on top of what it takes to run the F-16 factoryIndranil wrote:Moving the existing F-16 line from Texas to S. Carolina is generating a grand total of 300 odd jobs.
or
the existing factory folks move on to F-35 and new 300 people take over.
on top of what it takes to run the F-16 factoryIndranil wrote:Moving the existing F-16 line from Texas to S. Carolina is generating a grand total of 300 odd jobs.
Upstate Air Force veterans weigh in on Lockheed Martin moving F-16 production to GreenvilleThe F-16 production line in South Carolina will be small, but is still expected to create between 200 and 250 new jobs in Greenville.
Lockheed Martin moving F-16 production to South CarolinaThe new, smaller F-16 production line in Greenville is expected to create up to 250 jobs.
A company spokeswoman says the move will create about 250 jobs in Greenville.
A Lockheed employee said they've been told that production will begin around October 2020.
Both South Carolina and Texas are right-to-work states, though 606,000 employees in Texas are represented by unions, compared to 52,000 in South Carolina, which in some cases also makes it attractive to industry. The average hourly wage in South Carolina is also lower than in Texas.
The number of orders for the F-16 is way down from the past, though Bahrain is expected to order as many as 19 jets and additional orders are anticipated from Indonesia and Colombia. Those orders will be filled in Greenville. If Lockheed wins a proposed India fighter deal, its first jets would likely be built in Greenville until a factory is ready in India.
Although I don't take the prospects of the F-16 in IAF colors seriously the delay in the South Carolina production line has a lot to do with the forced break in production on account of lack of orders and the realization that FMS process is rather slow and it takes time from a 'wish' to go through the DOD and SD hoops before the USAF places an order with Lockheed. If some magical demand were to appear they could well look at starting their operations earlier. It also has little bearing on their offer vis-a-vis the IAF Single engine MRCA tender since Fort Worth or Greenville they will likely plan to deliver some aircraft from there before moving production locally. There is a lot of F-16 production infrastructure that they would not be using since the new FACO is expected to produce between 8-10 aircraft a year.Rakesh wrote:Thank you to you both (Indranil and Viv_S) for posting these articles and highlighting key points.
To the folks who pushed for this deal - go eat crow soup now. We are onlee in the first quarter of 2017. With the first plane expected to come out of the Greenville, SC facility only in the last quarter of October 2020, when do you expect the F-16, Block 70 to join the IAF?
When the sane (who live in reality) on BRF said that the F-Solah would not come prior to 2021/22, we were laughed at.
Well who is laughing now?
In fact, the October 2020 date, pushes a whole new timeline to the platform. LM has stated that it usually takes 36 months (3 years) from contract signing to the first delivery. So now we are looking at 2024/2025?
Good luck, getting this deal signed before 2021! Indian bureaucracy is at work.
IAF will receive 123 LCA Tejas by 2024-25
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=251069
So I ask again...now why do you need to purchase another 4th generation fighter, when a viable 5th generation fighter is already there?
Only if the US gives us the design of a state of the art SSN along with the reactor designashishvikas wrote:Trump admin asked to push for F-16 sale to India
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 662863.ece
The last F-16s made for USAF was in 1999. India wants to acquire 200 F-16s 20-years+ later! Any foreign power take India seriously?ashishvikas wrote:Trump admin asked to push for F-16 sale to India
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 662863.ece
At least till AMCA arrives, F-16IN will be better than anything in our inventory other than Rafale and maybe MKI. In our immediate region that is populated with J10 and JF17 type fighters, a F-16IN is still going to be very relevant. So, the relevant powers will still take it seriously.srai wrote:
The last F-16s made for USAF was in 1999. India wants to acquire 200 F-16s 20-years+ later! Any foreign power take India seriously?
Gurneesh, think long term. Think how good will this platform hold up to a J-20 and future Chinese stealth platforms. Against the Chinese, India cannot achieve parity - plane for plane, tank for tank, ship for ship. But you can achieve a technological advantage. AMCA is still ways off. PAK-FA is nowhere on the scene. Like I said earlier, maybe the J-20 is a piece of crap. But do you really want to take that chance? Actually that is not a question, that you and I or even the Govt can answer. That is a question for the IAF pilot who has to go up against a J-20.Gurneesh wrote:At least till AMCA arrives, F-16IN will be better than anything in our inventory other than Rafale and maybe MKI. In our immediate region that is populated with J10 and JF17 type fighters, a F-16IN is still going to be very relevant. So, the relevant powers will still take it seriously.
Not going to happen and neither is the US obligated to do so. Why should they? If you want that, then you have to develop that on your own. Neither is the US obligated to give you engine technology. You take the product as is. Why do we live in this fantasy world?Gurneesh wrote:Question is how will the CISMOA related stuff impact the performance. Though, they must be willing to part with radar codes as that was one of the requirements of MMRCA.
Think from the IAF's perspective for a second. They have two platforms before them to choose - F-16 and Gripen. The IAF could care less about the geopolitical angle. That is not their job or their concern. They want the best plane. When the trials occur, which platform do you think the IAF is going to pick? Do you honestly believe that the IAF is concerned about the fact that the many parts of the Gripen E represent the United Nations? They do not care. The Gripen E is everything the Mk2 is, without the baggage of HAL. The IAF does not want the F-16. They are fully aware of what that platform is capable of (and what it is not) against the many exercises with the USAF and the Singapore Air Force. Now if the IAF knows, imagine Pakistan who has been operating this plane for the past 35 years?Gurneesh wrote:I think in a bigger scheme of things, F-16 might be a better option vs. Gripen. F-16 is different enough from LCA to potentially not cannibalize future LCA orders. I think once locally manufactured Gripen NG comes, IAF is going to try to scuttle LCA Mk2.
...
Gripen E Launch
The Saab Gripen E launch occurred during a ceremony that 500-plus guests attended. They included Peter Hultqvist and Mats Helgesson, Swedish Minister of Defence and Swedish Air Force Chief of Staff, respectively. The ceremony took place at Saab’s Linköping factory and involved Gripen E 39-8 – the first of three prototypes. Flight testing, Saab says, will start by December 2016.
Deliveries to two air arms – the Swedish and Brazilian air forces – are scheduled to begin in 2019. Sweden will get 60 while Brazil is to receive 36 or more, comprising 28 single-seaters and eight two-seat variants in the first instance. Sweden’s Gripen Es, it’s been reported, are set to attain IOC (initial operational capability) status in 2023 and FOC (full operational capability) status by 2026. Potential future Gripen E customers include Belgium, Columbia, Finland, India and Switzerland.
...
In the Indian context with major defense contract, nothing possible in that short of time (12-18 months). The GoI already pulled off 36 Rafale in G-2-G deal for $8 billion. There is no way they will be willing to sign another import deal worth over $15 billion that too with complex negotiation for ToT and license production. Where is the money? If there were enough money around, they would have sealed 126 Rafales instead with ToT and license production deal.Marten wrote:Rakesh saar, just to add another perspective: perhaps there will be a deal over the next 12-18 months. No chai wallah here, but MP is unable to participate in any corrupt practices. And whether we like it or not, a general election is due two and a half years from now and the party would not mind a war chest. The entire business of a new deal and the change in RM, and the clamour/ noise can be attributed to perhaps some these factors as well.
Well, what are the current options? IAF needs 200 single engined fighters, and the only new options that we could potentially start inducting by 2020 are F-16, Gripen, F35, and LCA Mk-1A/2.Rakesh wrote: Gurneesh, think long term. Think how good will this platform hold up to a J-20 and future Chinese stealth platforms. Against the Chinese, India cannot achieve parity - plane for plane, tank for tank, ship for ship. But you can achieve a technological advantage. AMCA is still ways off. PAK-FA is nowhere on the scene. Like I said earlier, maybe the J-20 is a piece of crap. But do you really want to take that chance? Actually that is not a question, that you and I or even the Govt can answer. That is a question for the IAF pilot who has to go up against a J-20.
Because it would be required by the contract! If the RFI states something, then the product has to offer it or be disqualified. Again, I agree that developing our own stuff is the best option, but what matters is if IAF believes in that philosophy.Not going to happen and neither is the US obligated to do so. Why should they? If you want that, then you have to develop that on your own. Neither is the US obligated to give you engine technology. You take the product as is. Why do we live in this fantasy world?
I am sure everybody needs a safety net. if one foreign fighter does not provide sufficient safety net, they can have two separate fighter lines for additional safety net. one could argue that safety net is already there in the fleet of su30, availability/parts improvement, rafale, m2k and LCAs that are entering service.Gurneesh wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think that getting extra 80 Mk1A and 120 Mk2 using a parallel private line should be better for our mil-industrial capabilities as well as for easier transition to AMCA production. But, I do not think that IAF has enough confidence in probably both LCA and HAL to do that. So, they want foreign fighters as a safety net.
Precisely the point. If you're going to screw things together (aside building bits and pieces for the global supply chain), may as well as do it with the F-35. You'd have commonality with the Navy (F-35B), a superb ISR platform, a hedge against delays/shortcomings in the FGFA and a future proof design. There may be fair bit of business in the overhaul market as well (what with it being used by Israel, Singapore, US, Australia and many more in the coming years).Gurneesh wrote:F-35 is the best option in terms of capability, but producing it in India is probably a non-starter. Maybe some screwdriver giri from CKD's (which might be what ultimately happens with F-16 too).
China isn't running after the Su-35. In fact, its trying to buy as few of them as possible.Thinking long term, F-35 will be the best option for achieving tech edge over China. But I think, even an advanced F-16 will beat the supposed Chinese fifth-gen stuff. China wouldn't be running after Su-35s if their stealth planes were so great.
There is enough space in the internal weapon bay for 2 x 1000lb LGBs or 4 x BVR AAMs. Plus, there is separate internal area for 2 x CCMs.Philip wrote:...Plans show 4 AAMs in an internal bay,plus loads of ordnance underwing in a "non-stealthy" mode. The huge Q is why do we then need a stealthy bird at huge expense ,which will be non-stealthy in a strike mode? ...
Yes and Yes. Now answer this. Why would the IAF care?Gurneesh wrote:Of the three foreign fighter options, Gripen is probably the worst as Sweden does not control a lot of technology and is still a tech-demo. It will also kill Mk2 for sure.
Assuming Parrikar and Carter (and the Obama Administration) was still in their jobs. The F-16 deal was signed. What do you think was going to happen? We were going to produce the F-16? We were going to be doing screwdrivergiri onlee from parts. That is it. Nothing else.Gurneesh wrote:F-35 is the best option in terms of capability, but producing it in India is probably a non-starter. Maybe some screwdriver giri from CKD's (which might be what ultimately happens with F-16 too).
Incorrect assumption. China usually never buys Russian weaponry in large quanities. They buy enough to study and then reverse engineer them.Gurneesh wrote:Thinking long term, F-35 will be the best option for achieving tech edge over China. But I think, even an advanced F-16 will beat the supposed Chinese fifth-gen stuff. China wouldn't be running after Su-35s if their stealth planes were so great.
Really? Written in the contract? And what will happen when the US flat out says NO during the negotiation (even before the contract signature)? We are going to arm twist them to give us source codes? Really? We ain't getting squat, other than what the US is willing to provide. Take it or leave it.Gurneesh wrote:Because it would be required by the contract! If the RFI states something, then the product has to offer it or be disqualified.
The IAF is impressed enough with the Tejas. What they are not impressed is with HAL's inability to deliver a quality product on time.Gurneesh wrote:With the change in RM, maybe this whole drama will be delayed enough for the Mk-1A to arrive and impress the IAF.
I saw Nitin Gokhale tweeting DPP will not be looked at today's meeting.NRao wrote:Applies, currently, mostly to this thread.
Crucial defence ministry meeting today to look at “strategic partner” policy
Philip wrote: If we dd another 24 Rafales,60+ MIG-29UG/35s and the 80-120 LCAs,there would be no need for another new line of "single-engine fighter",a nomenclature which is heavily weighted in favour of the F-16! The talk that another med. sized fighter would also be needed smacks of a chaotic "policy',when we've already chosen Rafales and can buy upgraded 29s/35s.(at half the cost)to make up the need for sqds. and numbers.
IMO, not wise to go with additional MiG-29/35 at this point in time. By 2035 or so, all MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar will be retired. That would leave the IAF with Su-30MKI, Rafale, LCA Mk.1A/2, FGFA and AMCA. Get more of any of these ones that will remain long-term (past 2035). Order a mix of MKI, Rafale and LCA squadrons over the next 10-years. Post 2030, order more of FGFA and AMCA.Khalsa wrote:Philip wrote: If we dd another 24 Rafales,60+ MIG-29UG/35s and the 80-120 LCAs,there would be no need for another new line of "single-engine fighter",a nomenclature which is heavily weighted in favour of the F-16! The talk that another med. sized fighter would also be needed smacks of a chaotic "policy',when we've already chosen Rafales and can buy upgraded 29s/35s.(at half the cost)to make up the need for sqds. and numbers.
For a change I agree with you.
The Gap needs to be filled with perhaps one squadron of Rafael or two with Mig-29 / 35.
Meanwhile ramping up LCA
and pouring the F-16 factory money into the AMCA.
FGFA is not coming till 2030
F-35 will suck all budgets dry if we buy those in strong numbers
Su-30 MKU run the risk of being categorised as one size fits all and therefore flog it to death and flog it again.
1 More Squadron of Rafael with 2 Squadrons for Navy.
60 or so Mig-35s
LCA X (as the numbers are required)
Move on to AMCA
Move on to FGFA-2040
srai wrote:IMO, not wise to go with additional MiG-29/35 at this point in time. By 2035 or so, all MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Jaguar will be retired. That would leave the IAF with Su-30MKI, Rafale, LCA Mk.1A/2, FGFA and AMCA. Get more of any of these ones that will remain long-term (past 2035). Order a mix of MKI, Rafale and LCA squadrons over the next 10-years. Post 2030, order more of FGFA and AMCA.Khalsa wrote:
For a change I agree with you.
The Gap needs to be filled with perhaps one squadron of Rafael or two with Mig-29 / 35.
Meanwhile ramping up LCA
and pouring the F-16 factory money into the AMCA.
FGFA is not coming till 2030
F-35 will suck all budgets dry if we buy those in strong numbers
Su-30 MKU run the risk of being categorised as one size fits all and therefore flog it to death and flog it again.
1 More Squadron of Rafael with 2 Squadrons for Navy.
60 or so Mig-35s
LCA X (as the numbers are required)
Move on to AMCA
Move on to FGFA-2040
If at all adding legacy airframes, go with second-hand MiG/Mirage airframes and upgrade them to similar UPG standards and/or use them for spare parts.