Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

'Make in India' Single engined fighter

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 21:55

Viv S wrote:Oh come now. You and I know this 'medium' hoohaa was cooked up by the IAF so they don't have to explain technical issues to the politicos & babus. No other air force in the world follows a three-tier weight class system and for good reason. The whole MMRCA circus emerged from an IAF proposal to manufacture Mirages 2000s under license. At 7.5 tons empty (10% more then the Tejas) I don't think anybody has ever described the Mirage as a 'medium fighter'.

Exactly!

The USAF has F-22s, F-15s, F-16s and F-35s. Going by nirav's logic the first is heavy, the second is medium and the last two are light!

The Russian AF has Su-27s (and variants) and MiG-29s (and variants). How many of them are heavy, light and medium fighters?

The Pakistan AF has F-16s, Mirage IIIs/Vs and F-7s. How many of them are heavy, light and medium fighters?

The Israeli AF has F-15s and F-16s. How many of them are heavy, light and medium fighters?

I can go on and on.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 22:01

Nirav: I know you (or others) will not have an answer for this question. But I ask anyway. This is a simple matter of cost.

IF the F-Solah, Block 70 is so bloody amazing as you (and others) are claiming it is, then why does'nt the USAF buy them first? Why make the switch to the F-35 which is more expensive than the F-16?

Going by your own logic of the global supply chain for the F-Solah, the USAF should be buying them instead no?

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 12 Feb 2017 22:01

Rakesh Saar,

I believe you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing.

If you say that BLK 70 is an unproven fighter and we shouldn't buy it cause no one is operating it, well where does the LCA then stand ?

I see you are doing a convenient switch between paki and Chinese air forces to buttress one specific post of yours.
You initially say Solah not needed,LCA enough for pakis.
Then you say Solah not needed, F35 needed for Chinese.

On one hand you say don't buy Solah,moar LCA , used M2K, save billions..
On the other hand you propose 100 F35.

I'm sorry but your points and arguments are lacking tatva.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1578
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 12 Feb 2017 22:03

brar_w wrote:Block 70 is hardly an unproven bird given that a lot of systems are highly low risk or are modifications of known systems. Engine is proven, airframe changes are absent, Radar is an iterative upgrade of AN/APG-80 using open architecture and components from the AN/APG-81 both operational. Even the full up radar is flying at the moment and is in production. It is also being scaled up for the B-1 bomber. The mission computers have flown and are modifications of an operational such mission system flying elsewhere. The sensors are proven, operational and taken from other programs (SNIPER XR, and IRST-21 both operational). The EW suite proposed here is the digital version of an in service system while 2 other EA/EW solutions are available and in service. The new cockpit display is a relatively ' low/no' risk and is currently flying. Really hard to see which aspect of the current block 70 proposal is unproven. It isn't a highly upgraded aircraft, just a collection of pragmatic bits and pieces from proven systems that enhance the block 50/52.


Thanks for the list Brar! To another poster, the Mk1A has less number of items on the to do list (internal reorg + new proven radar) than on the list for F-16 block 70 to happen. How long will it take for block 70 to appear, finish testing and make it into serial production? Mk-1A has people working on it to bring it to bear as soon as possible. Given the todo list is smaller, I would think that it points to a less risky proposal. Another 100 of Mk1A wouldn't hurt the indian economy and help consolidate the aerospace industry in India while keeping the price less than half of what we would pay for a similarly f-16V plane, without burdening logistics, training and infrastructure required to support yet another type. The problem happens when the new type f-35 being introduced costs around 10-20% more, while brining game changing benefits.
Last edited by Cybaru on 12 Feb 2017 22:05, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 12 Feb 2017 22:05

IF the F-Solah, Block 70 is so bloody amazing as you (and others) are claiming it is, then why does'nt the USAF buy them first? Why make the switch to the F-35 which is more expensive than the F-16?


They are buying them in the form of upgrades in the radar, mission computers and maybe if the upgrade program receives enough funding an EW suite bump. All the Block 70 does is take the USAF funded CAPES set of upgrades and applies them to new build F-16's. USAF had an ambitious CAPES program but were forced to pick and choose between modernizing the F-15 and F-16 fleet. The Former had much higher airframe life left and therefore received priority. They will still be upgrading the vipers just fewer and only some of the CAPES proposed upgrades that the industry responded too by developing products for them.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 22:08

Nirav: On the contrary, you do not have answers to simple questions I am asking you. Because even you know you are parroting a lie that you now cannot back down from.

