahmos etc. Even a political PAKFA is better then an apolitical JSF.

........................

And what is it with Russian are dangerous for India because they may join up with China. Hell Amerikhans are using Japs as some sort of glorified pit crew so the Amerikhans can have their own one night stand with the Chinese.

.........................

Fact is the Amerikhans and its uropain states know that only the Russian, Chinese and Indian (in that order) have the national resources to challenge them, when in fact their own 'cooperation' is suspect to them. And deep down they suspect that at least one of these three is going to do them in eventually after they are weakened by the other two. Hence all the nautch - kahin pe nigahen kahin pe nishana. Name China & Russia to the Indians. Name India & Russia to the Chinese. Name China and India to the Russians. WT_H.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20317 » 03 Jun 2014 15:16

brar_w wrote:
merlin wrote:
Gives away. Sells. Big difference, no?


They do sell them, they just don't get paid in cash


Care to elaborate what was the cost involved. This will help us understand the actual cost of the weapons supplied. TIA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 15:24

The cost involved is the influence that america buys (perceived influence rather) over Pakistan's policy and actions.

Secondly to your point that the PAKFA is available to the world while the F-35 is available to american allies. Would russia sell a full feature PAKFA to the US? or Britain? or the french, germans, Sweden, Belgium, Australia, Japan?

I am sure the USAF chief would say to sukhoi what the chinese said to lockheed ;)

You know, Steve, I really love the F-35. I’d really love to have the F-35 in my air force.”

Steve thought to himself: I’m the Lockheed business development guy, so I should ask him how many he wants! So he asked the air chief. “He kind of looks at me and says: ’You know Steve, I need just one.”


http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/chin ... -the-f-35/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 15:33

^^ Every PAK-FA/FGFA that India-Russia would sell would be an export model , See no reason why they shuldnt sell once their requirement has been met , For the next 3 Decade 5th Gen fighter would be hot selling product in various iterations.

Though I dont think NATO Allies would ever buy Russian product , Remember how Turkey is being pressurised to drop Chinese S-300 and opt for NATO THAAD system.

I see all the current Flanker customer barring China as they have their own program as prospective FGFA buyers over next 3 decades perhaps new one will come too depending on Geopolitical situation.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8944
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 15:37

^^ Every PAK-FA/FGFA that India-Russia would sell would be an export model , See no reason why they shuldnt sell once their requirement has been met , For the next 3 Decade 5th Gen fighter would be hot selling product in various iterations.


So if the USAF comes to India and says that we want a dozen FGFA's for our Aggressor fleets, the Russians would have no problem with that sale? I can see a few defense companies buying them then and leasing them to the US and NATO air forces ;) Would we be allowed to export the FGFA or the T-50's made locally?

Though I dont think NATO Allies would ever buy Russian product


Oh I am sure they will if sold a full systems jet. Just a few, nothing substantial :) If not a sale I am sure the US or france would love to lease them for a few weeks.

Though I dont think NATO Allies would ever buy Russian product , Remember how Turkey is being pressurised to drop Chinese S-300 and opt for NATO THAAD system.


THAAD X Band radar already exists in turkey, and is being controlled by the US. The radar is a part of NATO and is operated by the alliance for the european missile defense network. There are no THAAD missiles in turkey and there are no plans to put them there. The AN/TPY2 based out of turkey are going to be one half of the system that is forward based, with the second terminal phase being with the missiles westwards.. There are no turkish plans to acquire the THAAD system (for itself) from what i have come across. They are interested in the Patriot/S300 type combined system.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte119.en.html

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... ased-Radar

The deal in question is where the Russians are competing with the S300, the Chinese with its clone and the US with the latest Patriot system and the french as well. The concerns were with integration of a Non NATO system within the NATO air and missile defense setup, and the overall lobbying that goes on from each nation on behalf of its own defense industry.
Last edited by brar_w on 03 Jun 2014 17:39, edited 4 times in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests