dinesh_kimar wrote:The common benefits are
Lets examine them in detail. Lets use 3 samples - Su-30, Rafale & LCA - in each category of light, medium & heavy. Lets examine if there are benefits of standardization.
dinesh_kimar wrote:training needs are simpler
How? If a pilot fresh out of AFA needs 60 days to become proficient in Su-30, Rafale or LCA, how does standardization on one type make training simpler? Will the 60 days become 40 days or 20 days or 0 days? No, it will still remain 60 days. So training will still take the same amount of time. It doesnt become simpler.
Children today learn Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics in school. Someone says standardization in Chemistry will make education simpler. Will standardization make learning Chemistry simpler than earlier? No.
We will need to have 3 instructors for a batch of 30 students of 10 each for Su-30, Rafale & LCA. Irrespective of whichever aircraft we standardize, we will still need 3 instructors for 30 students.
So how does training become simpler? It doesnt.
dinesh_kimar wrote:easier procurement
This is the biggest BS propagated by LM.
While the unit cost goes down with volumes, it doesnt become zero.
. While fixed cost can be apportioned across larger number of units, variable costs will remain constant and grow over time due to inflation.
Classic example - Maruti has been building thousands of Alto units every month for decades. Have the prices of Alto been reducing over these decades? No.
Is Maruti giving Altos for free, because going by the logic of increasing volumes reduce prices, the cost of Alto should become zero by now. No.
After fixed costs have been apportioned, the variable costs remain. And no amount of extra production will bring prices down.
On the contrary, a single vendor situation is a horrible trap, because that entity will extract their pound of flesh once a monopoly is achieved. Read about the P&W F-110 engine for F-15 & F-16 and how P&W charged high and offered poor service once they achieved monopoly. The GE engine brought in competition and brought prices down and forced P&W to improve service.
dinesh_kimar wrote:and stocking
How? If a Su-30, Rafale & LCA each require a warehouse of stores, by standardizing on any one, we will still need 3 warehouses for the 3 Su-30, 3 Rafales or 3 LCAs.
Assuming Su-30 has 12,000 parts, Rafale has 11,000 parts and LCA has 10,000 parts. Total 33,000 parts. Assume we standardize on LCA. 3 x LCA = 30,000 parts. Total saving is meagre and we'll still need 3 warehouses for 30,000 parts.
So standardization will not improve stocking.
dinesh_kimar wrote:easier service and maintenance
How? Will the number of people required to maintain each plane reduce? Will the maintenance hours required per plane reduce,
Assuming it takes 12 people to maintain a Su30, 11 per Rafale and 10 per Tejas, I need 33 people for all three or 30 people if standardized on one. Again meagre saving. Beyond a point one cannot reduce people.
dinesh_kimar wrote:greater reliability
This one beats me. How buying only Su-30 will result in greater reliability of Su-30? How buying only LCA will result in greater reliability of LCA? Reliability is a function of design, manufacture & maintenance.
On the contrary issues like uncommanded ejection in Su-30 grounded the entire fleet. Hypoxia in F-22 grounded the entire fleet. Had we standardized on Su-30 or F-22, then your entire air force is down
When these aircraft were down, other aircraft took up the workload.
Incase unforeseen problems emerge in your standardized fighter, then your entire air force goes down with it. Which is why its safer to hedge bets across multiple platforms. Chances of the same problem recurring across different designs and produced in different factories are rare.
Thanks for bringing up this point, it was funny (though no disrespect to you). Someone needs to rub in the Hypoxia issue into Lockheed's standardization discourse.
dinesh_kimar wrote:lowering costs
Discussed earlier, while fixed costs can, variable costs will remain and increase over time. So no benefits there. And corporations on creating monopoly will extort. Like BAe increasing the cost of Hawk trainers for repeat orders.
dinesh_kimar wrote:lots of other intangible benefits like safety
Yes, like uncommanded ejections grounded Su-30 fleet and hypoxia grounded F-22. Super improvement in safety by standardization. Your pilots are ejected randomly or choke to death. Safety is a function of design, manufacture, maintenance & training.
dinesh_kimar wrote:higher deployment no's, etc.
How? If I have one each of Su-30, Rafale & Tejas and 3 of Tejas, the deployment time of one vs the other wont be drastically different. Again deployment is a function of how well the aircraft are maintained.
If standardization was so good, then everyone would be driving a Maruti Alto. But since people's transportation needs are different, they use different means, like Buses, Trains, Scooters, Motorcycles, compact cars, sedans, SUVs.
Same goes for warfare. If I need to bust a bunker at Kargil, a LCA will do the job better because a large aircraft like Su-30 will be unable to maneuver between mountain peaks like LCA. If I need to take out a radar at Badin, a Su-30 will do the job better because LCA wont have the range and payload.
Standardization is a myth propagated to create monopolies by corporations.
Primarily by Lockheed ensure F-35 is the only fighter and P&W for its engine.