Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2020 05:43

Philip wrote: There is no pressing requirement for replacing the 29Ks,which have at least 2 decades of life in them.
The 29Ks have plenty of scope for further upgrades drawing on the MIG-35 development.


The floating of an RFI to acquire additional 50+ Carrier fighter aircraft, and now the a extremely fast sanctioning of the TEDBF clearly indicates that the MiG-29K's don't really need to be worried about for another couple of decades and the IN doesn't want or need to augment or replace them. :roll:

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3429
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 09 Jun 2020 06:29

I think, when the TEDBF becomes reality, Mig29ks will be transferred to IAF. There they will not face one of the biggest problem (perhaps the root cause of many if not all of it's ill), hard landing on A/C deck.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 09 Jun 2020 22:39

GoI recently approved a 25 tonne Twin Engine Deck Based (TEDBF) Fighter jet for @indiannavy, which will be powered by 2 GE's F414-GE-INS6, which generates Dry of 58 kN n Wet thrust of 98 kN, which in Twin engine configuration will mean that TEDBF will have an excellent T/W ratio

+when compared to aircraft in its class. Rafale M and Mig-29K are only other 2 carrier-based Twin-engine fighter which will be in the same class as TEDBF when it is ready. Rafale M is powered by the M-88 engine which generates 50 kN dry and 75 kN wet, while Mig-29K with RD-33MK

+generates 50 kN dry and 88 kN wet. Indian Navy operates Mig-29K from its aircraft carrier, T/W ratio of Mig-29K is 0.80 with a full fuel load, and four AAMs, T/W ratio of Rafale M is slightly better at 0.98 again with a full fuel load and 4 AAMs. Rafale M enjoys a lighter empty

+weight and lighter engine weight due to which it has slightly better T/W ratio when compared to Mig-29K, but Indian Navy already has demed that MiG-29Ks could take off from INS Vkd with a full load of 5.5 t, it could be any combination of AShMs, fuel tanks, precision-guided

+munitions and air to air missiles. TEDBF’s TWR or T/W ratio with a full fuel load and 4 AAMs could be around 1.10 to 1.15 if the Empty weight of the TEDBF is 10.5 tonnes and due to lightweight engine and with higher thrust engines like F-414 it cud be considered one of the best

+T/W Ratio in any Fighter Plane which is usually found in Air Superiority fighter jets Class. If ADA can manage the empty weight of TEDBF around 10.5 tonnes thn it won’t be requiring an F-414 engine at all to perform the same operations which cn b done with a lower thrust engine.

+ DRDO has started developing the IUCAV-UHF20 Engine which is an advanced version of Kaveri’s Dry section which will have Dry Thrust of 52 kN. IUCAV-UHF20 Engine will not have an afterburner module or propelling nozzles but the addition of this module will allow this engine to

+generate 81.0 kN to 85 kN class of Wet thrust which should be sufficient to power TEDBF. Since Technical specifications of TEFBF is yet to be framed, a lot of factors will play crucial factors before IUCAV-UHF20 Engine can be considered for TEDBF.

+TEDBF needs to hv an empty weight of lesser than 11T and After burning module of IUCAV-UHF20 needs to have 85 kN wet. Other important factors are that the engine is less thn 1 tonne in weight and is ready, tested, Certified to enter production by 2030

https://twitter.com/Aerodynamic111/stat ... 15653?s=20

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 09 Jun 2020 23:49

Too much conjecture in these tweets..

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Jun 2020 00:37

Kartik wrote:TEDBF will cost a lot less than either of the imported naval fighter, Rafale M or Super Hornet, that much is for sure. That 57 MRCBF wasn't going to go anywhere anyway. I guess the Navy leadership understood that, and has now made the wise decision.

I don't know how it will cost a whole lot less. Approximately the same size (or a bit larger than) a Rafale M with similar payload, heavy use of composites in the construction, all the bells and whistles in the avionics department (AESA radar, internal EW suite, new LCA Mk2 style cockpit with those huge displays with some sensor fusion, SDRs, ODL, DASH HMS etc.) plus the same engines as the Super Hornet. It is not going to be cheap by any measure. But the important thing is it will be Indian and will create jobs in India, a lot of the money will be spent in the local economy and it will provide invaluable indigenous design and manufacturing experience which can be leveraged for future programs. It can cost the same as a Rafale M and still be far more cost efficient that way.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2020 00:55

The next 10-15 years be crucial as the requirements and detailed designs are developed, built, prototypes rolled out and tested first on land and then extensive developmental, operational, and carrier-integration testing at sea for the aircraft and its sub-systems. The IN needs to build a good procurement strategy around how many they need, and how they plan on getting to that economical order quantity and buy/build rate. Only once this is all over would we know how the program costs as compared to a "buy off the shelf" option. As Nachiket said, other reasons alone make the build over buy decision advantageous.

ashishvikas wrote:+when compared to aircraft in its class. Rafale M and Mig-29K are only other 2 carrier-based Twin-engine fighter which will be in the same class as TEDBF when it is ready. Rafale M is powered by the M-88 engine which generates 50 kN dry and 75 kN wet, while Mig-29K with RD-33MK


Completely forgot to mention the F-18E/F/G the most widely produced naval fighter amongst the current crop of in production naval fighters. :D
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Jun 2020 02:31, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nam » 10 Jun 2020 00:57

nachiket wrote:I don't know how it will cost a whole lot less. Approximately the same size (or a bit larger than) a Rafale M with similar payload, heavy use of composites in the construction, all the bells and whistles in the avionics department (AESA radar, internal EW suite, new LCA Mk2 style cockpit with those huge displays with some sensor fusion, SDRs, ODL, DASH HMS etc.) plus the same engines as the Super Hornet. It is not going to be cheap by any measure. But the important thing is it will be Indian and will create jobs in India, a lot of the money will be spent in the local economy and it will provide invaluable indigenous design and manufacturing experience which can be leveraged for future programs. It can cost the same as a Rafale M and still be far more cost efficient that way.


It will be cheaper because for all practical purpose, it will be a bigger MK2. All the jazz& LRU, that is expected to be in TEDBF, will be in MK2, rationalizing the cost. Like TEDBF would be receiving 101th Uttam, which will be cheaper than 1st Uttam.

If Mk1A cost around 55M, MK2 might be 50% more, around 80M. TEDBF 50% more? that is 120M. I expect it to be less than that, given the amount of commonality we will have. No extra ground support kit, no extra training etc..

Rafale is been offered at 6B for 36 more. That is 166M! Not to mention the extra money for TFTA weapons..

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 01:11

$76m is the projected cost of TEDBF.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 10 Jun 2020 01:18

^^

From NDTV report of first page:

Sources close to the project have told NDTV that the total design and development costs for prototypes of the aircraft ''would cost less than the Rs.12,780 crore India Specific Enhancement package'' signed between India and France towards customising 36 Rafale fighters being inducted into the Indian Air Force.

''The total design and development costs for twin engine variants of the Tejas fighter would cost less than Rs.13,000 crores with each fighter for the Navy costing in the range of Rs. 538 crores.'' The Indian Air Force variant of the fighter would cost between Rs 35 crore and Rs.71 crores less than the Navy variant.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/if-deve ... ts-2159016

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby kit » 10 Jun 2020 02:04

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote:TEDBF will cost a lot less than either of the imported naval fighter, Rafale M or Super Hornet, that much is for sure. That 57 MRCBF wasn't going to go anywhere anyway. I guess the Navy leadership understood that, and has now made the wise decision.

I don't know how it will cost a whole lot less. Approximately the same size (or a bit larger than) a Rafale M with similar payload, heavy use of composites in the construction, all the bells and whistles in the avionics department (AESA radar, internal EW suite, new LCA Mk2 style cockpit with those huge displays with some sensor fusion, SDRs, ODL, DASH HMS etc.) plus the same engines as the Super Hornet. It is not going to be cheap by any measure. But the important thing is it will be Indian and will create jobs in India, a lot of the money will be spent in the local economy and it will provide invaluable indigenous design and manufacturing experience which can be leveraged for future programs. It can cost the same as a Rafale M and still be far more cost efficient that way.


Actually the "cost" is a relative factor, the money spent on production and R&D inside the country always builds up in an exponential manner by way of expertise and technical know-how gained (which can never be bought) , all this will go on to build better products in the future., the money spend on acquiring toys from outside the country goes out to enrich another nation. I would spend on a TEDBF even if it costs twice that of the Rafale initially !!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 10 Jun 2020 02:48

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote:TEDBF will cost a lot less than either of the imported naval fighter, Rafale M or Super Hornet, that much is for sure. That 57 MRCBF wasn't going to go anywhere anyway. I guess the Navy leadership understood that, and has now made the wise decision.

I don't know how it will cost a whole lot less. Approximately the same size (or a bit larger than) a Rafale M with similar payload, heavy use of composites in the construction, all the bells and whistles in the avionics department (AESA radar, internal EW suite, new LCA Mk2 style cockpit with those huge displays with some sensor fusion, SDRs, ODL, DASH HMS etc.) plus the same engines as the Super Hornet. It is not going to be cheap by any measure. But the important thing is it will be Indian and will create jobs in India, a lot of the money will be spent in the local economy and it will provide invaluable indigenous design and manufacturing experience which can be leveraged for future programs. It can cost the same as a Rafale M and still be far more cost efficient that way.


A large chunk of the cost is from the labour hours that get spent on assembling a fighter. The difference in the per hour labour cost between US/France and India is quite large. Just as an example- a single F-16C takes approximately 45,000 man hours to assemble and F-35A approx 41,500 hours. Of course levels of automation may vary so HAL will be more man power intensive than Dassault or Boeing.

AESA will be indigenous and is very likely to be cheaper than US or French ones. Basically any bit of equipment that is fully indigenous will be cheaper than that from either US or France. Those that are common such as engine will obviously cost about the same. Plus you won't end up paying for the profits that Boeing and Dassault would expect and hence pad up their cost quotes with.

In short, I would not expect a TEDBF to cost $100 million each, acquisition cost wise, the way a Rafale M or Super Hornet. Extrapolating from the Tejas costs, my guesstimate would be a ballpark of $70-75 million per unit. Not including the sunk costs for development of course. Over the lifetime of these jets, the support contracts with HAL will also be cheaper than with Boeing or Dassault. As will upgrades.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2020 03:48

Assembly touch labor rates are important consideration (I'm talking about cost and not purchase price here) but in the end productivity (that comes with long term investments towards automation) and efficiencies that come with the LC advances and with scale, that penetrate into T1 and 2 suppliers end up being the source of your long term cost advantage. Particularly as you drive out inefficiencies, achieve EOQ and buy in bulk (3-4 year orders in one go). The USN averaged around $76 Million gross system cost for the first nearly 580 F-18 E/F's it acquired (Fly away cost was around $65 Million). Scale and moving into large MYP buys was the reason for many of these cost savings.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 10 Jun 2020 05:24

brar_w wrote:Assembly touch labor rates are important consideration (I'm talking about cost and not purchase price here) but in the end productivity (that comes with long term investments towards automation) and efficiencies that come with the LC advances and with scale, that penetrate into T1 and 2 suppliers end up being the source of your long term cost advantage. Particularly as you drive out inefficiencies, achieve EOQ and buy in bulk (3-4 year orders in one go). The USN averaged around $76 Million gross system cost for the first nearly 580 F-18 E/F's it acquired (Fly away cost was around $65 Million). Scale and moving into large MYP buys was the reason for many of these cost savings.


Yes, and no other OEM in the world can approach the size of orders that Boeing and LM have. So there are obvious advantages there for these 2 OEMs and their Tier 1 and 2 suppliers.

$76 million was the fly-away cost for the USN, right? Add all the other aspects (training, support, services, etc.) plus the profit margin and the per unit acquisition price will be easily in the $140-150 million range if not higher. For the Rafale it will be even higher thanks to the much smaller production size.

Just as an example- Bulgaria's 8 F-16Vs, bought via FMS cost them $512 million. Works out to $64 million per unit fly-away. But, the training, support, services, equipment, etc. will see approximately $800 million extra. That then works out to $100 million per unit for support, services and equipment. That then works out to $164 million per unit, total acqusition cost for the F-16V.


In April, Lockheed Martin was contracted to build and deliver eight F-16V aircraft for the Bulgarian Air Force (BuAF). The USD512 million Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract will see the aircraft delivered from 2023 through to the end of January 2027, with a further USD800 million expected to be earmarked for support, services, and equipment.


article link

Given the TEBDF's Tejas DNA, it will be an evolution in great part with a high degree of commonality with the Tejas Mk2 design for most of the systems. Expect the costs to be 25-30% higher than that of the Tejas Mk2 due to additional systems due to the twin engine design.

However, the small production size will be an issue - @~60-70 TEDBF's that will likely be ordered, it will still need a dedicated assembly line of it's own in parallel with Tejas Mk2 production that will be ongoing at that time. If the IAF gets in on an IAF variant of the TEDBF that adds further numbers to the production size, the costs will drop further as the cost of the assembly line is amortized over a larger number of airframes and suppliers get larger volumes and hence can drop their prices further.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2020 05:36

Kartik wrote:$76 million was the fly-away cost for the USN, right? Add all the other aspects (training, support, services, etc.) plus the profit margin and the per unit acquisition price will be easily in the $140-150 million range if not higher. For the Rafale it will be even higher thanks to the much smaller production size.


I was talking of the cost of the system, not the price that the IN may get it at with all the extra stuff that it takes to operationalize the aircraft (I mentioned that in the post itself). Affordability is a relative term. Even the US Navy needed the SH to be affordable so that they could field a sizable force. Choices they made reflect that (including keeping mission creep relatively low). Back when the SH program was just getting started there was a huge campaign run by some of the most prominent voices in Naval aviation (retired) who said that the US Navy was selling future airmen short by investing in a sub-optimal air-superiority fighter to replace the F-14 and the then_cancelled Naval-ATF. But the USN was laser focused on fielding 600-700 fighters within a set budget and approached it pretty smartly for a government organization. The French took a different approach. The Rafale is a $60+ Billion program for them. There are ways you drive cost out of the system. A lot of it has to do with design and requirements (and staying within limits), but ultimately what matters the most is you good you (over time) get at building and buying it. If you buy it smartly and at a given economic quantity which is optimal then you can trim a lot of cost out of your acquisition program. As I said, what will influence cost more than the labor savings at final assembly, would be how and how much the IN invests in it and how much commonality (where it matters) it has with other programs that can collectively result in savings due to scale. But that is something we'd have to wait quite a ways to find out. It takes a decade or more years (likely 12-15 years is more realistic) to design and operationalize a new naval fighter.

It would be interesting to follow what the IN demands of the TEDBF. That will, in no small part, influence how affordable it is. As you said, there are smart ways to look at buying this capability. Like for example clubbing a IAF and IN demand and creating requirements for say 200-300 fighters at 24/year which guarantees slightly better scale especially if those can be guaranteed in chunks of 2 or 3 (as opposed to annual batches). When one would compare to other programs (like the Rafale and SH) we would have to see what the design, production and acquisition approach gets adapted. The French with the M did this and they are a one carrier Navy so kept changes on the M at a minimal.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 06:58

Production run of TEDBF of around 100 fighters can be easily expected @12/year in 2030-40.

Mig29k have service life of 4000 hours .@150hrs/year it will be retired by early 2040s.

Present 2 carriers with 24 fighters each plus future large carrier with 40 fighters will easily entail max 88 fighters at sea.

Present 57 fighter RFI + 45 Mig 29 replacement is equal to 102 fighters.

Tejas mk1, mk2, AMCA and TEDBF all 4 programmes have minimum 100 fighter run for $1b + R&D taking per unit R&D cost to $10m.

In future production run of 100 NAMCA @12/year for the period 2040-50 can be expected as IN can be expected to build a force of 200 fighters plus 4 large carrier fleet with 40 fighter each.

For TEDBF only Rs 7000-8000Cr development cost is economical for 100 fighter run and thus currently no ORCA is sanctioned which may have cost additional 5000 Cr.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12038
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Jun 2020 07:19

Bulgarian F16 produced in The US will be delivered between 2023 and 2027 and including everything. In the Indian context with production in India and completely new American infrastructure, training methods , weapons, spare parts etc. It will be 2028 by the time develop tactics and induction will happen till 2035. It makes no sense. OT.

Best here is for the Navy to order MK1/1A type naval fighters to develop the production system while the TEDBF program goes full steam. A lot of parts , composite materials software will be common and will help early induction of TEDBF

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20720
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2020 07:26

Former DG of the Artillery Lt.Gen.Srivatsava, said at a seminar not too long ago that " you cannot fight the wars of the future with the weapons of the past",quoting a well known phrase.
Similarly,the teddybear naval fighter programme that has been launched with great fanfare will bring zero to the table if and when it ever attains service. As some have elequently pointed out, similar 4++ naval fighters like the Rafale-M and F-18SH have been operational for years,combat proven,as well as our own MIG-29K in operation for quite a while,but in lesser limited combat role in Syria operating from the Kuz where one crashed on landing approach.

The proposed TE seabird is going to be no better,and that too questionable,than these existing fighters,based upon the LCA which has still to be combat tested in avatar MK-1, whose performance is below par of the IAF's QSR.The MK-2 ,upon which this fighter will be modelled upon has not flown as yet even the MK-1A,yet to fly and it beggars belief that with our track recoord we'll have it all gilt wrapped in service by the decade end,to perform only as much as the aforementioned fighters.

The IN has set the bar too low with this bird.Look at the rapid advances in naval warfare taking place.Rail guns,ER ammo for main guns out to 100km,laser dazzlers plus anti-air/missile laser weaponry, carrier UCAVs, hypersonic naval missiles like Tsirkon,Poseidon super-heavweight ELR nuclear tipped torpedoes to enter service shortly, plus the existing threat from BMs fielded by the PLAN. The USN is downsizing its carrier fleet from 11/12 to just 9.There are also calls for smaller less expensive carriers of approx. the QE size; smaller surface combatants instead of Arleigh Burke sized DDGs,a call for more numbers of " shooters" in the littorals.And we steadily pursue like Don Quixote our tilting at windmills,the large EMALS flat top for which we haven't the money.
To the proud argument that it will be " our fighter" ,not a firang one,look at the experience we had in '65 when our venerable Vampires went to do battle with Paki Sabres. They were gallant,but we paid a v.heavy price because they were obsolete.

China already fields 2 stealth birds. The USN is examining concepts for a future naval fighter even before the F-35 has reached maturity in carrier ops.By the time we unveil our unstealthy naval fighter of the last decade,the stealth JSF would've attained a respectable reputation at sea,while our future stealth fighter,the AMCA would be yet to fly!
Funding 4 fighter programmes with the miserly Indian budget would require the skills of both Harry Houdini and PC Sorcar!
After all,"money makes the mare go!" Add to the bean counting is the tiny number to be built,which will cost around $100M with all the new ( old) bells and whistles touted about like an AESA radar,etc.,but not a word about stealth.Our concentrated focus should instead be on the AMCA,a parallel programme with the IAF's requirement.A stealth bird for the stealth age.

You've all heard the expression "putting the cart before the horse".
Well,the IN has modified that gem.It's "placing the horse on top of the cart!" This exercise is an attempt to enter the carrier stables through the rear entrance (pun intended!),hoping that after possessing a new carrier bird,we must somehow build the 3rd. carrier at all costs,at the expense of other more critical items like subs,both nuclear and AIP conventional.Here it must be pointed out that we still do not have a single AIP boat,our Scorpenes have " stung" us by their inordinate delay in arriving ,but at huge inflated cost too.China has commissioned 2 more SSBNs this year- they have 6,and around 80 subs. Our goal should be developing an AMCA that can fit aboard the two existing CVs and any flat top in the future.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 07:44

India will be $60T economy by 2050 from $3Trillion economy today. The indigenous capability will be built over long term and hence planned.

HVT tweet about 6th gen war with combination of 4++ TEDBF plus fleet of combat drones will keep it valid till 2070 just like Rafale.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 10 Jun 2020 08:11

Philip wrote:Former DG of the Artillery Lt.Gen.Srivatsava, said at a seminar not too long ago that " you cannot fight the wars of the future with the weapons of the past",quoting a well known phrase.
Similarly,the teddybear naval fighter programme that has been launched with great fanfare will bring zero to the table if and when it ever attains service. As some have elequently pointed out, similar 4++ naval fighters like the Rafale-M and F-18SH have been operational for years,combat proven,as well as our own MIG-29K in operation for quite a while,but in lesser limited combat role in Syria operating from the Kuz where one crashed on landing approach.

The proposed TE seabird is going to be no better,and that too questionable,than these existing fighters,based upon the LCA which has still to be combat tested in avatar MK-1, whose performance is below par of the IAF's QSR.The MK-2 ,upon which this fighter will be modelled upon has not flown as yet even the MK-1A,yet to fly and it beggars belief that with our track recoord we'll have it all gilt wrapped in service by the decade end,to perform only as much as the aforementioned fighters.

The IN has set the bar too low with this bird.Look at the rapid advances in naval warfare taking place.Rail guns,ER ammo for main guns out to 100km,laser dazzlers plus anti-air/missile laser weaponry, carrier UCAVs, hypersonic naval missiles like Tsirkon,Poseidon super-heavweight ELR nuclear tipped torpedoes to enter service shortly, plus the existing threat from BMs fielded by the PLAN. The USN is downsizing its carrier fleet from 11/12 to just 9.There are also calls for smaller less expensive carriers of approx. the QE size; smaller surface combatants instead of Arleigh Burke sized DDGs,a call for more numbers of " shooters" in the littorals.And we steadily pursue like Don Quixote our tilting at windmills,the large EMALS flat top for which we haven't the money.
To the proud argument that it will be " our fighter" ,not a firang one,look at the experience we had in '65 when our venerable Vampires went to do battle with Paki Sabres. They were gallant,but we paid a v.heavy price because they were obsolete.

China already fields 2 stealth birds. The USN is examining concepts for a future naval fighter even before the F-35 has reached maturity in carrier ops.By the time we unveil our unstealthy naval fighter of the last decade,the stealth JSF would've attained a respectable reputation at sea,while our future stealth fighter,the AMCA would be yet to fly!
Funding 4 fighter programmes with the miserly Indian budget would require the skills of both Harry Houdini and PC Sorcar!
After all,"money makes the mare go!" Add to the bean counting is the tiny number to be built,which will cost around $100M with all the new ( old) bells and whistles touted about like an AESA radar,etc.,but not a word about stealth.Our concentrated focus should instead be on the AMCA,a parallel programme with the IAF's requirement.A stealth bird for the stealth age.

You've all heard the expression "putting the cart before the horse".
Well,the IN has modified that gem.It's "placing the horse on top of the cart!" This exercise is an attempt to enter the carrier stables through the rear entrance (pun intended!),hoping that after possessing a new carrier bird,we must somehow build the 3rd. carrier at all costs,at the expense of other more critical items like subs,both nuclear and AIP conventional.Here it must be pointed out that we still do not have a single AIP boat,our Scorpenes have " stung" us by their inordinate delay in arriving ,but at huge inflated cost too.China has commissioned 2 more SSBNs this year- they have 6,and around 80 subs. Our goal should be developing an AMCA that can fit aboard the two existing CVs and any flat top in the future.


Comrade Phillip, can you point me to the relevant parts in this diatribe?

There are more PC Sorcar like elements in your post....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2020 08:24

Aditya_V wrote:Bulgarian F16 produced in The US will be delivered between 2023 and 2027 and including everything..


It really depends upon what and how you pick and get slots which will be FMS budget dependent and OEM production dependent. Boeing is delivering the entire Kuwaiti F-18 E/F order (Block II+ with many of the Block III elements (like the cockpit) ) within about 18 months from the first delivery. At the end of the day none of this matters as it really depends upon what the IN thinks is its replacement cycle and how confident it is in HAL's ability to deliver. If these things align well the ability, or inability of a foreign OEM to deliver at any rate becomes less, or completely irrelevant.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Jun 2020 08:35

Kartik wrote:A large chunk of the cost is from the labour hours that get spent on assembling a fighter. The difference in the per hour labour cost between US/France and India is quite large. Just as an example- a single F-16C takes approximately 45,000 man hours to assemble and F-35A approx 41,500 hours. Of course levels of automation may vary so HAL will be more man power intensive than Dassault or Boeing.

AESA will be indigenous and is very likely to be cheaper than US or French ones. Basically any bit of equipment that is fully indigenous will be cheaper than that from either US or France. Those that are common such as engine will obviously cost about the same. Plus you won't end up paying for the profits that Boeing and Dassault would expect and hence pad up their cost quotes with.

In short, I would not expect a TEDBF to cost $100 million each, acquisition cost wise, the way a Rafale M or Super Hornet. Extrapolating from the Tejas costs, my guesstimate would be a ballpark of $70-75 million per unit. Not including the sunk costs for development of course. Over the lifetime of these jets, the support contracts with HAL will also be cheaper than with Boeing or Dassault. As will upgrades.

Kartik the lower labor costs somehow did not make the HAL built Su-30's cheaper than Russian ones. And HAL was even building/assembling the engines in India. The F414's are likely to be bought off the shelf. So there's more to it than that. What I'm saying is that even if it costs the same as a Rafale, it still is more cost effective because of all the other benefits to indigenous industry that buying Rafales or even license producing Su-30's will not provide. And for this reason I hope the government is more open handed in spending money on the TEDBF than they would be on buying 57 Rafales/SH's. I really don't want to be in 2030 and see the MoD balking at approving a large order for the TEDBF because HAL quoted a high price and our economy is in a "dekho-no-money" state as usual.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Jun 2020 08:43

Having thought about it a bit I don't see the need for the ORCA or whatever the proposed IAF version of the TEDBF is called. I don't see where it fits into the IAF's force structure. The IAF needs large numbers of Tejas MK1A and Mk2 to form the core along with, 2 more squadrons of the Rafale beyond the current 2 to form the tip of the spear so to speak and a very comprehensive upgrade of the MKI fleet to provide the heavy hitting power for the next 2 decades. The Tejas Mk2 can replace all the retiring Mirages, Mig-29s and Jaguars and will be (hopefully) ready for serial production sometime this decade. There is no need of a twin engined jet for that. Beyond 2030 the IAF will need the AMCA to arrive as soon as practically possible. I doubt they will be interested in buying what is essentially a desi Rafale with a better T:W ratio in the 2030's.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2020 09:20

Philip wrote:Former DG of the Artillery...


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&start=3440#p2437527

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby sankum » 10 Jun 2020 09:25

The IAF is basically trying to have a fleet of 150 Rafales. If it get reduced to 80 then Tejas mk2 will go upto 12sq from 6sq to fill the numbers.

Instead of ORCA the money is better spent on more AMCA and TEDBF is an exclusive IN project.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby m_saini » 10 Jun 2020 10:57

I don't understand why some people are concerned of flying 4++ TEDBF jets in 2030s. Chinis were struggling with flanker clones while the US had F22 squadrons. There is no other way than flying outdated jets in 2030s and getting our MIC on it's feet. I don't think AMCA will come if we just throw more money at it, chinis have been throwing more money on their engine tech than we could ever hope to throw on AMCA and they're still not there yet. We have to get the experience the hard way even if it means flying TEDBF in the age of rail guns, laser dazzlers etc. Because I have very little confidence AMCA will be on time given the engine and tech requirement.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 10 Jun 2020 13:03

Cost is not an issue. Only idiots will compare the per unit priced of a Rafale M and the tedbf. There are bigger things at play than just buying a fighter. This will be the culmination of 20+years of IN support for an Indian carrier capable fighter.

Let's not forget that the future will have flying wingman type additional forces that our fighters will have to play nice with. An indian fighter will make things far easier to combine than an imported one. Unless we're going to import the neuron when it is ready.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12038
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Jun 2020 13:22

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote:A large chunk of the cost is from the labour hours that get spent on assembling a fighter. The difference in the per hour labour cost between US/France and India is quite large. Just as an example- a single F-16C takes approximately 45,000 man hours to assemble and F-35A approx 41,500 hours. Of course levels of automation may vary so HAL will be more man power intensive than Dassault or Boeing.

AESA will be indigenous and is very likely to be cheaper than US or French ones. Basically any bit of equipment that is fully indigenous will be cheaper than that from either US or France. Those that are common such as engine will obviously cost about the same. Plus you won't end up paying for the profits that Boeing and Dassault would expect and hence pad up their cost quotes with.

In short, I would not expect a TEDBF to cost $100 million each, acquisition cost wise, the way a Rafale M or Super Hornet. Extrapolating from the Tejas costs, my guesstimate would be a ballpark of $70-75 million per unit. Not including the sunk costs for development of course. Over the lifetime of these jets, the support contracts with HAL will also be cheaper than with Boeing or Dassault. As will upgrades.

Kartik the lower labor costs somehow did not make the HAL built Su-30's cheaper than Russian ones. And HAL was even building/assembling the engines in India. The F414's are likely to be bought off the shelf. So there's more to it than that. What I'm saying is that even if it costs the same as a Rafale, it still is more cost effective because of all the other benefits to indigenous industry that buying Rafales or even license producing Su-30's will not provide. And for this reason I hope the government is more open handed in spending money on the TEDBF than they would be on buying 57 Rafales/SH's. I really don't want to be in 2030 and see the MoD balking at approving a large order for the TEDBF because HAL quoted a high price and our economy is in a "dekho-no-money" state as usual.


Labour costs is a myth in manufacturing, in fact labor cost matters far less than the Machinery available, cost of raw materials, ore to metal- metal to metal parts, cost of Power, cost of Logistics and ease of transporting various parts, Knowledge level of the people Manufacturing etc.

Too many people in our country love taking short cuts, commissions than do actual work.

In any sane nation in things like weaponary- the imported aircraft along with weapons spare parts training etc must be at least 50% cheaper than the local product, considering future benefits, taxes paid to be considered alogn with the local product.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20720
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2020 17:01

Horse atop the cart,PC Sorcar?

First decision,do we need a 3rd. carrier 65K t ,with EMALS,etc. at all? If we need it,when do we need it given our other priorities like subs.The CDS has made it abundantly clear that a 3rd. carrier is NOT the priority,more subs are. So why the indecent haste to develop at huge singular cost a mere 50+
carrier fighters,a 4th-gen aircraft by the end of the decade which will be outclassed by other stealth birds in the sky currently flying in this decade? As I've said the answer is v.simple. get the fighters first and then demand the carrier!

khan
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby khan » 10 Jun 2020 17:18

Aditya_V wrote:Labour costs is a myth in manufacturing, in fact labor cost matters far less than the Machinery available, cost of raw materials, ore to metal- metal to metal parts, cost of Power, cost of Logistics and ease of transporting various parts, Knowledge level of the people Manufacturing etc.

Especially in a PSU, where labor is abundant and well compensated.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 10 Jun 2020 17:37

Philip wrote:Horse atop the cart,PC Sorcar?

First decision,do we need a 3rd. carrier 65K t ,with EMALS,etc. at all? If we need it,when do we need it given our other priorities like subs.The CDS has made it abundantly clear that a 3rd. carrier is NOT the priority,more subs are. So why the indecent haste to develop at huge singular cost a mere 50+
carrier fighters,a 4th-gen aircraft by the end of the decade which will be outclassed by other stealth birds in the sky currently flying in this decade? As I've said the answer is v.simple. get the fighters first and then demand the carrier!

If you had just posted this.
Brevity is the soul of wit Comrade..
But we have to invest in learning yes or are you saying that we are ready technologically to field a naval AMCA in the next 10 years....

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12038
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 10 Jun 2020 17:52

The LCA has a lot of composites and we are incorporating, AESA, OBOGS and a lot of other 5th gen techs, for me the TEDBF is a logical step, we need multiple programs and a set up production eco system. This is the only scenario we can catch up with the best in 20-30 years.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby chola » 10 Jun 2020 17:56

ks_sachin wrote:
Philip wrote:Horse atop the cart,PC Sorcar?

First decision,do we need a 3rd. carrier 65K t ,with EMALS,etc. at all? If we need it,when do we need it given our other priorities like subs.The CDS has made it abundantly clear that a 3rd. carrier is NOT the priority,more subs are. So why the indecent haste to develop at huge singular cost a mere 50+
carrier fighters,a 4th-gen aircraft by the end of the decade which will be outclassed by other stealth birds in the sky currently flying in this decade? As I've said the answer is v.simple. get the fighters first and then demand the carrier!

If you had just posted this.
Brevity is the soul of wit Comrade..
But we have to invest in learning yes or are you saying that we are ready technologically to field a naval AMCA in the next 10 years....


The 3rd carrier is not even a factor here. TEDBF will be STOBAR capable for the VikA and especially the Vikrant. it is a twin-engine based on the Tejas and the F414 both known quantities. The AMCA is greenfield and there is no guarantee right now that it will need to be converted to a carrier aircraft.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 10 Jun 2020 23:45

sankum wrote:The IAF is basically trying to have a fleet of 150 Rafales. If it get reduced to 80 then Tejas mk2 will go upto 12sq from 6sq to fill the numbers.

Instead of ORCA the money is better spent on more AMCA and TEDBF is an exclusive IN project.

How are u going to fill the role of bomb trucks? Are u going to use external stores for AMCA for that role?
Do not say that u will only use internal storage, because that is not a workable solution.
The moment u add external stores to the stealthy platforms, they will loose their stealth. We may as well use ORCA for that role.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Jun 2020 23:53

rajsunder wrote:How are u going to fill the role of bomb trucks? Are u going to use external stores for AMCA for that role?
Do not say that u will only use internal storage, because that is not a workable solution.
The moment u add external stores to the stealthy platforms, they will loose their stealth. We may as well use ORCA for that role.

With its enormous useful payload, long range, twin crew and ease of integrating our indigenous PGMs, the MKI is the very definition of a bomb truck. Eventually, when it loses its edge in air-to-air and we have enough AMCA's to go around, that is what it might be exclusively used for.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2020 23:56

rajsunder wrote:How are u going to fill the role of bomb trucks? Are u going to use external stores for AMCA for that role?
Do not say that u will only use internal storage, because that is not a workable solution.
The moment u add external stores to the stealthy platforms, they will loose their stealth. We may as well use ORCA for that role.


This isn't such a binary or clear cut thing to put out. Almost all 5th generation aircraft have the ability to carry external stores and use them when A) the tactical situation demands it, or B ) when Low Observable and its advantage is diminished (such as when the enemies ability to target you has been severely degraded or when you are employing stand-off munitions from ranges where closing the fire-control-loop (for your adversary) is going to be harder or almost impossible irrespective your RCS). In fact as stealth has evolved, it has become more over a mission system as tools and processes to use it across the mission-planning tool-kit have been developed and exploited by the operator community.

This is another element of the "Multi-Role" nature of these platforms and just as the ability to execute multiple mission types is an advantage to have, same is the advantage to reconfigure your stealth fighters to best suit the mission need. LO is best visualized as a mission-system. Like a radar, EW gear, or a self-protection jammer. Flexibility with how you exercise it is an important feature to have. You don't build two fighters, one with a SPJ and another without it for when a SPJ isn't required. You tailor your payload (sensor payload in this case) to the mission need. Same with LO. How much RCS reduction to present (internal stores, vs external stores, or mixed) and how much RCS degradation to allow (cadence for your RCS restoration efforts) is something that you should be able to trade depending upon situation/mission needs. In 2020, no one is probably looking at this whole stealth thing and saying - " let's go back to the F-117 days"..

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 11 Jun 2020 05:32

brar_w wrote:
This isn't such a binary or clear cut thing to put out. Almost all 5th generation aircraft have the ability to carry external stores and use them when A) the tactical situation demands it, or B ) when Low Observable and its advantage is diminished (such as when the enemies ability to target you has been severely degraded or when you are employing stand-off munitions from ranges where closing the fire-control-loop (for your adversary) is going to be harder or almost impossible irrespective your RCS). In fact as stealth has evolved, it has become more over a mission system as tools and processes to use it across the mission-planning tool-kit have been developed and exploited by the operator community.

This is another element of the "Multi-Role" nature of these platforms and just as the ability to execute multiple mission types is an advantage to have, same is the advantage to reconfigure your stealth fighters to best suit the mission need. LO is best visualized as a mission-system. Like a radar, EW gear, or a self-protection jammer. Flexibility with how you exercise it is an important feature to have. You don't build two fighters, one with a SPJ and another without it for when a SPJ isn't required. You tailor your payload (sensor payload in this case) to the mission need. Same with LO. How much RCS reduction to present (internal stores, vs external stores, or mixed) and how much RCS degradation to allow (cadence for your RCS restoration efforts) is something that you should be able to trade depending upon situation/mission needs. In 2020, no one is probably looking at this whole stealth thing and saying - " let's go back to the F-117 days"..

I do understand what you are trying to say, but India cannot fill all of its 42 squadrons with stealthy planes. I do not see it happening even 30 years in to future.
Yes,I am sure India will jump and take a F117 if it can be redesigned for FBW, make it stealth optimized, with an updated Engine with FADEC, AESA radar, latest Gen avionics and EW.
Last edited by rajsunder on 11 Jun 2020 06:57, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Jun 2020 05:45

The point is not whether the IAF can or cannot afford stealth at scale. It is whether the fleet it does have would be capable of swinging through configurations as and when missions demands. The answer is quite obvious. In fact there have been mockups presented with the AMCA carrying external stores. The affordability argument actually supports this way of thinking. The ability to be multi-role and satisfy the stand off and stand in missions adds more value to the platfrom without adding a whole lot of cost.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby arvin » 20 Jun 2020 23:45

ks_sachin wrote:
arvin wrote:HAL and DPSU have their own strengths and among them is supply chain and vendors cultivated over a period of time. A private eco system can exist along side them something late parrikarji tried to bring up via SP model.
HAL definitely needs a private competitor. Its hard to believe that a fighter (Tejas) that is perfectly slotted in the sweet spot between Mig 21 and F16, both of them operated in thousands does not have a single export order yet. I blame HAL's poor marketing skills for this.


So if you were the dictator of a country with lots of money at hand but were intelligent in your spending would you have placed an order for the LCA by now knowing the following facts?

- Country of design and manufacture itself has not placed the order (83 has the contract been inked)
- FOC has just been achieved in the last few months
- No long term experience of the platform in operational service to understand the issues that crops up in service
- Even before the basic product is in operation an upgrade has been planned...

How will a private competitor address the above issues?

A private eco system can exist by gradually building up the skills base which HAL is doing yes....it takes decades...don't peg that to the LCA and TEDBF...which need HAL's full concentration for the next decade or so...


Not a dictatorship, But a democracy like India purchased Mig-29K\KUB for its Navy based on exact 4 points listed above.
My point is HAL is not marketing\prioritising well hence bring in private player for LCA exports\manufacturing.
FOC is a criteria for IAF squadron service, but not a must have to be saleable to other AF having lesser requirements e.g USAF T-X program.
HAL pushed its entry of weaponised trainer (IOC-2) for USAF T-X program in 2017\2018. But it was not even in the list of competitors since USAF wanted a plain vanilla supersonic trainer. HAL's entry with IOC-2 features would have been expensive for a trainer. That prompted HAL to launch LCA - SPORT aka LCA-lite AFTER rejection.
HAL had PV-5 trainer since 2009. If it had kept an eye on its main competitor KAI T-50\TA-50 order book or that of Leonardo M-346, it should have hived the PV-5 trainer (currently trainer is IOC-2\FOC) into a seperate product line to enable it to compete in these lite requirements. It is painful to know that T-X program had only 2 serious contenders 1.) Boeing-SAAB T-7 and 2.)KAI T-50. Tejas trainer was not even evaluated since there was no certified LCA-lite. Absence of LCA-Lite also led to missing export orders which were won by T-50 (indonesia - 2015), (iraq - 2019), (Thailand - 2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
So what I propose is offload LCA-lite to a private company say TASL or L&T so that we can have a marketing team that performs for profits and not
like HAL since it is assured of orders at the end of day. Boeing predicts a market of 2600 such trainers so the market is hugh for private players to operate.
HAL anyway has too many trainers via HTT-40, IJT sitara, Hawk, Hawk-i and now LCA-lite.
With TEDBF, LCA-mk2 and AMCA in pipeline HAL will have its hand full. It would do no harm to offload atleast 1 LCA product line to private sector.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Jun 2020 06:25

arvin wrote:FOC is a criteria for IAF squadron service, but not a must have to be saleable to other AF having lesser requirements e.g USAF T-X program.


What do "lesser" requirements mean? The USAF requested a set of requirements for the platform, training system, and a level of LVC capability that was future proof. This pretty much puts them at the highest in terms of any known trainer in its class. There were some serious doubts whether the Master (pretty much the best western trainer up to this point in terms of modern trainers) would even qualify to bid given the requirements. BAE Hawk didn't even qualify. But the flight vehicle portion was only half of the program. The other half was the the training and LVC portion. And the USAF's request was very clear. For every metric, in which the bids exceeded the threshold performance, the USAF was willing to give credit (as an offset to the cost/risk) to the design/proposal/submission so that higher performing aircraft weren't necessarily penalized. This program wasn't set up to incentivise the lowest cost/risk bid that met all requirements. You could have had systems that exceeded it and made benefit of the cost detriment and materialized into better value. In fact, it's likely BTX did that since it was a clean sheet design based on what the USAF communicated in terms of what it wanted.

I don't think the LCA team even turned in a bid or chose to pursue based on the RFP (is there any evidence that the classified portions of the program were even shared with them?). The LCA is an outstanding combat aircraft. But the USAF T-X is not a combat aircraft program. It is a program for a trainer and as such the ability to excel in that training mission, and the accompanying LVC and training portions of the bids were the relevant portion. LCA as an integrated trainer package (trainer aircraft, plus accompanying training package and solution) does not yet exist. The T-X evaluated the training solutions that were presented to it. It wasn't just an evaluation of the physical aircraft. BTX was the only of the few that was designed to exactly the spec that the USAF initially shared and then periodically tweaked. Everyone else was trying to mold what they already have to fit into the requirements. Boeing to its credit (by taking too much risk) matched the cost and risk in their bid and negated the advantage that in production programs had. Now its on them to deliver and maintain a viable program for themselves. Any combat capability and performance advantage on the LCA or F/A-50 didn't matter. USAF set the requirements for a trainer, evaluated a trainer, and selected the best they had. Their competition was de-briefed on the program, source selection, evaluation and why they lost and they all walked out (instead of protesting). If Boeing was determined to win this (even if that means running the risk of never ever turning profit on the initial program) what could HAL have done even if one assumed it wanted to compete? Would they have been in a position to go $ for $ with Boeing?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby srai » 21 Jun 2020 11:18

...

HAL pushed its entry of weaponised trainer (IOC-2) for USAF T-X program in 2017\2018. But it was not even in the list of competitors since USAF wanted a plain vanilla supersonic trainer. HAL's entry with IOC-2 features would have been expensive for a trainer. That prompted HAL to launch LCA - SPORT aka LCA-lite AFTER rejection.

...


Has any developing country managed to sell a defense product to the US military? Almost always they buy from their own MIC. Only times they do (with EU/Israeli), a US company needs to the lead partner with the capability to own the product.

I don’t see too much benefit trying to sell Indian defense wares to the US. Hard sell and Little to gain. For them, they see the relationship the other way round. Better to sell to other developing nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America where India can expand on its strategic interests.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests