JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

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.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 02 Feb 2014 03:30

Viv S wrote:So according to you at IOC, four years from now, it will not be capable of firing an AMRAAM?

Conveniently sidestepping the point, are we? Earlier it was, "look, the F-35 has fired an AMRAAM. Aal iz well onlee". Now you've changed that to, "But this is 2014. You need to think of 2018!" Sorry, I'm not falling for that.

See, the problem is that until I linked that piece by David Axe, you didn't even know know (or worse, refused to see) that the F-35 couldn't do something as basic as fire it's primary AAM, or that the DAS was confused by its own flares. Last year, it was stuff like not flying in bad weather and the skin delaminating. Heaven knows what problems will crop up tomorrow. And yet you persist in your fervent belief of the infallibility of the F-35.

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:Okay, now I'm thoroughly confused. I thought the cost was $98 million right now and expected to fall even further? How is a sudden jump of more than 85% "not alarming"? And a "fall" from $98 million is not $140 million, or so the math tells me.

Read it again. $98M+15M= $114M was what I posted in Oct. $110M was what I posted today.

And please don't equate flyaway cost($110M/85M) with procurement cost ($185M/140M).

Do elaborate. What is the production cost quoted by Wheeler? Surely it's not the price of the whole shebang including auxiliary systems and support?

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 02 Feb 2014 05:03

Mihir wrote:See, the problem is that until I linked that piece by David Axe, you didn't even know know (or worse, refused to see) that the F-35 couldn't do something as basic as fire it's primary AAM, or that the DAS was confused by its own flares. Last year, it was stuff like not flying in bad weather and the skin delaminating. Heaven knows what problems will crop up tomorrow.

I know for a fact that it can fire its primary AAM and have posted evidence proving that. Please don't let David Axe do your thinking for you. The DOT&E report doesn't say the AAM isn't working. When it says - Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium- range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing - its referring to problems that are foreseen/typically arise on integration of AAMs in fighters. At the time of the report's formulation data testing on the missile tests had not been completed.

The team conducted the first WDA test event with a laser-guided bomb on October 29, followed two days later by the first launch of the AIM-120 air-to‑air missile. The second launch of an AIM-120 missile occurred on November 15. Data analyses of the missile launches was ongoing at the time of this report.

No specific or general problem has been identified during AAM integration so far.

And yet you persist in your fervent belief of the infallibility of the F-35.

Its not about infallibility. The purpose of the developmental testing is to identify and fix problems. At worst that might delay certification for operational use, but the existence of issues is to be expected.

Do elaborate. What is the production cost quoted by Wheeler? Surely it's not the price of the whole shebang including auxiliary systems and support?


Procurement cost includes both support and initial spares. The F-35 itself costs just $110M (flyaway). $175M procurement cost.


Image


(View link if image doesn't open)
Last edited by Viv S on 02 Feb 2014 05:24, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 02 Feb 2014 05:06

Philip wrote:If the existing AMRAAM isn't functioning properly,wonder about the cute CUDA mini-AMRAAMs supposedly the magic bullets to be carried in qty in he internal bay,which rely upon an absolute hit to destroy their opponent.No matter if the nav.brain is also off by a few degrees.

Please don't swallow everything David Axe puts out there.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 02 Feb 2014 06:20

Viv S wrote:When it says - Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium- range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing - its referring to problems that are foreseen/typically arise on integration of AAMs in fighters. At the time of the report's formulation data testing on the missile tests had not been completed.

:rotfl: "Problems that are forseen/typically arise" indeed. Sorry boss, that's just your spin. There have been problems with the AIM-120; it's just that accepting that those exist would unravel the lovely story that we are being told about the amazing F-35.

I wonder what you would say about the DAS. That too is just a reference to a typically seen problem with counter-measure integration and need not necessarily be affecting the F-35 right now, innit?

Viv S wrote:No specific or general problem has been identified during AAM integration so far.

And your source for that is... one test, yes? And if one limited test were all it took to prove reliable and repeated operation, we would have seen entire Indian Army regiments, Air Force squadrons, and Navy ships bristling with Trishul and Akash missiles in the late 1990s.

Viv S wrote:
And yet you persist in your fervent belief of the infallibility of the F-35.

Its not about infallibility. The purpose of the developmental testing is to identify and fix problems. At worst that might delay certification for operational use, but the existence of issues is to be expected.

That's again just you trying to put a positive spin on what is a major symptom of terrible program management. This isn't a first prototype we're talking about. This is a fighter that is *in production*, and for fundamental problems to crop up at this stage is just appalling.

Viv S wrote:
Do elaborate. What is the production cost quoted by Wheeler? Surely it's not the price of the whole shebang including auxiliary systems and support?


Procurement cost includes both support and initial spares. The F-35 itself costs just $110M (flyaway). $175M procurement cost.

You're avoiding the question again. I know the difference, even without the fancy chart. You're attempting to imply that the cost quoted by Wheeler is pretty much the same as that quoted by the LockMart/USAF PR machine. It is nothing of the sort. So let me put the question to you again: What is the *production* cost quoted by Wheeler?
Last edited by Mihir on 02 Feb 2014 07:32, edited 1 time in total.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 02 Feb 2014 06:21

NRao wrote:I do not think "cost" is an issue.

Boss, please don't take this the wrong way, for I'm not trying to deliberately sound offensive. Is there any aspect of the program that, according to you, is actually an issue worth discussing?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 Feb 2014 06:41

Mihir ji,

No problem, will not take it -vely. : )

Simple/short answer: Nope. (Let me know if you need detail - I have provided one of them in my past posts.)

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 02 Feb 2014 07:10

Mihir wrote:"Problems that are forseen/typically arise" indeed. Sorry boss, that's just your spin. There have been problems with the AIM-120; it's just that accepting that those exist would unravel the lovely story that we are being told about the amazing F-35.

How about you tell us what those problems are? David Axe is being absurd when he says that some problem exists but is unknown. The DOT&E says very clearly that nothing was identified in ground tests and simulation, and the analysis of flight testing isn't complete.

I wonder what you would say about the DAS. That too is just a reference to a typically seen problem with counter-measure integration and need not necessarily be affecting the F-35 right now, innit?

What about it? There is only one factor that matters - will it be fixed at IOC/FOC or not? There's no evidence whatsoever to claim that it wouldn't.

And your source for that is... one test, yes? And if one limited test were all it took to prove reliable and repeated operation, we would have seen entire Indian Army regiments, Air Force squadrons, and Navy ships bristling with Trishul and Akash missiles in the late 1990s.

The DOT&E report obviously. It is very specific unlike Mr Axe who's happy to throw out a vague implication of some problem. If issues exist they will identified in post-test analysis. But there is nothing identified in the (admittedly limited testing) so far.

That's again just you trying to put a positive spin on what is a major symptom of terrible program management. This isn't a first prototype we're talking about. This is a fighter that is *in production*, and for fundamental to crop up at this stage is just appalling.

Its hardly the first program to go through development crises. The C-17 & V-22 for starters were hugely criticized during development as well. Doesn't change the utility of the final product. Primary users for both are satisfied with it. One aircraft is serving in the IAF while the other is being evaluated by the IN.

You're avoiding the question again. I know the difference, even without the fancy chart. You're attempting to imply that the cost quoted by Wheeler is pretty much the same as that quoted by the LockMart/USAF PR machine. It is nothing of the sort. So let me put the question to you again: What is the *production* cost quoted by Wheeler?

You clearly very confused. 'Procurement cost', 'production cost'. Same thing. Support and spares included.

Here are Mr Wheeler's words -

The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the "long lead" money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft. (link)


Add in retrofit costs (which will apply only till the end of the DPP phase) and that'll be another $7-8M.
Last edited by Viv S on 02 Feb 2014 07:23, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 02 Feb 2014 19:47


Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 03 Feb 2014 02:14

Will the $392 Billion F-35 Make or Break Lockheed Martin?
Short answer: Make.
"Program progress is sufficient for the department to budget for an increase in the production rate in fiscal year 2015." More importantly, Kendall said the F-35's reliability is improving, as are acquisition costs..
..Reuters reports that Britain is close to announcing an order

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 03 Feb 2014 07:20

the experience and costs for smaller JSF operators like UK, Spain and Italy will point the way about cost for us if we use it for CTOL carrier.
we cannot extrapolate anything from US navy cost.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 03 Feb 2014 10:42

Viv S wrote:How about you tell us what those problems are? David Axe is being absurd when he says that some problem exists but is unknown. The DOT&E says very clearly that nothing was identified in ground tests and simulation, and the analysis of flight testing isn't complete.

Again, more spin. The report clearly mentions that they couldn't replicate the problems in ground testing. That doesn't mean the problems didn't exist, no matter how much you wish it so.

Viv S wrote:
I wonder what you would say about the DAS. That too is just a reference to a typically seen problem with counter-measure integration and need not necessarily be affecting the F-35 right now, innit?

What about it? There is only one factor that matters - will it be fixed at IOC/FOC or not? There's no evidence whatsoever to claim that it wouldn't

There is no evidence whatsoever to claim that they will be solved either, so lets stop focusing on hypotheticals, shall we? And just because IOC/FOC is a convenient point in the future for you, doesn't mean that it is the "only factor that matters".

So please explain, how does a problem of this magnitude get noticed now, 14 years after the first flight, and with 70+ aircraft flying? The F-35 was supposed to enter service by 2010-2011. And yet they discovered in 2014 that it can't fire AMRAAMs or use its DAS effectively. And you somehow paint that as a good thing.

Viv S wrote:
And your source for that is... one test, yes? And if one limited test were all it took to prove reliable and repeated operation, we would have seen entire Indian Army regiments, Air Force squadrons, and Navy ships bristling with Trishul and Akash missiles in the late 1990s.

The DOT&E report obviously. It is very specific unlike Mr Axe who's happy to throw out a vague implication of some problem. If issues exist they will identified in post-test analysis. But there is nothing identified in the (admittedly limited testing) so far.

Oh, they identified something alright, a problem with AMRAAM integration. What they *can't* identify is what causes that problem. That is a very serious concern for everyone but committed fanbois.

Viv S wrote:
That's again just you trying to put a positive spin on what is a major symptom of terrible program management. This isn't a first prototype we're talking about. This is a fighter that is *in production*, and for fundamental to crop up at this stage is just appalling.

Its hardly the first program to go through development crises. The C-17 & V-22 for starters were hugely criticized during development as well. Doesn't change the utility of the final product. Primary users for both are satisfied with it. One aircraft is serving in the IAF while the other is being evaluated by the IN.

Now you're arguing that a conventional transport that doesn't employ pie-in-the sky technologies at every step is the same as the F-35. As for the V-22, I hope you are aware how long it took to fix those flaws, how many lives were lost as a result, how expensive it has become as a result, and how it still suffers from issues fundamental to its design. And all this when it wasn't even envisioned as a one-size-fits-all platform to fulfill every conceivable type of mission, outfitted with every little gizmo and widget that could be dreamed up. And for all that, the best that can be said about it is, they got it flying. They'll get some sort of F-35 flying operational missions too; doesn't mean it will come cheap or with all issues resolved. And if RAND is right, it still won't have the capability to hold its own against the enemy aircraft it may face in the future.

Viv S wrote:Here are Mr Wheeler's words -

Fair enough, procurement cost. In excess of 180 million today, and showing no signs of coming down. The costs of the Navy and Marine versions have ballooned to a point where they appear ridiculous. In the meantime, Lockheed execs go about telling the world how the unit price will be "onlee $65 million (minus the engines, of course)". In the meantime, let's quote Mr. Wheeler fully.

Winsolw Wheeler wrote:...We have no independent assurance that all the money displayed was actually spent for F-35-related activities, nor that no other monies from outside the F-35 program were spent on the F-35. Nor do we have any verification from any impartial, external party that the number of aircraft stated to be authorized for purchase in any specific year were actually purchased and delivered to the Air Force or Navy. The annual spending totals in these reports frequently do not conform to the amounts in the Selected Acquisition Reports; sometimes the numbers are higher; sometimes they are lower. The number of aircraft purchased in one year, 2011, does not even match in these two documents. An audit to conform them is clearly needed...

...The Air Force’s F-35A will have been increasing in unit cost over the past two years; the Navy’s F-35B and C have been increasing in unit cost for the past three years, according to data from the Defense Department comptroller. All F-35 variants, on average, have been increasing in unit cost since 2012 (or since 2011, if the comptroller’s data are right).

Having been in production for eight years, it is reasonable to characterize the F-35 production line as reasonably mature for whatever components have not already required modification.

We can expect additional costs on the production line to address problems yet to be discovered in the 60% of developmental testing and 100% of operational testing yet to occur—particularly in view of the fact that future tests will be tougher than past tests.


Viv S wrote:Add in retrofit costs (which will apply only till the end of the DPP phase) and that'll be another $7-8M
[/quote]
$7-8 million, because Lockheed and JPO say so, right? No idea how they will fix 700+ problems, but they know with 400% confidence that retrofit costs will onlee be $7-8 million. Totally believable.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 03 Feb 2014 11:49

Mihir wrote:Again, more spin. The report clearly mentions that they couldn't replicate the problems in ground testing. That doesn't mean the problems didn't exist, no matter how much you wish it so.


That's nonsense. It doesn't say 'the' problem anywhere. What kind of 'problem' cannot be replicated in ground testing but is utterly unknown (as David Axe claims).

There is no evidence whatsoever to claim that they will be solved either, so lets stop focusing on hypotheticals, shall we? And just because IOC/FOC is a convenient point in the future for you, doesn't mean that it is the "only factor that matters".

So according to you the program faces 'unsolvable' problems. And then you talk about 'hypotheticals'. And yes, IOC/FOC status is the only factor that matters as far as capability goes.

So please explain, how does a problem of this magnitude get noticed now, 14 years after the first flight, and with 70+ aircraft flying? The F-35 was supposed to enter service by 2010-2011. And yet they discovered in 2014 that it can't fire AMRAAMs or use its DAS effectively. And you somehow paint that as a good thing.

Its just you and David Axe inventing the 'AMRAAM problem'. The DOT&E report identified nothing of the sort. If it had found a problem it would have named it.

Oh, they identified something alright, a problem with AMRAAM integration. What they *can't* identify is what causes that problem. That is a very serious concern for everyone but committed fanbois.

Pray tell, what is 'something' that they identified? And how did they identify it if could be replicated in ground testing and analysis from air testing wasn't it?

Now you're arguing that a conventional transport that doesn't employ pie-in-the sky technologies at every step is the same as the F-35. As for the V-22, I hope you are aware how long it took to fix those flaws, how many lives were lost as a result, how expensive it has become as a result, and how it still suffers from issues fundamental to its design. And all this when it wasn't even envisioned as a one-size-fits-all platform to fulfill every conceivable type of mission, outfitted with every little gizmo and widget that could be dreamed up. And for all that, the best that can be said about it is, they got it flying. They'll get some sort of F-35 flying operational missions too; doesn't mean it will come cheap or with all issues resolved.

Just because it was a 'conventional transport' did stop folks like you from it being a disaster. Same with the V-22. All the cribbing about the development cost and time doesn't change that fact that the final product has two services and plenty of foreign customers lining up for more.

And if RAND is right, it still won't have the capability to hold its own against the enemy aircraft it may face in the future.

I'll wait till it 'analyses' the PAK FA and J-20 before making that claim.

Fair enough, procurement cost. In excess of 180 million today, and showing no signs of coming down. The costs of the Navy and Marine versions have ballooned to a point where they appear ridiculous. In the meantime, Lockheed execs go about telling the world how the unit price will be "onlee $65 million (minus the engines, of course)". In the meantime, let's quote Mr. Wheeler fully.

So can I assume you aren't still wildly confused about this 'production cost' that Wheeler tossed out? It doesn't seem that way given that you're once again equating it with flyaway cost. Just like Wheeler.

Winsolw Wheeler wrote:...We have no independent assurance that all the money displayed was actually spent for F-35-related activities...

So Wheeler wants to use the figures and question their authenticity at the same. :roll:

$7-8 million, because Lockheed and JPO say so, right? No idea how they will fix 700+ problems, but they know with 400% confidence that retrofit costs will onlee be $7-8 million. Totally believable.

The actual appropriations bill says $9 million. I'd ask you what your estimate is but you've determinedly dodged that question every time you're asked to back your statement. No reason to think that will change now.

Not to mention, retrofit costs are being paid only for the LRIP units. Not for any aircraft order post 2016.
Last edited by Viv S on 03 Feb 2014 12:18, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 03 Feb 2014 12:11

To everyone else who might get taken in by these stories of huge cost escalation here are the actual cost figures -


CURRENT COST:

Flyaway Cost: $110 million

Procurement Cost: $172 million


OBJECTIVE COST:

Flyaway cost: $80 million

Procurement Cost: $120-140 million (includes support and initial spares)


PRODUCTION RATE:

Current production rate: 30 units/yr

Rate of production 2016: >100 units/yr

Peak rate of production: >150 units/yr

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby alexis » 03 Feb 2014 13:21

F-35 has got a lot of negative press even before it is inducted. But as independent 3rd party observers, we should not be too negative about it. We should wait till it is inducted to form our opinion. Tejas also got a lot of bad press; that does not make it a bad plane. F-35 may not be as great or as cheap as it was promised to be; however, it should be offering better capability than EUROCANARDS at comparable prices.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 03 Feb 2014 13:58

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:So explain me this. If the Rafale's "officially quoted" costs are suspect, especially when you add in fudge factors, why are the F-35's LRIP figures and Norwegian budgets (not exactly costs) taken as gospel here? Especially for a plane with 700+ problems yet to be resolved, problems that, as one insider said, reduce it to a kamikaze platform as of now?

The Rafale's costs are not suspect. Its about $75M flyaway for France, though we'll still have to see how much it rises due to the recent order cut (original order being 25% higher). The F-35 meanwhile is currently $110M flyaway. Once the production rises (from 30/yr to 120/yr+) it'll fall to well under $90M (LM claims $75M).

As far as being 'kamikaze', it demonstrated the AMRAAM capability back in October. There are no doubts about its capability come 2018.


In the meanwhile, here is a nice gentleman saying some nice things about the F-35s costs.

A unit acquisition cost of $182 million in 2014 for the F-35A is far from alarming. By the end of the decade it should fall to $140M or less.

To summarize what you are saying in plain language:
1. Rafale's current cost is less (than F-35). But it will go up as French cut the orders, lack of other foreign buyers, development costs etc.
2. F-35 cost is more at the moment also is not yet at its full capability with many reported problems. However it will be become cheaper as the production rate increases, more capabilities will be added in next 6-7 years (though IOC is 2018 I don't think it will have "full capability" as advertised at that point). When it reaches full capability it will be more potent than Rafale.

Now key question from India's stand point is, should it jump onto F-35 Bandwagon and abandon MMRCA at this point in time? I think the answer to that question was in the survey at the top of this thread- which is 'No'.

F-35 might turn out to be great plane, however IAF will have to evaluate the options based on what capability they need and by when and the maturity of the available options. If we plot these parameters on X,Y axis and compare current MMRCA with F-35, I believe it will be too risky for IAF to wait for F-35 to mature. This wait for better product will never end, by 2018 we might see some super duper 6th gen fighter on the cards and then people will argue why don't wait 5 more years and get 6th gen.

IMVHO, MMRCA will have to continue whether its Rafale or Eurofighter. F-35 is a nice to have, once it matures so no point in pushing it. AMCA- we should continue on that path irrespective of cost, even when some other plane filling that role etc. There is no substitute for designing and building our own.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 03 Feb 2014 16:34

sattili wrote:To summarize what you are saying in plain language:
1. Rafale's current cost is less (than F-35). But it will go up as French cut the orders, lack of other foreign buyers, development costs etc.

The order cut is not a 'will be', its already happened. Down from 287 to 225. And what I quoted was the cost to France. Don't expect it to be offered to India at the same cost, unlike an FMS purchase where an foreign sale is simply tacked to the existing order book and delivered at the same cost (plus 3% service cost). If anything, France intends to cease domestic production once the Indian order comes in and have the Merignac line service it exclusively.

2. F-35 cost is more at the moment also is not yet at its full capability with many reported problems. However it will be become cheaper as the production rate increases, more capabilities will be added in next 6-7 years (though IOC is 2018 I don't think it will have "full capability" as advertised at that point). When it reaches full capability it will be more potent than Rafale.

It is not today's cost that should concern a customer, but the cost when it is ordered. At the end of the SDD phase, the production rate will be almost four tiimes higher with the unit cost under $90M. In other words, by 2017 it will inevitably be cheaper than the Rafale.

Note: It might already be cheaper judging from the Dassault offer to Brazil and the MMRCA prices currently circulating in the media.

Now key question from India's stand point is, should it jump onto F-35 Bandwagon and abandon MMRCA at this point in time? I think the answer to that question was in the survey at the top of this thread- which is 'No'.

While I agree with the fact that there is absolutely no need to 'jump onto F-35 Bandwagon', that by no means changes the fact that the MMRCA needs immediate scrapping. With the Tejas available for $26M, Su-30MKI for $60M, EMB 145 for <$150M and the Nirbhay ∽ $1.5M, there is no role that the Rafale irreplaceably fills.

F-35 might turn out to be great plane, however IAF will have to evaluate the options based on what capability they need and by when and the maturity of the available options. If we plot these parameters on X,Y axis and compare current MMRCA with F-35, I believe it will be too risky for IAF to wait for F-35 to mature. This wait for better product will never end, by 2018 we might see some super duper 6th gen fighter on the cards and then people will argue why don't wait 5 more years and get 6th gen.

The Rafale deliveries will begin earliest by 2017. And the first HAL delivered squadron will be delivered only by 2020.

IMVHO, MMRCA will have to continue whether its Rafale or Eurofighter. F-35 is a nice to have, once it matures so no point in pushing it. AMCA- we should continue on that path irrespective of cost, even when some other plane filling that role etc. There is no substitute for designing and building our own.

The MMRCA needs abandoned regardless of the status of the F-35. As should the pathetic sham of 'joint-development' called the FGFA.

What the MoD ought to do is boost Tejas production and expedite the Mk2 development to whatever extent possible. And in 2016, they can take a look at the next new platform - the F-35 would have matured and the PAK FA moved past the rudimentary state it is currently in. Cost for both should be relatively clear as well, and they can take an informed decision at that stage.

And as strongly as I support the AMCA development, fact is it is not entering service until 2030 and that's if the prototype flies by 2020. We will still need a new fighter in the interim (with the J-20 & J-31 entering service), and that aircraft is certainly not the Rafale.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 03 Feb 2014 20:03

Viv S wrote:While I agree with the fact that there is absolutely no need to 'jump onto F-35 Bandwagon', that by no means changes the fact that the MMRCA needs immediate scrapping. With the Tejas available for $26M, Su-30MKI for $60M, EMB 145 for <$150M and the Nirbhay ∽ $1.5M, there is no role that the Rafale irreplaceably fills.

For arguments sake, lets flip this question - Hypothetically India cancels MMRCA and orders more SU-30MKI and Tejas. As per your own argument, for the price of one F-35 we could actually have 1 SU30MKI + 1 Tejas and some spare cash. Let us say we use that spare cash and upgrade our MKIs to Super30 standard. By 2020 this model will give us 2 planes (albeit in two different weight categories) for the price one F-35. Now what role that F-35 irreplaceably fills which SU-30MKI (Super30) and Tejas combined cannot fulfill?


The MMRCA needs abandoned regardless of the status of the F-35. As should the pathetic sham of 'joint-development' called the FGFA.

Irrespective of the joint development sham, on paper FGFA promises a better product than F-35. If we believe F-35 will achieve its full potential, why shouldn't we expect FGFA to achieve its "advertised" performance once all the development and testing completes?

What the MoD ought to do is boost Tejas production and expedite the Mk2 development to whatever extent possible. And in 2016, they can take a look at the next new platform - the F-35 would have matured and the PAK FA moved past the rudimentary state it is currently in. Cost for both should be relatively clear as well, and they can take an informed decision at that stage.

Completely agree with bolded part.

And as strongly as I support the AMCA development, fact is it is not entering service until 2030 and that's if the prototype flies by 2020. We will still need a new fighter in the interim (with the J-20 & J-31 entering service), and that aircraft is certainly not the Rafale.

What is the certainty of J-20 & J-31 entering service in 2020's. Even if they did we would have SU-30MKI(Super30), Tejas MK2 and FGFA prototypes to take care of the threat. Then why should we need F-35, instead we can wait till AMCA isn't it.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 03 Feb 2014 20:15

nits wrote:F-35: Should India Really Ride The Lightning?

Very Nice Article and sum up of analysis done on F-35; pasting some pat of it; read full analysis on above link

Even if it is advertised as a “multirole” aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect. At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale. It cannot operate without air cover as it does not possess a swing-role capability.

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

The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.

Another problem is the complexity of the design itself and the fact that many of its technologies are radically new and untried. The USAF is learning the hard way that the F-22’s radar absorbing skin (which the F-35 also uses) is highly vulnerable to rain and dust, and very expensive and difficult to maintain. Advertised as having the computing power of two Cray supercomputers, it is so complex that it can only fly for an average of 1.7 hours before suffering a critical failure.

If that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse once we start talking about timelines and costs. As of today, the F-35 (without development costs included) is priced at the same level as the Eurofighter and the Rafale. But while the latter two are combat proven and available today (in a fashion), the Lightning II won't be for a decade.

Detractors may argue that the AMCA is nowhere close to completion, and may be delayed by years just like the Tejas has been. That may well be the case, but if the AMCA does suffer inordinate delays, India can always place a future order for an F-35 with many of its niggles hopefully sorted out. There is little reason to make that call now, when the AMCA is still a design on paper.

[u]Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence[/u].

This is not to suggest that the F-35 Lightning II is a turkey, or that the US military is making a humongous blunder in buying it. But in the Indian context, we see little rationale behind spending large sums of money today on something that will only arrive a decade from now at the very best, be a difficult fit in our existing doctrine as well as punch a hole in our finances. If Lightning should strike our enemies, we would rather it not have our tricoloured roundels on it.


India hasn't shown any propensity to buy US jet fighters in the past 40 years and it is not going to start soon. We know that. Sure there is always some policy wonk probably paid by the air craft companies to suggest otherwise, but really to those in the know, they're not getting too excited about it. I think the final analysis here is that you want the tech but you really want to make it in India. Then India should start investing in the Indian processes and grunt it out. That's the way the US does it, even though you guys love to pick it apart because we are transparent about our tech punch lists.
Last edited by TSJones on 03 Feb 2014 20:50, edited 1 time in total.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 03 Feb 2014 20:21

sattili wrote: what role that F-35 irreplaceably fills which SU-30MKI (Super30) and Tejas combined cannot fulfill?

Err, the role that an INVISIBLE TO RADAR plane fills? In that role, even a DC3 Dakota is worth its weight in gold and whether we like it or not, as of today only the Americans have demonstrated stealth successfully.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 03 Feb 2014 20:51

TSJones wrote:Very Nice Article and sum up of analysis done on F-35; pasting some pat of it; read full analysis on above link

[u]Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence[/u].


India hasn't shown any propensity to buy US jet fighters in the past 40 years and it is not going to start soon. We know that. Sure there is always some policy wonk probably paid by the air craft companies to suggest otherwise, but really to those in the know, they're not getting too excited about it. I think the final analysis here is that you want the tech but you really want to make it in India. Then India should start investing in the Indian processes and grunt it out. That's the way the US does it, even thought you guys love to pick it apart because we are transparent about our tech punch lists.

TSJ, I will take that analysis with a pinch of salt. Especially the Blue colored part. "Kicking down the door" is not IAF lingo, its USAF. All those tasks could be performed by a SU-30MKI. With Super 30 upgrade they carry Brahmos, what better door kicker missile you have in the game than that?

Coming to the bolded part, India hasn't shown any propensity to buy US jet fighters because of the Nixon governments doing. There was a news report quoting the declassified material on how India requested US for a fighter jet but some wonks in Nixon government decided what would be good enough for India (Basically a retired fighter model to be refurbished and sold rather than whats been asked) and how they keep harping on maintaining regional balance between TSP and India. Do they think we are foolish enough of pay for a fighter (eg F-16) and US provides that plane free of cost to TSP on some pretext whether its maintaining regional balance or fighting terrorism etc.

Yes India has to put the grunt into it and do it by itself. Like how ISRO showed middle finger to USA for denying Cyrogenic tech by launching GSLV Mk.II last month. There is no other way.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 03 Feb 2014 21:09

Victor wrote:
sattili wrote: what role that F-35 irreplaceably fills which SU-30MKI (Super30) and Tejas combined cannot fulfill?

Err, the role that an INVISIBLE TO RADAR plane fills? In that role, even a DC3 Dakota is worth its weight in gold and whether we like it or not, as of today only the Americans have demonstrated stealth successfully.

Well there is no absolute "Invisibility" when it comes to stealth. F-117 was shot down by an almost obsolete generation SAM with a homegrown modification to the radar.


No a Dakota with VLO features is not worth its gold. VLO could be defeated and when its done its game over. The argument was what role F-35 could perform irreplaceably that a Su-30MKI armed with Brahmos (I am adding the Brahmos part now, I originally said Super30) and Tejas combined cannot do?

F-35 has VLO and very limited super cruise (as per Wiki), then how would it become better than FGFA? or AMCA? Benefits need to stack in favor of F-35 to buy that argument. IMO, stealth alone doesn't justify it. There news reports that RCS reduction efforts are on for both MKI and Tejas Mk.2 as well.

I am sure even US wont send its B-2 into an adversary's airspace where an SU-30 doing CAP.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 03 Feb 2014 22:07

sattili wrote:For arguments sake, lets flip this question - Hypothetically India cancels MMRCA and orders more SU-30MKI and Tejas. As per your own argument, for the price of one F-35 we could actually have 1 SU30MKI + 1 Tejas and some spare cash. Let us say we use that spare cash and upgrade our MKIs to Super30 standard. By 2020 this model will give us 2 planes (albeit in two different weight categories) for the price one F-35. Now what role that F-35 irreplaceably fills which SU-30MKI (Super30) and Tejas combined cannot fulfill?


The F-35 specific roles - Deep Strike, SEAD/DEAD, EW support, anti-AWACS and CAS/BAI in zones with substantial air defences.

Irrespective of the joint development sham, on paper FGFA promises a better product than F-35. If we believe F-35 will achieve its full potential, why shouldn't we expect FGFA to achieve its "advertised" performance once all the development and testing completes?

Well let it put it this way - the Russians are openly contemptuous of India's potential contribution to the FGFA and that reflects in our workshare (currently pegged at 15%). They however are appreciative of hard currency invested by the Indian side and that reflects in our FGFA bill (currently pegged at $6 billion).

The PAK FA's design, avionics and propulsion have already finalized and are already under development/implementation. Since the two seat variant got cancelled and the order downsized from 244-144 aircraft, we're for all means and purposes buying a customized PAK FA. There is no 'development' to be done. So lets discard this 'FGFA' idea and think in terms of PAK FA only.

So far several of the PAK FA's basic attributes are in question.

- Design; there's talk of a shroud to cover the huge exposed engine area, but nothing concrete announced yet.
- Exposed compressor face, which requires a radar blocker in the absence of S-ducts - the efficacy of radar-blockers for achieving VLO-level of stealth is still in question.
- RAM quality - is it effective? And is it as durable as the F-35's (which had a strong focus on that aspect) or more akin to the F-22 (requiring a proportionate degree of maintenance).
- IR spectrum stealth - effort invested in this aspect is not visible in the least. Lets hope there's more than meets the eye.
- Cost; even for baseline minimal stealth product, the operating cost will be huge (it weighs more than the Su-30MKI). And for acquisition, $100M no longer appears a realistic estimate.

And this is without going into standard problems faced by similar aircraft - software, sensor fusion, airframe durability, propulsion reliability etc.

You're saying that we should hold off on passing judgement since its still in development. Accepted. So wouldn't you agree that we should wait and see what we're getting and at what cost, before financially committing ourselves to the program? Better to hold off on both the F-35 and PAK FA till a clearer picture emerges.


What is the certainty of J-20 & J-31 entering service in 2020's. Even if they did we would have SU-30MKI(Super30), Tejas MK2 and FGFA prototypes to take care of the threat. Then why should we need F-35, instead we can wait till AMCA isn't it.

Can you say for certain that they wouldn't enter service by then? They already have nearly a decade's head-start over the AMCA.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 03 Feb 2014 22:19

sattili wrote:TSJ, I will take that analysis with a pinch of salt. Especially the Blue colored part. "Kicking down the door" is not IAF lingo, its USAF. All those tasks could be performed by a SU-30MKI. With Super 30 upgrade they carry Brahmos, what better door kicker missile you have in the game than that?

The Brahmos is expensive and its for use primarily against fixed targets. You can't use them for SEAD and while it'll engage in heavy jinxing in the terminal phase, fast as it is, it is not immune to interception especially in the cruise phase (Mach 3 aircraft didn't prove to be invulnerable either).

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 03 Feb 2014 23:27

sattili wrote: VLO could be defeated and when its done its game over.

Standard response. F-117 technology was over 20 years old when the Serbs shot one down after it had already bombed Belgrade. The B-2's stealth tech is far more sophisticated and the F-35's even more so. Still, the fact that the Americans are investing unprecedented amounts on the F-35 in spite of so much trouble and in spite of also having the best detection technology in the world should speak very loudly, not just about the technology but about the confidence that is making F-35 the future backbone warplane of the entire US military. I grant that it will make no difference to those who are unwilling or incapable of hearing, which is fine with the Americans and all the countries that have the JSF.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 03 Feb 2014 23:53

sattili wrote:With Super 30 upgrade they carry Brahmos, what better door kicker missile you have in the game

I have mentioned before that the Brahmos, even without its booster, is too big for the Su-30 to be practical. Can the Sukhoi carry one? Yes, but that would make it fly like a sick duck, needing two escorts for protection all the way to the target and back. An airborne Brahmos could make sense for very long range high value targets but to risk three Su-30MKIs just to launch a single Brahmos is absurd. It makes more sense to convert an Il-76 into a Brahmos launcher with 4 under the wings and 6 more in a rotating magazine in the fuselage for a total of 10.

If anyone knows the Brahmos, it is the Russians and if an air version were viable, they would have made one by now. It is an interesting concept but highly speculative. However it does make for another very expensive time pass project for our PSUs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 04 Feb 2014 04:50

Here is another view (and IMHO a more appropriate one), the observations here are closer to the truth that David Axe:

Five Reasons The Latest Pentagon Testing Report On The F-35 Fighter Doesn't Matter

Two weeks ago the annual report of the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation was leaked to the Reuters news agency in advance of its public release. The subsequent dissemination of its contents has afforded critics of the tri-service F-35 fighter program the opportunity for a new round of complaints about the supposed mis-steps of those engaged in developing the plane.

(Disclosure: Many of the companies working on the F-35 program including prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -2.1% contribute to my think tank; so do companies building rival planes.)