If you say that BLK 70 is an unproven fighter and we shouldn't buy it cause no one is operating it, well where does the LCA then stand?

Is the Tejas not in IAF service? What plane exactly is No 45 Flying Daggers Squadron operating? Answer that please. Yes there are only three to date, but what plane is that exactly? How many Block 70s are operating in the IAF? How many Block 70s operating anywhere?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 22:14

brar_w wrote:They are buying them in the form of upgrades in the radar, mission computers and maybe if the upgrade program receives enough funding an EW suite bump. All the Block 70 does is take the USAF funded CAPES set of upgrades and applies them to new build F-16's. USAF had an ambitious CAPES program but were forced to pick and choose between modernizing the F-15 and F-16 fleet. The Former had much higher airframe life left and therefore received priority. They will still be upgrading the vipers just fewer and only some of the CAPES proposed upgrades that the industry responded too by developing products for them.

One simple question Saar. Which has a better road map for the future? F-16V or the F-35A? Which platform is more viable in 2050? You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig. Would it not make better sense to spend billions on a fifth generation platform versus a fourth generation platform. Because the only thing that is guaranteed is the IAF is adamant on spending billions on 100 shiny phoren toys.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13532
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Karan M » 12 Feb 2017 22:16

Rakesh wrote:Nirav: On the contrary, you do not have answers to simple questions I am asking you. Because even you know you are parroting a lie that you now cannot back down from.

If you say that BLK 70 is an unproven fighter and we shouldn't buy it cause no one is operating it, well where does the LCA then stand?

Is the Tejas not in IAF service? What plane exactly is No 45 Flying Daggers Squadron operating? Answer that please. Yes there are only three to date, but what plane is that exactly? How many Block 70s are operating in the IAF? How many Block 70s operating anywhere?


If the Block-70 was that great, the USAF would have relied on it vs the F-35. It makes far more sense to upgrade the Tejas, the Su-30, increase force multipliers and munitions and buy the F-35 instead of some MMRCA cooked up to get the Mirage 2000 into service far earlier than the emergence of the J-20 etc and PLAAFs bulk buys of S-4xx SAMs

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 22:18

Karan Saar: That is logic which some do not have. You are now making too much sense. We are all budhoos.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 12 Feb 2017 22:18

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:They are buying them in the form of upgrades in the radar, mission computers and maybe if the upgrade program receives enough funding an EW suite bump. All the Block 70 does is take the USAF funded CAPES set of upgrades and applies them to new build F-16's. USAF had an ambitious CAPES program but were forced to pick and choose between modernizing the F-15 and F-16 fleet. The Former had much higher airframe life left and therefore received priority. They will still be upgrading the vipers just fewer and only some of the CAPES proposed upgrades that the industry responded too by developing products for them.

One simple question Saar. Which has a better road map for the future? F-16V or the F-35A? Which platform is more viable in 2050? You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig. Would it not make better sense to spend billions on a fifth generation platform versus a fourth generation platform. Because the only thing that is guaranteed is the IAF is adamant on spending billions on 100 shiny phoren toys.


Of course the F-35 but then we are in this situation because 126 Rafale's weren't affordable, probably not even if one did away with the MMRCA requirements for domestic offsets, production and TOT. Don't underestimate the cost argument here. Again as I said earlier, if the cost difference between the F-16 and F-35 is insignificant LMA will simply offer it instead as per the terms of the tender floated to them and SAAB. They can deliver both aircraft within the required timeframes. Cost however is likely to play a role here.

Would it not make better sense to spend billions on a fifth generation platform versus a fourth generation platform.


I'll say it again the F-16/Gripen tender looks quite absurd from that angle. I'm only trying to get to why they may have framed it in such a way and why they are looking at possibly the two lowest cost MMRCA bids.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 22:23

brar: Ok. I don't know of anyone who is more educated on costs for both platforms other than you. So I ask, based on the info you have provided...

Cost of F-16V: upgrades in the radar, mission computers, bumped up EW suites, etc. How much is this going to cost approximately?

Cost of F-35A: How much is this going to cost approximately?

The above are rhetorical questions - because both platforms are eons apart from a generational perspective. But please explain.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 12 Feb 2017 22:27

Rakesh wrote:Ok. I don't know of anyone who is more educated on costs for both platforms other than you. So I ask, based on the info you have provided,

Cost of F-16V: upgrades in the radar, mission computers, bumped up EW suites, etc. How much is this going to cost approximately?

Cost of F-35A: How much is this going to cost approximately?

The above are rhetorical questions - because both platforms are eons apart from a generational perspective. But please explain.


Cost is a function of the industrial terms offered by LMA. Only they will know the exact terms. You aren't just selling a full up aircraft, you are supplying a FACO, plus working with your industrial participants to move component level production over to your or their indian partners that you would have identified as part of your bid. As far as the cost of components, those aren't going to beskgnifiacnt. The AN/APG-83 actually becomes cheaper than the AN/APG-80 of the block 60s since they now tap into the JSF supplier base. The development cost has been paid for by the USAF RMP. The rest of the systems are not going to be incredibly different from older generation systems already on the block 50/52. I'd say that a full up F-16V would come at a 10-15% cost of production increase. But when I refer to cost, I refer to the cost of the deal with all that it entails on the industrial side. This isn't a comparison of the cost of an F-16V comping out of FW vs an F-35A comping out from next door. This is the overall cost of the terms LMA bids with.

Given what happened with the MMRCA, the IAF attempt to get another MRCA shouldn't be held up on account of very high cost unless there is a commitment made to absorb that cost to begin with (for strategic reasons). You can't begin negotiating on a deal which offers 100's of F-35's with industrial participation without first realizing and selling to your politicians and public the cost for such an effort. While the current round 2 MRCA looks quite short cited the only way I can rationalize team Modi's decision is if I look at the economic and strategic angles.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Marten » 12 Feb 2017 23:36

Nirav, where is IAF doctrine outlined? How many air forces around the world mandate a three tier structure? It's cockamamie to quote MMRCA, which was the M2K order extension. One COAS asking for specific capability means precisely that. The answer again is more Raffys and LCAs. And if we really want to incorporate NG abilities, seek out US help in both AESA and a BVR that outdoes the C9.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2017 23:52

Marten Saar, there is not one outlined. He (and other posters) have done the outlining for us. We just have to obey and nod our heads in agreement. They are the thinkers who do risk assessment for a living :)

More Raffys are coming. The IAF has very rarely stopped at just one purchase. A second block of aircraft are definetly coming. Of all the fighters (presently in service), repeat orders have occurred. MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, Jaguars, Mirage 2000s, Su-30MKIs...all have had follow on orders. Katrina will be no different.

The MiG-25 was the only exception. But then again, the MiG-25 did only one job :), which no other IAF fighter could do.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2314
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 00:03

My guess is that the solah will be offered at very low prices compared to 126 jsf or rafale. Throwaway....afterall what does LM have to lose even if it makes a smallish profit?
Something is better than nothing...the solah line and associated hardware is basically lying idle and probably has depreciation plus maintenance costs associated. A loss making proposition. Instead, if they transfer everything to India and make even a minor profit, that will look a lot better on the books.

Otoh, a new jsf line would mean duplication of an existing line with associated costs of brand new tooling, jigs etc..and my guess is that this machinery would be far more sophisticated and correspondingly more expensive compared to solah. Then there might be the problem of finding and training an Indian partner that can handle such advanced production.

I'm fully expecting a jsf line to cost 2X of f16, if not more. If you want jsf production, be prepared to let go of pakfa and possibly amca.

Worse, while iaf could get a few sqds of solah in a hurry from FW, i think they will have to wait in line for much longer for jsf.

If India wants jsf, just buy a few off the shelf when they are available and even that will cost a pretty penny ala rafale. Or wait until production cools down a bit and maybe a line can be transferred at cheaper in, 20 years. Or take LM up on that offer to buy back solah in return for jsf

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2314
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2017 00:10

Again, the best solution seems to be to order more lca, scrounge up some older m2ks and use the saved dollars to buy 2 sqds jsf off the shelf by 2025 as silver bullets.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4716
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 13 Feb 2017 00:53

nirav wrote:Further, what really is the objective of re equipment of the IAF ?
Ensure 500 LCAs to fight a two front war.
Ensure IAF has a well balanced mix to fight a two front war.

Btw the Raffle is at 2 squadrons only for now not 4.

Its very likely to be 4 squadrons (the follow-on 3rd one is a certainty). Hence the two bases.

Contrary to some previous indications, India is considering an additional 36 Dassault Rafales, a senior Ministry of Defence official said. The contract is likely to be signed in 2019 with deliveries to start by 2022, when the existing $8.8 billion order for 36 Rafales is completed, AIN has learned from sources close to the long-running procurement process.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ill-likely


@ the F35, maybe IAF and Sh.Partikar are in the know wrt progress on FGFA or PAKFA and have chosen to not go in for the F35 at this stage ?
Why is this possibility being discounted ?

The FGFA acquisition is stalled with the MoD doing a deep rethink on the scope of the program. Bottom-line - we're not getting any before 2025. First squadron will probably FOC close to 2030.

Govt to set up panel for assessing viability of building stealth fighter with Russia
A multi-billion dollar Indian programme to co-develop a stealth fighter with Russia faces an uncertain fate with the government deciding to set up a committee to examine what the country gains from the project.

A top government source said the panel, to be headed by a three-star officer, would look into different aspects of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) project and the technology it brings into the country to meet the air force’s future requirements.


Squadron strength can't be treated like just a number.

7 MMRCA squadrons combat capability is way higher than 7 squadrons of LCA.

2 Rafale sqdn + 5 solah sqdn also offer significantly higher combat capability than 7 LCA sqdns.

Spot on. The solution is to find a balance between numbers and capability. Neither can be taken in isolation.

To develop on that -

The F-16 is no doubt a more capable aircraft than the Tejas. Better radar, better EW gear, better payload & better range. All the same, the difference is still incremental despite there being a significant cost difference between the two. The Tejas Mk1A will have a decent AESA (hopefully the RBE-2AA), decent EW gear which coupling with off-board support from Su-30s & AWACS will allow it to more than hold its own in BVR, even against the PAF Blk 52s. At WVR, with high snap turn capability and the DASH-Python 5 combo it can go toe-to-toe with the best.

The difference between the F-16 and F-35 isn't incremental, its generational. They are not in the same league. F-15s & F-16s from USAF aggressor squadrons are getting stomped on against the F-35 in training exercises. The difference is just as stark in air-to-ground missions.

F-35 Dominates At Red Flag With 15:1 Kill Rate

The real kicker is that the difference in cost b/w the two types isn't that great - maybe $15-20 mil flyaway ($65M v. $85M). At best. Maybe less. Probably less.

So what you really ought to be comparing is -

5 F-16 units versus 4 F-35 units (maybe with enough change left over for 1 Tejas Mk1A unit)
Last edited by Viv S on 13 Feb 2017 01:19, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4716
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 13 Feb 2017 01:18

brar_w wrote:Again as I said earlier, if the cost difference between the F-16 and F-35 is insignificant LMA will simply offer it instead as per the terms of the tender floated to them and SAAB.

You're mixing up two different things - the better deal for Lockheed Martin (probably the F-16) and the better deal for India (definitely the F-35).

SAAB isn't in the running. Besides the political aspects, a good chunk of the Gripen E's avionics are supplied by Selex - a subsidiary of Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica) - currently under a MoD blacklist. Saab will get a polite hearing from the mandarins & the brass and then politely be shown the door when they're done.

That gives LM clear track to keep the nearly stalled F-16 train running while still making a bundle off its soon-to-be-defunct production infrastructure.

In the F-35's case, in contrast, the volumes are higher and the margins lower. Especially with the JPO squeezing the bottom-line every year.

I doubt an Indian F-35 order would be as profitable as a F-16 one for LM, assuming comparable volumes.

Ironically, LM's best shot at the naval contract is through the F-35 (which would be harder to justify without IAF commonality) - so it may yet modify its pitch to the MoD/IAF. I wouldn't count the F-35 out for the MII contract (esp. given the complications with the FGFA).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4716
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 13 Feb 2017 01:31

Cain Marko wrote:I'm fully expecting a jsf line to cost 2X of f16, if not more. If you want jsf production, be prepared to let go of pakfa and possibly amca.

Well Italy's FACO line costed it about $1 bn. Could you get a F-16 assembly line for $500 mil? Possibly... but for $500 mil extra the former is still a better bet.

Worse, while iaf could get a few sqds of solah in a hurry from FW, i think they will have to wait in line for much longer for jsf.

I don't think they'd have a lot of problems with finding capacity. The production line is geared for 200 units/yr and its only spooled up to about 100 units /yr so far. In addition, aside from the USMC (& maybe.. RAF/RN) none of the customers have any real urgent need for the aircraft. Point being, the IAF isn't going to have to wait in line. Much like the Navy with its P-8s, they'll be able to get them within 3 years of contract signing.

If India wants jsf, just buy a few off the shelf when they are available and even that will cost a pretty penny ala rafale. Or wait until production cools down a bit and maybe a line can be transferred at cheaper in, 20 years. Or take LM up on that offer to buy back solah in return for jsf

Buy back? I don't think they ever made that offer. They'd be hard pressed to find customers for second hand F-16s in 2040.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 13 Feb 2017 01:52

Did you know that Japan (Mitsubishi Heavy) will be manufacturing 38 X F-35 for the JSADF order out of a total of 45.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 02:16

See what you started Khalsa? See the tamasha that is going on in here. Allah Hu Akbar! :)

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 03:38

F-35 Fighter Jet Price Drops Make F-16, Gripen Unattractive For India
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18439/ ... _For_India

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 03:54

Israeli firms earned over $1b from F-35 program
http://www.timesofisrael.com/defense-mi ... 5-program/

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 03:55

F-35 Finally Has A Good Day, Dominates Training Exercise
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/f-35- ... -exercise/

“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time,” said Watkins. “Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now.”

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 04:08

The $ 1 Billion for the Italian/Japanese FACO is for just that i.e. FACO. It does not include what it costs to obtain component level production for either your own jets, or broader industrial partnership on the programs. Those deals are negotiated between industry partners (Lockheed supplier (or by LMA on behalf of the team) and the domestic OEM or government) and are either subsidized by the industry (initial funding covered by profit based on the market demand contracted for) or by the domestic government. Just stating that Italy/Japan paid $1 Billion for FACO is sort of incomplete because they have paid a lot more. In the case of Japan what they got was not just final assembly and check out (coatings, RCS testing etc) but also 40% of the component production for their aircraft including airframe components, and electronics.

Compared to the F-16, any such deal on the F-35 is going to be much more expensive given the existing contracts and how the OEM's have spread out production plans based on partner and FMS customer agreements. The slice gets smaller every time you carve out a piece and therefore its going to get more expensive to allocate work-share. On the Viper, this is going to be less of a concern as most have factored in a production sunset in the short term and LMA has long term contracting with their industrial suppliers, many of which are also their partners on the JSF. Needless to say, negotiating 200 F-35's instead of 200 F-16's (hypothetical) under the terms of what I expect the current MII effort to be will come with a significant added cost.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Feb 2017 04:25, edited 2 times in total.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Neshant » 13 Feb 2017 04:08

we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized


That they could already do with F-15 and F-16s.

The above is actually an admission of the inability of the F-35 to enter close range combat and survive.

The plane literally needs to be protected by F-16 and 15 escorts. This plane is a step backwards not forwards and a very expensive one at that.

Meanwhile Lockheed is rushing these planes out the door and sending in the bill as fast as possible before people clue in.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2017 04:12

Neshant wrote:
we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized


That they could already do with F-15 and F-16s.

The above is actually an admission of the inability of the F-35 to enter close range combat and survive.

The plane literally needs to be protected by F-16 and 15 escorts. This plane is a step backwards not forwards and a very expensive one at that.

Meanwhile Lockheed is rushing these planes out the door and sending in the bill as fast as possible before people clue in.



It's called SEAD/DEAD i.e isolating emitters, geolocating threats and neutralizing enemy air defenses to sanitize the SAM threat to allow less survivable assets to come into play. And no, minus perhaps a few specialized F-16's and the EA-18G, none of the legacy strike fighters in the USAF can do that and even those F-16's would struggle to get close enough to tag team and do so. Physics tells us that ESM, EW or EA is SWaP dependent and anytime you have a harder to find target, it can get closer thereby increasing the capability of EW/EA given the same SWaP. F-22's and F-35''s have an organic ESM , EA and EW suite. Some F-15E's and C's will get that in the 2020's but the geolocation ability will come later and of course if what you are trying to use for suppression has a much higher RCS you need to compensate in other ways which ='s resources.

The entire point of SEAD/DEAD is to send in your most capable, or most survivable assets to first neutralize the threat from the IADS and enable larger force to operate beyond the FEBA. What you quoted refers to this i.e. the SAM threat, not BVR or WVR.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Feb 2017 04:34, edited 2 times in total.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 04:29

One of the rationale for MMRCA was that the Sukhois while cheaper to own are expensive to operate.

I googled for cost per flying hour between Solah and F35..

The F35 in some links has twice the cost of the Solahs flying hour cost..
And that its initial acquisition itself would be significantly higher than the Solah..

The impact F35 would have on opex would be HUGE compared to marginal Capex expense of Solah vs F35.

The procurement process along with the LCA have both been ****** up.

Guys opposing MoD/IAF move @ Solah/Gripen need to take a holistic view of ground realities before engaging in flights of fancy.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4716
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 13 Feb 2017 04:52

brar_w wrote:The $ 1 Billion for the Italian/Japanese FACO is for just that i.e. FACO. It does not include what it costs to obtain component level production for either your own jets, or broader industrial partnership on the programs. Those deals are negotiated between industry partners (Lockheed supplier (or by LMA on behalf of the team) and the domestic OEM or government) and are either subsidized by the industry (initial funding covered by profit based on the market demand contracted for) or by the domestic government. Just stating that Italy/Japan paid $1 Billion for FACO is sort of deceptive because they have paid a lot more.

$1 bn is what the assembly-cum-MRO facility costs. Any other infrastructure will need to be funded through separate investments. Nothing deceptive about it.

Compared to the F-16, any such deal on the F-35 is going to be much more expensive given the existing contracts and how the OEM's have spread out production plans based on partner and FMS customer agreements. The slice gets smaller every time you carve out a piece and therefore its going to get more expensive to allocate work-share. On the Viper, this is going to be less of a concern as most have factored in a production sunset in the short term and LMA has long term contracting with their industrial suppliers, many of which are also their partners on the JSF.

Its a smaller slice but of a far larger pie. The aircraft itself will remain in production to 2037 and in service to 2070. In contrast, since the F-16 will have no customer remaining LM's Indian partner will hit its own production sunset as soon as deliveries to the IAF conclude. Writing off the infrastructure might be relatively painless - the human & RE investments not so much.

Not that it makes a difference since the local workshare will primarily consist of kit assembly anyway. Maybe along with some wing construction or something. Nothing particularly attractive from an industrial standpoint.

Needless to say, negotiating 200 F-35's instead of 200 F-16's (hypothetical) under the terms of what I expect the current MII effort to be will come with a significant added cost.

The F-16 is a dead-end platform that the IAF will have to operate, upgrade & sustain long after its been retired by most other operators. That's a significant cost as well. And while the F-35 with its naval variants may actually reach 200 units down the line (with progressively expanding local participation) delivered from a local FACO, the F-16 will tap at out 5 squadrons.

Its like choosing between the F-5 & F-16 in 1980. The F-5 would have been cheaper.. somewhat. You could theoretically build a larger proportion of it through offsets. Its was a widely operated type that would still be in service decades later. Still passed over by every air force (incl. the PAF). Investing in a platform at the end of its production cycle offering inferior value vis a vis its successor is quite simply a bad idea.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Khalsa » 13 Feb 2017 05:05

Rakesh wrote:See what you started Khalsa? See the tamasha that is going on in here. Allah Hu Akbar! :)


Totally agree admiral.
every day I log into to BR forums.... part of me .... see that thread ... you ... why ... what WTF and WTH
:D :D :D

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 05:11

Karan M wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Nirav: On the contrary, you do not have answers to simple questions I am asking you. Because even you know you are parroting a lie that you now cannot back down from.


Is the Tejas not in IAF service? What plane exactly is No 45 Flying Daggers Squadron operating? Answer that please. Yes there are only three to date, but what plane is that exactly? How many Block 70s are operating in the IAF? How many Block 70s operating anywhere?


If the Block-70 was that great, the USAF would have relied on it vs the F-35. It makes far more sense to upgrade the Tejas, the Su-30, increase force multipliers and munitions and buy the F-35 instead of some MMRCA cooked up to get the Mirage 2000 into service far earlier than the emergence of the J-20 etc and PLAAFs bulk buys of S-4xx SAMs


Karan Saar,
You are way more knowledgeable than I am.
You are right when you say that the LCA can be upgraded.

But to what extent?

You'd be aware of the automotive saying - there's no replacement for displacement.

In this case wrt blk70, the extra range it offers+superior radar+longer ranged missiles offer it a unique capability that upgrades in LCA won't be able to achieve.. my main focus is on range.

The LCA,I'm certain,will do its job admirably within its envelope..
Expecting it to do the job of a higher ranged fighter is a bit much.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1578
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 05:21

nirav wrote:Karan Saar,
You are way more knowledgeable than I am.


You are right! That does seem to be the case!

nirav wrote:my main focus is on range.

The LCA,I'm certain,will do its job admirably within its envelope..
Expecting it to do the job of a higher ranged fighter is a bit much.


The requirements for Tejas came from IAF right?
Whats the difference in range if they both carry an LDP 2 500 lbs griffin missile and two AA missile?

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 05:23

Range doesn't necessarily mean from point a to point b.
Crucial metric would be time on station.

@BVR or even WVR, with the jet on either full military thrust or on burners, which jet has more petrol,thereby a higher time on station gives it an ability to engage/disengage and re engage.. the lower ranged jet would have to RTB as bingo fuel approaches rapidly..

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1578
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 05:31

nirav wrote:Range doesn't necessarily mean from point a to point b.
Crucial metric would be time on station.

@BVR or even WVR, with the jet on either full military thrust or on burners, which jet has more petrol,thereby a higher time on station gives it an ability to engage/disengage and re engage.. the lower ranged jet would have to RTB as bingo fuel approaches rapidly..


Please do answer the question. You seem shifty like the IAF requirements! :lol:

Given the same payload, what is the difference between ranges of F-16 and LCA? Mind you the difference in fuel is only 200 kgs and thats offset by higher weight of the platform.

or

Please enlighten us about the other "Crucial metric would be time on station"

and how come range doesn't mean from point a to point b especially if they are similarly loaded? You have a new way of comparing things? Please do share.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 05:45

nirav wrote:I googled for cost per flying hour between Solah and F35..

The F35 in some links has twice the cost of the Solahs flying hour cost..
And that its initial acquisition itself would be significantly higher than the Solah.

Oh goodie. You want to play that game now? It's on!

I googled for cost per flying hour between Solah and Lockheed P-38 Lightning. And guess what?

The F-Solah in every link has 10 times the cost of the P-38's flying hour cost. Oh my!

Before you start these comparison games, you should be careful.

STUDY your platforms, know what they are capable of DOING and what they are not. Then and ONLY then start doing comparisons.

nirav wrote:The impact F35 would have on opex would be HUGE compared to marginal Capex expense of Solah vs F35.

The impact F-Solah would have on opex would be HUGE compared to marginal Capex expense of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

True no?

nirav wrote:Guys opposing MoD/IAF move @ Solah/Gripen need to take a holistic view of ground realities before engaging in flights of fancy.

Oh wait. Now you like Gripen too? I thought your lovefest only was for F-Solah? And flights of fancy? The less said the better!

Please answer this...from Dr V K Saraswat. Actually don't even bother. I know you won't have one.

Saraswat fires ‘interceptor missiles’ targeting anti-NLCA targets
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1725907

He said he was surprised when Gripen was projected as an alternative for NLCA. “What’s the difference between NLCA Mk-II and Gripen as both are powered by GE-F414 engine. So where is the question of low thrust?” he asked.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 05:49

Cybaru ji,
I'm going to disengage from this discussion with you.
You are quite strong on ad hominem arguments.im not interested in going down that road..


I'd exhort you to get a grasp on air combat @ BVR/WVR... You are obviously clueless about time on station, there's no point engaging you further untill you read up on relevant stuff.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1578
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Cybaru » 13 Feb 2017 05:53

nirav wrote:Cybaru ji,
I'm going to disengage from this discussion with you.
You are quite strong on ad hominem arguments.im not interested in going down that road..


I'd exhort you to get a grasp on air combat @ BVR/WVR... You are obviously clueless about time on station, there's no point engaging you further untill you read up on relevant stuff.


I think I am personally tired of you making claims and not backing them up. So yes, I don't mind you dis engaging, esp if you won't share the math/details behind the numbers or theories you put out as facts.

And as for your claim of me being strong on ad hominem agruments, for once, I was simply agreeing with you!
Last edited by Cybaru on 13 Feb 2017 05:55, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2544
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2017 05:54

He does not have one Cybaru. Like the rest, no facts. Just claims and hyperbole.

F-Solah: Cure of all ills in India. The plane is so powerful...that from the aircraft shelter itself, one mijjle will be fired and destroy all of the PAF.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby nirav » 13 Feb 2017 05:56

Rakesh wrote:
nirav wrote:I googled for cost per flying hour between Solah and F35..

The F35 in some links has twice the cost of the Solahs flying hour cost..
And that its initial acquisition itself would be significantly higher than the Solah.

Oh goodie. You want to play that game now? It's on!

I googled for cost per flying hour between Solah and Lockheed P-38 Lightning. And guess what?

The F-Solah in every link has 10 times the cost of the P-38's flying hour cost. Oh my!

Before you start these comparison games, you should be careful.

STUDY your platforms, what they are capable of DOING and what they are not. Then and ONLY then start doing comparisons.

nirav wrote:The impact F35 would have on opex would be HUGE compared to marginal Capex expense of Solah vs F35.

The impact F-Solah would have on opex would be HUGE compared to marginal Capex expense of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

True no?

nirav wrote:Guys opposing MoD/IAF move @ Solah/Gripen need to take a holistic view of ground realities before engaging in flights of fancy.

Oh wait. Now you like Gripen too? I thought your lovefest only was for F-Solah? And flights of fancy? The less said the better!

Please answer this...from Dr V K Saraswat. Actually don't even bother. I know you won't have one.

Saraswat fires ‘interceptor missiles’ targeting anti-NLCA targets
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/ind ... -1.1725907

He said he was surprised when Gripen was projected as an alternative for NLCA. “What’s the difference between NLCA Mk-II and Gripen as both are powered by GE-F414 engine. So where is the question of low thrust?” he asked.


Rakesh Saar,

I do respect you and I won't respond in kind.
You however are plain trolling by comparing opex and Capex of Solah with p38..

Opex and Capex comparison between Solah and F35 was brought up by me as a discussion point to guys saying why not 100 F35 ?
It *is* a very valid point.

@ the Saraswat mijjiles, err, pls quote me where I've pitched Gripen for navy.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4716
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: 'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Postby Viv S » 13 Feb 2017 06:00

nirav wrote:One of the rationale for MMRCA was that the Sukhois while cheaper to own are expensive to operate.

I googled for cost per flying hour between Solah and F35..

The F35 in some links has twice the cost of the Solahs flying hour cost..

Those links are describing the existing F-35s i.e. aircraft that are still working up to operational status (you'll find they haven't hit their serviceability targets yet either). In addition, much of the infrastructure being set up will be employed by the entire future F-35 fleet (only a fraction of which has been delivered yet), while the F-16's fixed costs have already been ameliorated.

The actual cost comparison looks something like this -

Image

From the 2016 F-35 Selected Acquisition Report

(You can exclude the manpower costs for a more accurate comparison of the direct costs for an export customer.)

And that its initial acquisition itself would be significantly higher than the Solah..

Debatable. The F-35's cost is dropping every year - will hit $85 mil flyaway by 2019. Possibly lower, if the three year block buy goes through.

The impact F35 would have on opex would be HUGE compared to marginal Capex expense of Solah vs F35.

Not really. Even if there was a real $15K difference b/w their CPFH (which there isn't), for five squadrons -

$15K x 180hrs x 90 units = $243 mil.

That's 5% of the IAF's revenue budget ($4.4 bn) for this year. 15% of the ($1.5 bn) non-salary revenue budget.

That's significant but well short of 'huge'. Especially considering the actual capability delivered by 90 F-35s.
Last edited by Viv S on 13 Feb 2017 06:09, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, ashishvikas, Bing [Bot], brar_w, dkhare, Yahoo [Bot] and 20 guests