For example, I read one commentary about the test report posted on the influential RealClearDefense web-site that stated the F-35 “could fly into combat unreliable, confused, defenseless, toothless and vulnerable.” That claim reveals such abysmal ignorance about the status of the program that it discredits anything else the author might choose to say on the subject. It echoes the irresponsible critics of earlier generations who warned that programs like the F-15 fighter, Abrams tank and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor would be battlefield disasters. In fact, all three went on to become world-class combat systems.

The reality of the F-35 program is that it is making steady progress in retiring risk and reducing costs; that Pentagon officials are increasingly pleased with its performance; and that most of America’s key allies have signed up to buy the plane despite the availability of impressive alternatives (most recently Japan and South Korea). Nonetheless, the fact that program critics level such sweeping denunciations has to have a demoralizing effect on the thousands of workers engaged in building what Senator John McCain has said “may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world.” With that in mind, I would like to offer five reassuring reasons why the F-35 program is going to do just fine.

1. The problems were already known.

The test director’s report did not identify any new problems with the fighter. As the head of the F-35 joint program office observed in response to the report’s release, “There were no surprises in the report; all of the issues mentioned are well-known to us, the F-35 international partners and our industry team.” That was predictable because the report relied on information generated by the program office as it conducts a rigorous testing regime that includes over 8,000 flights. With half of flight testing now completed, no show-stoppers have been found and the program is developing fixes for each instance where aircraft performance fails to match goals. Program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan states that finding such problems is typical of what happens at this stage in a development program: “This is the time we want to discover issues through testing so we can implement solutions and provide an extremely capable and lethal aircraft to the warfighter.”

2. Program progress has been understated.


To read some accounts of what the test chief reported, you would think the F-35 is making little progress. In fact, the very first sentence in the report’s executive summary states, “Flight test teams operating the 18 test aircraft assigned to the developmental flight test centers nearly matched or exceeded flight test sortie goals through October 2013.” During 2013, the program conducted 1,153 flights and completed more than 9,000 separate test points (tasks). Accomplishment of some test points has been delayed due to lagging software development and other issues, but the program executive officer says, “the basic design of the F-35 is sound and test results underscore our confidence in the ultimate performance” of the planes. He says software issues will not slow the operational debut of the Marine Corps variant, scheduled for next year.

3. The severity of problems has been exaggerated.

In discussing issues cited by the report, critics have omitted important context and qualifiers. For instance, peeling of stealth coatings on the tail is described without including report language that it was caused by “extended use of the afterburner not expected to be representative of operational use.” Buffeting and “trans-sonic roll off” (wing drop) is noted without mention of the fact that this is common in many fighters and may not impact mission capability. Engine susceptibility to damage is cited without including report language that testing results “were consistent with results from prior legacy engine tests.” Problems with the pilot’s helmet-mounted display are detailed without recounting the various fixes that have improved performance to the point where plans for a backup system could be canceled.

4. The testing chief always finds problems.

If you read through the full report of the Director for Operational Test & Evaluation, it becomes clear he has questions of one sort or another about every weapons program the Pentagon is pursuing. For instance, the report complains about radar deficiencies, electronic countermeasure shortfalls and inadequate weapons testing on the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, even though that plane is generally regarded as the most capable carrier-based aircraft in history. Pentagon officials were downright dismissive of the test chief’s complaints about a new Navy patrol aircraft. Those officials recognize that the testing community is seldom satisfied with the performance of combat systems because it benefits from doing testing. As the joint force’s biggest development program, the F-35 offers an especially lucrative target for bureaucrats who never want to stop testing.

5. Outsiders seldom understand fighter development
.

Few people have actually read the F-35 chapter in the test director’s annual report, and fewer still have understood it. To grasp the full significance of what it says, you would first need to have some grounding in aeronautical engineering and operational testing. It would also be helpful to have some historical knowledge of how other major weapons systems have fared during development. Most of the reporters who cover the F-35 don’t have those insights, and so they tend to rely on other people to explain to them what documents like the test report indicate. Since the joint program office and contractors seldom are forthcoming on that front, journalists turn to the critics who, shockingly enough, render unduly alarming interpretations of what it all means.

The F-35 program may be the most complicated project in the history of military technology. It entails development of three distinctly different aircraft for domestic military services and a host of foreign allies, along with sophisticated training and sustainment systems. Much of the hardware and software incorporated into the airframes is secret — secret because it is the key to preserving global air dominance through mid-century. It was inevitable there would be challenges in engineering and integrating such systems. The Director of Operational Testing & Evaluation has illuminated some of the challenges that remain to be resolved, but one by one they will be overcome as they must be if America is to retain its role as guarantor of global security.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 04 Feb 2014 06:13

Victor wrote:
sattili wrote:With Super 30 upgrade they carry Brahmos, what better door kicker missile you have in the game

I have mentioned before that the Brahmos, even without its booster, is too big for the Su-30 to be practical. Can the Sukhoi carry one? Yes, but that would make it fly like a sick duck, needing two escorts for protection all the way to the target and back. An airborne Brahmos could make sense for very long range high value targets but to risk three Su-30MKIs just to launch a single Brahmos is absurd.

How did you come to the conclusion in the bolded part? is there any data? How came SU-30 with a payload of 8 tons will become a sick duck by carrying a 2.5ton Brahmos, is it because its not TFTA and made by SDREs in collaboration with Rodina in JV (and allegedly India contributes only 10% to the missile :shock: )

Brahmos air launched is here and it will be tested in 2014. Here are couple of links with a picture of how Brahmos looks once integrated on SU-30MKI.
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/su30_brahmos11.jpg
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/strategic-forces/43794-brahmos-air-version-made-india.html

It is an interesting concept but highly speculative. However it does make for another very expensive time pass project for our PSUs.

Well its better to sink some money on Desi PSU's rather than sinking 100billion on US companies.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 04 Feb 2014 06:41

Viv S wrote:The Brahmos is expensive and its for use primarily against fixed targets. You can't use them for SEAD and while it'll engage in heavy jinxing in the terminal phase, fast as it is, it is not immune to interception especially in the cruise phase (Mach 3 aircraft didn't prove to be invulnerable either).

Agreed Brahmos is not immune to interception. However a wonderful scenario is presented in Vivek Ahuja's "Chimera" on how a combination of Brahmos air-launched missles as first wave and Jaguars dropping CBUs only seconds after could take out the S-300 air defence batteries. Brahmos is not ARM-agreed. There are others missiles like R-77 or a CBU or a glide bomb that will do the job and Brahmos will be deadly on fixed AD installations.

J-35 is not invulnerable either. Some very old articles on this subject:
R-27P Levels Playing Field http://web.archive.org/web/20060614094030/http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_06/d3improved10.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread226332/pg1
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 04 Feb 2014 07:27

Viv S wrote:The F-35 specific roles - Deep Strike, SEAD/DEAD, EW support, anti-AWACS and CAS/BAI in zones with substantial air defences.

Fair enough. However the question was how F-35 irreplaceable in these roles around 2020? Given the hypothetical model that MMRCA cancelled and we get SU30-MKI(Super30) and Tejas Mk.2. We will have double the number of airframes since we get 2 planes (1 big and 1 light) for 1 F-35. How the alternatives stackup against J-20 or J-35 compared F-35. That would be an interesting analysis.

Well let it put it this way - the Russians are openly contemptuous of India's potential contribution to the FGFA and that reflects in our workshare (currently pegged at 15%). They however are appreciative of hard currency invested by the Indian side and that reflects in our FGFA bill (currently pegged at $6 billion).

How is US any different? They are interested in our hard cash only. Remember how their Ambassador resigned immediately after MMRCA finalists were announced, how US reminded India to be grateful about the civil nuclear deal and Obama wanted hard cash to show US public about generating employment - we gave $10billion contract for C-17s to just shut him up. Did we forget about CISMOA fracas while ordering C-130J and P-8Is. Everyone is interested in hard cash be it defense deals or nuclear energy.

The PAK FA's design, avionics and propulsion have already finalized and are already under development/implementation. Since the two seat variant got cancelled and the order downsized from 244-144 aircraft, we're for all means and purposes buying a customized PAK FA. There is no 'development' to be done. So lets discard this 'FGFA' idea and think in terms of PAK FA only.

How you came to this conclusion. Every news report out there, including the latest criticism from IAF meeting talks about India specific version (FGFA) being in the works, why should we discard that? Is there any definitive news that India is not pursuing FGFA?

So far several of the PAK FA's basic attributes are in question.

- Design; there's talk of a shroud to cover the huge exposed engine area, but nothing concrete announced yet.
- Exposed compressor face, which requires a radar blocker in the absence of S-ducts - the efficacy of radar-blockers for achieving VLO-level of stealth is still in question.
- RAM quality - is it effective? And is it as durable as the F-35's (which had a strong focus on that aspect) or more akin to the F-22 (requiring a proportionate degree of maintenance).
- IR spectrum stealth - effort invested in this aspect is not visible in the least. Lets hope there's more than meets the eye.
- Cost; even for baseline minimal stealth product, the operating cost will be huge (it weighs more than the Su-30MKI). And for acquisition, $100M no longer appears a realistic estimate.

And this is without going into standard problems faced by similar aircraft - software, sensor fusion, airframe durability, propulsion reliability etc.

These are all issues in development and they will be overcome once FGFA achieves IOC, that's what the brochure claims no?

You're saying that we should hold off on passing judgement since its still in development. Accepted. So wouldn't you agree that we should wait and see what we're getting and at what cost, before financially committing ourselves to the program? Better to hold off on both the F-35 and PAK FA till a clearer picture emerges.

Now let me bring in 2 parameters used in financial analysis. Opportunity cost and Sunk cost.
Opportunity cost- for having 'A' we will be forgoing other opportunities (like 'B', 'C' etc). That's how projects will be selected for investing. Now coming back to my original question several posts back, what does this opportunity cost looks like for F-35 vs SU30MKI(Super30)+Tejas Mk.2 combo. I am looking for substitute analysis of what will be pros and cons of having 2 older gen planes in different weight categories instead having 1 latest gen F-35.

Sunk cost is what we loose if we abandon the project (committed money only). Lets look at the aspect from India perspective:
1. MMRCA - Sunk cost -nil as we didn't commit any money for this project (discarding the administrative and evaluation costs as they are done for all contenders)
2. SU-30MKI-Super30 upgrade - this is a definitive project. Contract signed for 42 aircraft already and money committed. Speculation of the money ranges from $1.6billion to $6billion for this upgrade.
3. Tejas- Mk1 is already IOC and will FOC by 2015. Mk.2 definitive with development budget already granted. Not sure what is the budget granted for Mk.2 dev...need to check.
4. FGFA- Sunk cost -$6Billion- not sure about exact amount already paid, but we agreed to pay $6billion and made first tranche payments as well. Hence withdrawing would be mean sunk cost in the range of $1billion(money already paid) to $6billion (total agreement value for dev funding).
4. F-35 - Sunk Cost -nil. IAF didn't even evaluate it (at least officially)

Can you say for certain that they wouldn't enter service by then? They already have nearly a decade's head-start over the AMCA.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I am not sure that's why I am asking...you mentioned earlier that "J-20 & J-35 will be in service and AMCA wont enter service till 2030 and we need an interim plane and that wont be Rafale" - right.

I am not saying F-35 is bad or its not capable. Why should India invest in it?...what are opportunity costs and why should we abandon FGFA where we already sunk funds. Moreover every country trying for stealth plane is creating 2 categories stealth planes. US (F22, F-35), China (J-20, J-35) Russiona (PAK-FA and New Mig 5th gen announced recently). Then why shouldn't we follow the same model with larger FGFA and Medium AMCA?

Given all these where does F-35 has scope to be in IAF mix?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 04 Feb 2014 09:20

sattili wrote:
Victor wrote:I have mentioned before that the Brahmos, even without its booster, is too big for the Su-30 to be practical. Can the Sukhoi carry one? Yes, but that would make it fly like a sick duck, needing two escorts for protection all the way to the target and back. An airborne Brahmos could make sense for very long range high value targets but to risk three Su-30MKIs just to launch a single Brahmos is absurd.

How did you come to the conclusion in the bolded part? is there any data? How came SU-30 with a payload of 8 tons will become a sick duck by carrying a 2.5ton Brahmos

It's not the weight but the size. There's something about the Su30 centerline aerodynamics that apparently does not allow it to carry any weapons larger than a small AA missile or bomb. Normally, this would be where the heaviest weapons are carried and there seems to be enough clearance but I've never seen a single photograph. This would also explain why the Russians never did it and why we are designing Brahmos-M which is half the size. That would allow it to be carried on the wings and on other jets too, making it much more doable.

Air version of Brahmos is certainly not here. What you see in the photos is a mockup. But this is getting OT so no more on Su on this thread from me.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 04 Feb 2014 10:04

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:Again, more spin. The report clearly mentions that they couldn't replicate the problems in ground testing. That doesn't mean the problems didn't exist, no matter how much you wish it so.


That's nonsense. It doesn't say 'the' problem anywhere. What kind of 'problem' cannot be replicated in ground testing but is utterly unknown (as David Axe claims).

I wish I could call everything I didn't like "nonsense". I could win every debate, then :)

Viv S wrote:
There is no evidence whatsoever to claim that they will be solved either, so lets stop focusing on hypotheticals, shall we? And just because IOC/FOC is a convenient point in the future for you, doesn't mean that it is the "only factor that matters".

So according to you the program faces 'unsolvable' problems. And then you talk about 'hypotheticals'. And yes, IOC/FOC status is the only factor that matters as far as capability goes.

You mean the IOC/FOC status that should have been achieved half a decade ago. Instead of which they are finding really basic problems like missiles not working properly or the skin peeling off, at this juncture?

Viv S wrote:
Oh, they identified something alright, a problem with AMRAAM integration. What they *can't* identify is what causes that problem. That is a very serious concern for everyone but committed fanbois.

Pray tell, what is 'something' that they identified? And how did they identify it if could be replicated in ground testing and analysis from air testing wasn't it?

That's basically how highly complex electro-mechanical systems are tested. Often, while putting a system through its paces, deficiencies come to light. You then try to replicate these problems/deficiencies at a subsystem level in such a way that it doesn't put the entire system at risk. In the case of an aircraft, it is ground testing. If you cannot replicate the problem, you're in trouble, because then you cannot diagnose it. The fact that you cannot replicate the problem isn't evidence that it doesn't exist. I only wish things were as cut and dried as you make them out to be.

You might want to explain the F-35s missile integration issues away by accusing people of 'inventing' them. That doesn't make them any less real.

Viv S wrote:
Now you're arguing that a conventional transport that doesn't employ pie-in-the sky technologies at every step is the same as the F-35. As for the V-22, I hope you are aware how long it took to fix those flaws, how many lives were lost as a result, how expensive it has become as a result, and how it still suffers from issues fundamental to its design. And all this when it wasn't even envisioned as a one-size-fits-all platform to fulfill every conceivable type of mission, outfitted with every little gizmo and widget that could be dreamed up. And for all that, the best that can be said about it is, they got it flying. They'll get some sort of F-35 flying operational missions too; doesn't mean it will come cheap or with all issues resolved.

Just because it was a 'conventional transport' did stop folks like you from it being a disaster. Same with the V-22. All the cribbing about the development cost and time doesn't change that fact that the final product has two services and plenty of foreign customers lining up for more.

Folks like me? :shock: I don't think pigeonholing me into a convenient category is going to make your argument any stronger, but then again, what do I know? I happen to think that the C-17 is a fantastic aircraft, and a great choice for the IAF, but 'folks like me' are labeling it a disaster onlee.

As for "plenty of foreign customers", three is not plenty. Or else we'd be calling the Rafale a runaway success as well.

Viv S wrote:
And if RAND is right, it still won't have the capability to hold its own against the enemy aircraft it may face in the future.

I'll wait till it 'analyses' the PAK FA and J-20 before making that claim.

It doesn't need to. That study assumed that the Chinese fielded a sizable force of F-35s.

An analysis of the PAK FA and J-20 may well show that those platforms are just as deficient as the F-35, if not more. In that case, the F-35 might just win, by virtue of being the least inferior of the lot. But the "our fighter is bad, but not as bad as the enemy's future fighters" approach to fighter development is risky, to say the least.

Viv S wrote:
Winsolw Wheeler wrote:...We have no independent assurance that all the money displayed was actually spent for F-35-related activities...

So Wheeler wants to use the figures and question their authenticity at the same. :roll:

Actually, what Wheeler is saying is that even the official figures, while suspect, paint a pretty bad picture. One wonders how bad it will look if the real data comes out.

Viv S wrote:
$7-8 million, because Lockheed and JPO say so, right? No idea how they will fix 700+ problems, but they know with 400% confidence that retrofit costs will onlee be $7-8 million. Totally believable.

The actual appropriations bill says $9 million. I'd ask you what your estimate is but you've determinedly dodged that question every time you're asked to back your statement. No reason to think that will change now.

I haven't dodged that question, I've answered it very clearly. We are at a point in the F-35's development process where the risks are still huge and there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding critical subsystems. There are 700+ unresolved problems, some some of which haven't even been fully understood yet. So any figures and estimates you see regarding retrofitting solutions to these problems into aircraft already off the production line should be taken with a truckload of salt. That's just how it works in the real world. This isn't a textbook exercise where future costs can be estimated to the dollar on the basis of some magic formula. Hell, given the fudging and obfuscation coming from LM and the JPO, even present costs are proving exceedingly hard to pin down. You might see that as 'dodging the question', but luckily for me, you aren't the sole judge of this debate.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 04 Feb 2014 10:21

Victor wrote:If anyone knows the Brahmos, it is the Russians and if an air version were viable, they would have made one by now. It is an interesting concept but highly speculative. However it does make for another very expensive time pass project for our PSUs.

How did you get to that conclusion? They are expecting a flight test in the latter part of the year! It has long gone past the "highly speculative" stage.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 04 Feb 2014 11:06

sattili wrote:Fair enough. However the question was how F-35 irreplaceable in these roles around 2020? Given the hypothetical model that MMRCA cancelled and we get SU30-MKI(Super30) and Tejas Mk.2. We will have double the number of airframes since we get 2 planes (1 big and 1 light) for 1 F-35. How the alternatives stackup against J-20 or J-35 compared F-35. That would be an interesting analysis.

Between the Su-30MKI and Tejas, we will continue to have a qualitative deficiency in those roles until we induct a 5G fighter. They can still be carried out but at much high attrition rates.

How is US any different? They are interested in our hard cash only. Remember how their Ambassador resigned immediately after MMRCA finalists were announced, how US reminded India to be grateful about the civil nuclear deal and Obama wanted hard cash to show US public about generating employment - we gave $10billion contract for C-17s to just shut him up. Did we forget about CISMOA fracas while ordering C-130J and P-8Is. Everyone is interested in hard cash be it defense deals or nuclear energy.

Difference is the development cost ($60 billion) is being footed by the US govt (with ∼$4B from the UK), unlike the PAK FA where we're paying heavy upfront costs without knowing what we're getting for it.

How you came to this conclusion. Every news report out there, including the latest criticism from IAF meeting talks about India specific version (FGFA) being in the works, why should we discard that? Is there any definitive news that India is not pursuing FGFA?

You can put a 'joint-developed by India' label on it but that wouldn't change the fact that it uses a Russian airframe, Russian subsystems, Russian engine, Russian radar, Russian ESM systems, Russian IRST and so on. There was talk of India contributing through composites, but that presupposes Russian composites employed are deficient and can be replaced without incurring heavy expenditure.

These are all issues in development and they will be overcome once FGFA achieves IOC, that's what the brochure claims no?

I forgot to add -

Build quality
Air to ground capability - no EOTS equivalent

And I haven't seen any brochure acknowledging any of that, let alone promising to fix it. Point is, its much smarter to look before we leap. Its best to wait until a PAK-FA pre-production variant is available to the IAF for flight testing before signing any cheques.

4. FGFA- Sunk cost -$6Billion- not sure about exact amount already paid, but we agreed to pay $6billion and made first tranche payments as well. Hence withdrawing would be mean sunk cost in the range of $1billion(money already paid) to $6billion (total agreement value for dev funding).

So, far all we've signed is a 'Preliminary Design Contract' worth $295M. India's contribution would be about $150M (50%) and only a fraction of that would have been disbursed so far. Given the stakes, the sunk cost is minimal.

I am not sure that's why I am asking...you mentioned earlier that "J-20 & J-35 will be in service and AMCA wont enter service till 2030 and we need an interim plane and that wont be Rafale" - right.

Correct.

I am not saying F-35 is bad or its not capable. Why should India invest in it?...what are opportunity costs and why should we abandon FGFA where we already sunk funds. Moreover every country trying for stealth plane is creating 2 categories stealth planes. US (F22, F-35), China (J-20, J-35) Russiona (PAK-FA and New Mig 5th gen announced recently). Then why shouldn't we follow the same model with larger FGFA and Medium AMCA?

Our investment in the 'FGFA' so far is minimal. And I'm not suggesting we buy the F-35. What I am suggesting is we scrap the Rafale entirely and wait at least until 2016 before taking a call on the next fighter. BTW Turkey, South Korea and Japan (all F-35 users) are developing 5G fighters as well.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 04 Feb 2014 11:54

Victor wrote:It's not the weight but the size. There's something about the Su30 centerline aerodynamics that apparently does not allow it to carry any weapons larger than a small AA missile or bomb. Normally, this would be where the heaviest weapons are carried and there seems to be enough clearance but I've never seen a single photograph. This would also explain why the Russians never did it and why we are designing Brahmos-M which is half the size. That would allow it to be carried on the wings and on other jets too, making it much more doable.

Air version of Brahmos is certainly not here. What you see in the photos is a mockup. But this is getting OT so no more on Su on this thread from me.

It would really help the discussion if you could point to the information that details the deficiency of SU30-MKI centerline pylon. I believe that is the reason they are saying SU-30MKI is being modified to carry Brahmos, do you mean to say that modification will not work? Brahmos-M will enable SU-30MKI to carry 3 of them, that's a different missile altogether (much like Cuda for JSF)

Here is what Brahmos Aerospace website claims http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=19
Image

It mentions initial launch trails in 2014 and induction to start in 2015. So we should not trust Brahmos Aerospace website? why?

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 04 Feb 2014 12:04

Mihir wrote:You mean the IOC/FOC status that should have been achieved half a decade ago. Instead of which they are finding really basic problems like missiles not working properly or the skin peeling off, at this juncture?

Yes it should have. As should the Tejas. Doesn't change the utility of the aircraft.

'Missiles not working' is only in David Axe's imagination. The 'skin peeling' was only observed during 'extended use of the afterburner not expected to be representative of operational use but which was necessary to achieve certain test points'.

That's basically how highly complex electro-mechanical systems are tested. Often, while putting a system through its paces, deficiencies come to light. You then try to replicate these problems/deficiencies at a subsystem level in such a way that it doesn't put the entire system at risk. In the case of an aircraft, it is ground testing. If you cannot replicate the problem, you're in trouble, because then you cannot diagnose it. The fact that you cannot replicate the problem isn't evidence that it doesn't exist. I only wish things were as cut and dried as you make them out to be.

This is a plain cop out. So there is a problem, but its 'unknown' and at the same time its known that it can't be simulated on ground.

The DOT&E report does not identify any weapons integration issues relating to the 'highly complex electro-mechanical systems'.

You might want to explain the F-35s missile integration issues away by accusing people of 'inventing' them. That doesn't make them any less real.

When its David Axe inventing it, then yes that does make it less real.

Folks like me? :shock: I don't think pigeonholing me into a convenient category is going to make your argument any stronger, but then again, what do I know? I happen to think that the C-17 is a fantastic aircraft, and a great choice for the IAF, but 'folks like me' are labeling it a disaster onlee.

Of course its folks like who're using the development problems ('see the IOC/FOC is delayed by 5 years!') to pass judgement on the performance of the aircraft.

As for "plenty of foreign customers", three is not plenty. Or else we'd be calling the Rafale a runaway success as well.

So the lack of substantial export orders would preclude the Rafale from being a 'runaway success'. Given the lack of any export whatsoever, perhaps we ought to go so far as deeming it ... a failure?

It doesn't need to. That study assumed that the Chinese fielded a sizable force of F-35s.

So the study found the F-35 deficient against potential enemy aircraft, by simulating a scenario where China was fielding a sizeable force of F-35s. *facepalm*

An analysis of the PAK FA and J-20 may well show that those platforms are just as deficient as the F-35, if not more. In that case, the F-35 might just win, by virtue of being the least inferior of the lot. But the "our fighter is bad, but not as bad as the enemy's future fighters" approach to fighter development is risky, to say the least.

'Least inferior of the lot'? That also sounds like 'best of the lot'.

Actually, what Wheeler is saying is that even the official figures, while suspect, paint a pretty bad picture. One wonders how bad it will look if the real data comes out.

'Official figures'?! We're not talking about an off-the-cuff estimate delivered by a LM spokesperson, we're talking about the dollar figure in the appropriations bill signed into law by the US Congress.

Wheeler throws in a 'suspicion' about the figures, just in case someone points out that the current cost of the aircraft is just 25-30% higher than the projected final cost. Very achievable given that the production rate is set to quadruple if not quintuple.

I haven't dodged that question, I've answered it very clearly. We are at a point in the F-35's development process where the risks are still huge and there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding critical subsystems. There are 700+ unresolved problems, some some of which haven't even been fully understood yet. So any figures and estimates you see regarding retrofitting solutions to these problems into aircraft already off the production line should be taken with a truckload of salt.

You want to question the retrofit costs fine. But, unless you're willing to commit yourself to an alternative figure, or even a tentative range $X-Y million, that's a meaningless gesture.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 04 Feb 2014 23:33

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:You mean the IOC/FOC status that should have been achieved half a decade ago. Instead of which they are finding really basic problems like missiles not working properly or the skin peeling off, at this juncture?

Yes it should have. As should the Tejas. Doesn't change the utility of the aircraft.

Except that developing the Tejas is a case of India playing catch-up with folks who have a decades-long lead in aerospace tech. So if India is serious about developing a credible indigenous aerospace technology base, the Tejas is a no-brainer, in spite of the risks it presents. Not so for the F-35.

Viv S wrote:'Missiles not working' is only in David Axe's imagination.

No.

Viv S wrote:The 'skin peeling' was only observed during 'extended use of the afterburner not expected to be representative of operational use but which was necessary to achieve certain test points'.

Is that what they are saying now? Then there was no reason to prohibit the fleet from flying supersonic, was there?

Viv S wrote:
That's basically how highly complex electro-mechanical systems are tested. Often, while putting a system through its paces, deficiencies come to light. You then try to replicate these problems/deficiencies at a subsystem level in such a way that it doesn't put the entire system at risk. In the case of an aircraft, it is ground testing. If you cannot replicate the problem, you're in trouble, because then you cannot diagnose it. The fact that you cannot replicate the problem isn't evidence that it doesn't exist. I only wish things were as cut and dried as you make them out to be.

This is a plain cop out. So there is a problem, but its 'unknown' and at the same time its known that it can't be simulated on ground.

There is indeed a problem, it was discovered in a full-up test. They couldn't replicate it on the ground. Happens quite often, though seldom at this stage of a project, unless it is badly mismanaged. You call it a cop-out. I call it an understanding of the behaviour of highly complex systems in the real world and the uncertainty associated with their development. To each his own, I suppose.

Viv S wrote:
Folks like me? :shock: I don't think pigeonholing me into a convenient category is going to make your argument any stronger, but then again, what do I know? I happen to think that the C-17 is a fantastic aircraft, and a great choice for the IAF, but 'folks like me' are labeling it a disaster onlee.

Of course its folks like who're using the development problems ('see the IOC/FOC is delayed by 5 years!') to pass judgement on the performance of the aircraft.

Tell us more about "folks like me". I find the presumptuousness mildly amusing.

Viv S wrote:
As for "plenty of foreign customers", three is not plenty. Or else we'd be calling the Rafale a runaway success as well.

So the lack of substantial export orders would preclude the Rafale from being a 'runaway success'. Given the lack of any export whatsoever, perhaps we ought to go so far as deeming it ... a failure?

Rafale: Hasn't been exported (yet) in spite of India deciding it wants 126. "Failure"
V-22: 23 confirmed export orders (leaving aside the money poured into the project and the lives lost in its 30+ year long development). "Runaway success"
F-35: Can't fly, can't shoot, can't fight. "Holy shitballs, why aren't we buying these already????!!!!!1111111one"

Viv S wrote:
It doesn't need to. That study assumed that the Chinese fielded a sizable force of F-35s.

So the study found the F-35 deficient against potential enemy aircraft, by simulating a scenario where China was fielding a sizeable force of F-35s. *facepalm*

Sorry, I meant to say Su-27. I congratulate you on your discovery of a glaring typo in my post. Why don't you go through the rest of what I wrote. I bet there are errors in the grammar too. They all go a long way towards making your argument unassailable. As unassailable as the F-35 :mrgreen:

Viv S wrote:
An analysis of the PAK FA and J-20 may well show that those platforms are just as deficient as the F-35, if not more. In that case, the F-35 might just win, by virtue of being the least inferior of the lot. But the "our fighter is bad, but not as bad as the enemy's future fighters" approach to fighter development is risky, to say the least.

'Least inferior of the lot'? That also sounds like 'best of the lot'.

Okay, let's do this again.

The RAND study showed that a Chinese fleet of Su-27s beat a US fleet of F-35s backed by a hndful of F-22s in a hypothetical scenario.

You counter by bringing in irrelevant comparisons to aircraft not even mentioned in the study (J-20 and PAK FA).

I say that it is possible that the outcome may be different if, maybe, perhaps, the PAK FA and J-20 turn out to be even bigger disasters than the F-35.

You somehow take this as a point in favour of the F-35. It truly doesn't get any more bizzare than this.

Viv S wrote:
Actually, what Wheeler is saying is that even the official figures, while suspect, paint a pretty bad picture. One wonders how bad it will look if the real data comes out.

'Official figures'?! We're not talking about an off-the-cuff estimate delivered by a LM spokesperson, we're talking about the dollar figure in the appropriations bill signed into law by the US Congress.

And those have never ever ever been massaged to paint a rosy picture, no?

Viv S wrote:Wheeler throws in a 'suspicion' about the figures, just in case someone points out that the current cost of the aircraft is just 25-30% higher than the projected final cost. Very achievable given that the production rate is set to quadruple if not quintuple.

Very un-achievable if even a handful of those 700+ problems require expensive and time-consuming fixes.

Viv S wrote:
I haven't dodged that question, I've answered it very clearly. We are at a point in the F-35's development process where the risks are still huge and there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding critical subsystems. There are 700+ unresolved problems, some some of which haven't even been fully understood yet. So any figures and estimates you see regarding retrofitting solutions to these problems into aircraft already off the production line should be taken with a truckload of salt.

You want to question the retrofit costs fine. But, unless you're willing to commit yourself to an alternative figure, or even a tentative range $X-Y million, that's a meaningless gesture.

Heh heh. And replace one meaningless figure with another. Why not just see uncertainty and risk for what they really are instead of trying to put a definitive number on things that aren't really as cut an dried?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 05 Feb 2014 00:49

Feb 4, 2014 :: UK MoD close to ordering F-35 JSF fighters

Hammond was quoted as saying in an interview with Reuters Television during the Munich Security Conference that the MoD will soon place a firm order in a bid to have the first squadron ready to start flying training off the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier in 2018.

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

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 02:08

Mihir wrote:Except that developing the Tejas is a case of India playing catch-up with folks who have a decades-long lead in aerospace tech. So if India is serious about developing a credible indigenous aerospace technology base, the Tejas is a no-brainer, in spite of the risks it presents. Not so for the F-35.

Their being late doesn't change the utility of the product delivered.

Is that what they are saying now? Then there was no reason to prohibit the fleet from flying supersonic, was there?

Its not what 'they' are saying is, its what the DOT&E office is saying. And once the problem was assessed, restrictions on flying supersonic were lifted.

There is indeed a problem, it was discovered in a full-up test. They couldn't replicate it on the ground. Happens quite often, though seldom at this stage of a project, unless it is badly mismanaged. You call it a cop-out. I call it an understanding of the behaviour of highly complex systems in the real world and the uncertainty associated with their development. To each his own, I suppose.

Please elaborate on this 'full-up test' that takes place neither on ground nor in the air.

Rafale: Hasn't been exported (yet) in spite of India deciding it wants 126. "Failure"
V-22: 23 confirmed export orders (leaving aside the money poured into the project and the lives lost in its 30+ year long development). "Runaway success"
F-35: Can't fly, can't shoot, can't fight. "Holy shitballs, why aren't we buying these already????!!!!!1111111one"

Rafale: Signed the contract with GoI already huh? For $13 billion, I'd imagine.
V-22: 30 years and so much money poured in and yet - Indian interest in V-22 Osprey intensifies
F-35: While the whining about 'can't shoot run etc' continues, its already racked up 500 export orders, with more on the way.

Sorry, I meant to say Su-27. I congratulate you on your discovery of a glaring typo in my post. Why don't you go through the rest of what I wrote. I bet there are errors in the grammar too. They all go a long way towards making your argument unassailable. As unassailable as the F-35.

Right, so I should have guessed that F-35 equals Su-27... but I naively assumed that your reference to the F-35's combat efficacy did not come from RAND's Pacific Vision study.

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.” (RAND)

Clearly you must be talking about some other RAND study.

And those have never ever ever been massaged to paint a rosy picture, no?

'Massaging' wouldn't change the fact that that's the money that they're being disbursed.

Very un-achievable if even a handful of those 700+ problems require expensive and time-consuming fixes.

Even in the worst case scenario, it would still only have a marginal effect on the cost of the LRIP 9 &10 and none at all for any aircraft ordered post-2016. So the figures are still very much achievable.

Heh heh. And replace one meaningless figure with another. Why not just see uncertainty and risk for what they really are instead of trying to put a definitive number on things that aren't really as cut an dried?

Because the terms that you throw around (eg. 'bloody expensive') are utterly meaningless without any frame of reference. Ordinarily if a person is skeptical of a figures, he reserves comment until newer (presumably more reliable) ones are available. In your case, you want continue dodging figures till the end of the SDD (if even not later) but still continue to pass judgement on the cost.
Last edited by Viv S on 05 Feb 2014 15:42, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16876
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 05 Feb 2014 02:16

Its not what 'they' are saying is, its what the DOT&E office is saying. And once the problem was assessed, restrictions on flying supersonic were lifted.


They seem to be going over and above on that (and other) test/s.

They are not meeting their baseline numbers, but that is to be expected in such environments. IF they are set up properly (I say IF, because I do not know how they are set up) then, as testing progresses, they should catch up with the baseline numbers (which is why they have been able to conduct some tests from the next few cycles).

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 05 Feb 2014 02:21

Viv, I'm obviously talking past you. You're either not comprehending what I'm saying or deliberately choosing to misrepresent what I said. And I'm getting tired of reiterating the same thing again and again. I think it's time for me to bow out of this debate.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests