JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 May 2013 08:14

Brando wrote:^^ All you answers can be found here: http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operati ... ters-janes and http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.in/2012/ ... o-fly.html

According to Jane's estimates : Typhoon~$18,000 ; Rafale ~$16,500.

Su-30MK estimated to be ~$30,000 ish, so the MKI will be higher than that number.

The earlier post gives the USAF's estimate for the f16 as $25k, so I find it a little hard to believe EFs and Rafales numbers. May be they have different accounting standards. And the operating cost of the f35 at 28% more than the f16 seems reasonably good.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 31 May 2013 14:51

^^ Please note that the USAF numbers are for F16 C/D most of which were made in the late 80's/early 90s while the article quotes Jane's Defense review's numbers of the F16 Block 52's as of 2008. The number given for F-16 Block 52s is ~$8000.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jun 2013 04:21

Oh dear! The turkey is too hot to handle!

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 30607.aspx

When The F-35 Is Too Hot To Handle

June 7, 2013: Over the last five years, testing of the STOVL (vertical takeoff and landing) or “B” version of the new American F-35 fighter showed that its F135 engine, the most powerful to ever be used in a fighter, generated enough heat to damage carrier decks. The F-35B engine heat effect was reduced by adjusting of the F135 exhaust (dispersing over a larger area). This, however, did not eliminate the other heat related problems. Components beneath the deck required better protection from the higher heat levels. On the smaller helicopter carriers (like the Wasp class) it was found that many nearby systems on the much smaller flight deck could be damaged by an F-35B landing or taking off too close to things like weapons (Phalanx and the like), antennas, aviation fuel outlets, fuel pipes, life rafts, life rails, safety nets, some electrical gear, and most other equipment that was safe to leave near the older AV-8B Harrier STOVL. So these items have to be either moved or provided with more heat protection.

The basic problem was that the F-35B is larger, and puts out more engine blast, than the current AV-8B, which has been in service since 1969. That early version was used mainly by the British Royal Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. It was an 11 ton aircraft (7 tons when taking off vertically) that carried about two tons of weapons. In the 1980s, a more powerful 14 ton version was developed, which could carry three tons of weapons. That generated more heat, but not enough to be a problem. The F-35B, which will replace the AV-8B, is a 27 ton aircraft that can carry six tons of weapons and is stealthy. In vertical takeoff mode the F-35B will carry about twice the weapons as the Harrier and have about twice the range (800 kilometers).

On land the F-35B also causes heat problems with the PSP (Perforated Steel Planking) used for rapidly constructed airfields. PSP is one of those prosaic innovations that everyone takes for granted. PSP is perforated metal matting that is used to rapidly create all-weather airstrips that can handle jet fighters and helicopters.

The original Marsden Mats of World War II were made of a rust-resistant steel alloy. The sheets of steel had holes in them (to allow for drainage) and slots by which they could easily be linked together. In less than two days engineers could build an airstrip over a kilometer long (usually 1.3 kilometers or about 4,000 feet) that could handle aircraft up to 28 tons. That meant four engine bombers like B-17s and B-24s (but not the 30 ton, when empty, B-29) could land on these airstrips.

The current version of Marsden Mats is called PSP and comes as metal panels that are three meters (10 foot) long, 38cm (15 inches) wide, and weigh 20 kg (66 pounds) each. PSP can handle heavier loads but not heavy bombers like the B-1/2/52. PSP has recently run into another problem with modern warplanes, heat from the F-135 engine of the F-35B. The adjusting of the F135 exhaust also protected the PSP from serious damage.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jun 2013 07:24

yeah did you see the clips - the carrier caught fire due to the turkeys landing !!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2013 08:10

Od dear!! F-35 Ship suitibility testing on the USS Wasp

I guess the author of that article did not see the tests conducted on USN Wasp? Dunno. But sounds fishy.

Taking potshots at others is some peoples pastime I guess.

The current DRDO Chief:

Problems are there, but we need to overcome them.

What project does not have problem? Outside China and Pakistan that is.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jun 2013 08:15

yeah and the jet wash was so large that men were going tobe blown away

yeah we saw that happen too

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jun 2013 09:03

Slow evening, but I did find this from 2010. The exhaust issue seems to have been a topic of discussion - even NPR tapes mention it (in early 2010).

JSF Not Too Hot For Carriers

The STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter is not too hot and is not too loud, Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told DoD Buzz during an editorial board session.

The most troubling operational challenge that appeared to face the F-35B, next to weight, was reports that it would not be suitable for a carrier or other ship because its exhaust would melt the flight deck. Not so, Conway told reporters from Military.com. The plane, at 1,500 degrees, is just 18 degrees hotter than a Harrier, he said Thursday.

He also debunked persistent reports that the JSF will blow the ears off of people living near their flight paths, Conway said that noise levels for the plane are “well in range of legacy aircraft” like the F-22 and the F/A-18 E/F. Bottom line, the JSF ain’t a whisper jet, but communities familiar with existing aircraft shouldn’t have much to worry about.

Oh dear !!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Aug 2013 09:52

Lower-cost F-35s In Prospect As Deal Nears On Next Production Lots

Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) reached an agreement in principle to fund the next two low-rate initial production (LRIP) lots of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, comprising 71 aircraft. The company and DOD jointly announced the “handshake agreement” on July 30 in advance of signing the LRIP contracts, which will provide consecutive, 4-percent reductions in the unit cost of U.S. military variants, they said. The parties said they will release cost details when the contracts are finalized.

“These two contracts represent a fair deal that is beneficial to the government and Lockheed Martin,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, who in the past has been critical of the working relationship with Lockheed Martin. “Improving affordability is critical to the success of this program, and by working together we were able to negotiate a lower-cost F-35. There is still work to be done, but these agreements are proof the cost arrow is moving in the right direction.”

The agreement, which followed six months of negotiations, is for the F-35 air vehicle only, and does not include its F135 engine. The DOD and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney are still negotiating an LRIP-6 engine contract.

Lockheed Martin will deliver 36 jets to the U.S. military and partner nations under LRIP-6 beginning in the middle of next year; the delivery of 35 jets under LRIP-7 begins in mid-2015. The contracts cover the first F-35s for Australia, Italy and Norway, and the fourth F-35 for the UK. A total of 95 F-35s are under contract for LRIP-1 through 5. Lockheed Martin says it has delivered 67 jets to date, including test aircraft.

The unit price of an LRIP-7 jet will represent about an 8-percent reduction from that of the LRIP-5 contract signed in December 2012, the parties said. In a briefing at the recent Paris Air Show, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin F-35 vice president for program integration, presented a chart showing the current U.S. government predictions for the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing version going forward. This shows a steady reduction from the $250 million paid for the first production aircraft contracted in 2009, to about $110 million in 2017 and $85 million in 2020. That price includes the aircraft, engine, mission systems and the cost of modifications to incorporate changes subsequently determined by the development test program (the so-called “concurrency costs”). O’Bryan noted that the predictions are in “then-year” dollars, which account for inflation. “The $85 million cost in 2020 would be $75 million in today’s dollars,” he said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Aug 2013 18:53

AWST June 10th issue" $400 Billion spent,FOC for the USAF only in 2019.Chris Bogden,Program Exec. Officer,USAF,(see how the USAF is embedded in the programme),is "in crafting,testing and releasing incremental software packages needed to operate the sophisticate fighter." Another "unknown" is the outcome of the risk-mitigation put in place two years ago to address mounting concerns about the revolutionary helmet display system which is imperfect,would severly hamper nighttime aerial refuelling and shipboard vertical landing. Another helmet manufacturer is on the job .Problems include "night vision acuity and jitter in the gen 2 helmet".A Gen 3 is in the works with input from Elbit.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2013 07:25

Russia to take delivery of PAK-FA in Q3, Japan launches new carrier

Meanwhile back here in America, the Lockheed Martin F-35B completed its 500th vertical landing on 3 August. The B-model is expected to start its second set of sea trials next week on the USS Wasp. Successfully completing of those sea trials is key to declaring F-35B operational with the US Marine Corps in 2015.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2013 07:54

is the navy CTOL JSF testing with strike weapons like harpoon, the new high-alt release torpedo kit and adaptations of other weapons like harm and sea mines?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2013 08:11

Does not answer your question, but provides some info (for F-35A and C):

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 09 Aug 2013 13:49

^^^^^Thanks for posting that NRao.

Hopefully some of that internally mounted weaponry will be applicable to the new navy drone species being developed so the F-35 can more or less just ride herd on a sortie.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Aug 2013 16:34

harpoon is 1500lb so should be easily carried externally. might not fit internally.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Aug 2013 18:42

yeah.. other than pylon strength and size, there should be nothing prevent that be carried internal. for example the brimstones and jdams, including aims are available for either place.

btw, i never believed jsf can be a turkey right from my first vote.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 09 Aug 2013 18:56

So far the US has decided not to go further with Harpoon development. However, Wiki says India plans on hooking their Harpoons to the P-8I Neptune which is a real sweet concept. Imagine, a 737 loaded with Harpoons sweeping the oceans. Nice!

The AGM-158 JASSM can be carried by the F-35 externally. This weapon is the basis for the long range anti-ship missile LRASM being developed by the US Navy so eventually that could be carried by the F-35 although stealth aspects would be compromised.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Aug 2013 09:45

JSF is like goldman sachs. too big to be allowed to fail. when they are done throwing money at it, I expect it will match the F-16 block52 in performance, and obviously outmatch it in stealth and sensors by wide margins, plus the all-you-can-eat buffet of superb khanish munitions....from 50lb to 2000lb..and the new ramjet aam under development...the worlds most advanced irst is available from the f-14d/f-18 lineage.

all in all, it will handily replace all F-16 worldwide if people can afford it.

it was never intended to match the raptor in a2a.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 10 Aug 2013 09:53

^^^
True that. People keep forgetting that "Strike" is the middle name of the JSF.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Aug 2013 11:31

Barring the US,there will be few nations who can afford to acquire it in large number,depending upon the amount they contributed towards its development and the reduced capability (1st,2nd,turd class versions).It is why US allies like Japan,SoKo,Turkey,are all planning to have their own smaller stealth birds with reduced capability as an affordable insurance policy,apart from acquiring more 4++ gen aircraft.However,the USMC is going to be the lucky users of the STOVL version,which to me is the best of the lot (for us),as it has enormous naval applications.By 2020-2025,when the first versions are operational,and our larger carriers are being built or on the drg. board,the STOVL version should be seriously considered by the IN if a stealthy naval avatar of the FGFA has not also arrived by then.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Aug 2013 06:54

The cost of jsf would be $75 million/ air raft in 2020 when the full scale production will start. It'll be pretty affordable to most countries. India will buy these babies after 2020 because of delays related to FGFA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Aug 2013 08:09

That's 7 years away.Plenty of time for the FGFA to mature.In any case ,which version will the IAF get,the 3rd class JSF?! Plus,even if it is in series production by 2020,there is a long list of orders from NATO "partners",who will get first deliveries along with Israel.$70m a JSF is impossible given its elastic limit costs where,no one knows what it is ultimately going to cost as well as the cost of maintenance.This is why,US allies are looking for interim alternatives to keep their numbers happy until a clear picture of the JSF emerges.

A few facts from AWST June 17th issue."Global expectations,Global risk".

1.3F software required for initial IOC for release to international clients slipped to 2019.

2.100 numbers of original 730 cancelled due to costs and global def. cuts.

3.Another 360 are being jeopardised by planning changes and political challenges.Canada has asked for a review after its AG found flaws in its "sole-source" plan,and is asking for a competition.

4.UK and Oz remain committed,but some purchases likely to be deferred to beyond...2030! Major polit. groups in Italy and the Netherlands are opposed to buying JSFs.

5.The US.The influential Centre for Strategic Budgetary Assessments has recommended reducing JSFs and in some cases tactical fighter forces in favour of longer-range systems.

6.Acquisition rate for both B and C versions reduced to 40 from 50 per year. A USAF discrepancy in figures between actual existing type aircraft in service in 2030 ,of around 300,which will further reduce JSF numbers.

7.This has opened up large opportunities worldwide for 4++ fighters for the western and Middle East market.Bahrein has just announced an initial Typhoon acquisition for 12 fighters .Boeing is also planning a longer-ranged stealthier,more powerful SH,mainly for US allies like Oz,which has bought Growlers,the first time this type has been sold abroad even to a US ally.

With orders being drastically reduced,there is no way that the JSF cost can be kept down to under $100m,more likely $125m as some estimate.

srin · Post by **srin** » 12 Aug 2013 09:06

Well, if you have many flat-tops (helicopter carriers or LHDs) and don't want to invest in STOBAR/CATOBAR dedicated carriers, then F-35B is the only game in town (harriers are just outdated).

It's kinda my fantasy that we build flat-top cruisers that can also accommodate around 10 fighters. That realistically means F-35Bs. The F-35 just doesn't have competition.

It may be way more expensive per-unit, and it may be way less capable than advertised, but there will be navies who will be computing the total cost of building a full carrier and equipping them with carrier-capable aircraft and comparing against lighter carriers with F-35s.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Aug 2013 09:20

Srin,that is exactly what I've posted in an earlier post,that the STOVL version is the best of the types of JSF for us,if there is no naval FGFA in the pipeline.It would save a few billions for each carrier avoiding cats,pluys the extra powerplants needed to operate them,why the RN is also buying the STOVL version,reversing their earlier decision to buy the conventional cat-launched one.

Now,from all available info,IAC-2 is going to be a larger 65,000t+ carrier.Having spent a lot of time and money training our naval aviators in STOBAR ops,would it not be unwise to later on use cats,adding to extensive cost,etc.,hwich will add to the carrier cost by a few billion $? The Q is what aircraft will be used on IAC-2.One can expect IAC-2 to be in service only by about 2025.By then we would have options like naval Rafales,MIG-29Ks and their future upgraded versions,poss. a naval FGFA and the JSF.I don't add the NLCA to the list because we will certainly buy it when it arrives and use it on the smaller carriers,the VIK and Vikrant,IAC-1,where it would be easier to operate.A naval FGFA version could be both cat/STOBAR launched and the In will be able to have a good look at its capabilities once the prototypes are being tested in India.

For our amphib vessels,acquiring the STOVL JSF should be examined seriously in the future,as these would give the vessels integral fire support and integral air defence,for supporting the marines/landing forces just as the USMC is planning with the aircraft.If we are acquiring about 4-5 amphib vessels,then a force of about 36-40 STOVL JSFs would be very welcome,as their very high cost would preclude them from

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Aug 2013 18:22

Philip,

From what I read I think program is doing very well and on track to achieve its objective. It is already the best selling (36/year production) aircraft in low rate initial production phase. I think the delay is working very well for the customers in financial stress so I do not see major problems

I think India should buy/assemble ~300 JSF between 2020 and 2030 of all versions for all 3 branches of its armed forces. In 2020 India's defense budget would be ~$100B and by 2030 it will be north of $200B/yera. We can afford a lot and JSF would add a lot of punch for very affordable cost.

I am not sure about FGFA and it's value for India. It'll cost many times more than JSF over its life time in spare parts (if they are available) and operating cost.

Cancel FGFA and go for AMCA with JSF engines......

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Aug 2013 19:50

Katare,from all the latest US info,the JSF programme is slipping badly and has serious developmental problems,esp. with its software.The software has been conceived as such,requiring each tranche/Block to be perfected before the next level of software can be added on for Block 2,3,etc.If these are not perfected,some blocks cannot perform their capabilities fully. Moreover,there are serious problems with the revolutionary helmet which contains all the displays.The single engine is also a large monster,totally unsuitable for an AMCA,just lok at its diameter.I have listed above the latest problems in detail.They speak for themselves.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Aug 2013 19:53

Only IN has showed interest with JSF., especially to phase out the sea-harrier squads.. so as long as the harriers can survive, JSFs will show some talisman to IN. BTW that $75m pop is something wrong.. it just can't be true/jmt.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Aug 2013 19:56

The latest LM cost figure estimate it to be at $85 Million per copy, in 2020, with production at 100 per year.

Current cost is $120 million, at 36 per year.

LM has termed the project at:

“This is a program at a tipping point,” O’Bryan said. “I am cautiously optimistic.”

Source, June, 2013: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-1 ... costs.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Aug 2013 20:32

Two AWST reorts.The first June 17th,from which I posted details of problems.In that report,there is a global map showing all JSF customers,their original planned order numbers,revised numbers and actual orders.Just a few figs. for example.

USMC originally wanted 600 aircraft,reduced to 340,on order 32! USN 480,down to 360,11 ordered.Only the USAF with 1760+ remains the same.The UK,next largest customer,85 down to 56,2 on order.

The report was by Bill Seeetman,veteran aviation expert and Amy Butler .There is another figure showing the F-35s competition,which includes the F-18E?F SH,F-15 Strike Eagle,Rafale,Typhoon and JAS 39E Gripen.These aircraft are seriously being looked as alternatives to the JSF by US allies.

Now the AWST July 15th issue states that "based upon contracted LRIP 5 aircraft,the F-35A (basic version) is estimated at $105M.The STOVL F-35B at $113M and the F-35C at $125M." Based upon the "revised concurrency estimates" the Pentagon can expect to pay "an additional $10M per aircraft,about 10% of the price of the F-35A.Last winter,Lt.Gen.Bogden,AF general,programme exec. head.,hoped to stabilise the export variant (turd class-no bells and whistles) at around $80-90M.Imagine production costs by 2020! My estimate that the STOVL version which may suit the IN's needs will be closer to $150M.It is already $123M if you add the extra $10M for essential retrofits.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 12 Aug 2013 21:09

Philip,
All fighter development project goes through this media scrutiny and doom/gloom phase but most pull out nicely in the end. JSF is going in to 7th production contract signing phase and as promised they have reduced prise by 8% in 2 installments. With the build size or 3500 aircraft it'll be one of the cheapest aircraft in the world of its time. Fighters cost a lot because the number produced per years are limited, JSF is designed from the start for both commercial and technical success.

The first JSF was sold for $250M and current contract is for $120M and the trend will continue to take it to $75-85M range. The cost solely depends on the size of the order book and since US alone is buying ~2300 aircraft, the cost has no where but to go down.

You have cost spiraling issues in the projects that have small number of aircraft being produced ove decades. Delays add up to a large amount of money per aircraft in these projects, JSF do not have that problem, FGFA will suffer from it. Another example is Arjun, its so expansive because of the small order size while T90s are so cheap because they are produced in large numbers.

In couple of years you will see the changing tones of media and comentators once things start to gel a bit.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Aug 2013 07:33

Katare wrote:The cost solely depends on the size of the order book

Also the fact that it is designed to replace several aircraft types with one platform is expected to lead to across-the-board cost savings in streamlined training, logistics and maintenance, making it a "too big to fail" program. As reported, light is emerging at the end of the tunnel for the F-35 along with the US economy. This plane will serve the US for at least 4-5 decades and will undergo continuous upgrades to keep current. Looking back, it is difficult to imagine that the Hornet first flew more than 3 decades ago but is still a cutting edge weapon with another decade or more to go.

You have cost spiraling issues in the projects that have small number of aircraft being produced ove decades. Delays add up to a large amount of money per aircraft in these projects, JSF do not have that problem, FGFA will suffer from it. Another example is Arjun, its so expansive because of the small order size while T90s are so cheap because they are produced in large numbers.

In couple of years you will see the changing tones of media and comentators once things start to gel a bit.

Absolutely. And while I believe India (not just DRDO/HAL) will get its own top notch 5th gen fighter because it is more than a matter of mere cost, I believe the F-35 will find itself in the IAF and IN but as usual, we will be late to the party and will pay through the lower apertures for our muddled thinking and lack of foresight.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2013 08:16

You seem very optimistic about JSF timeframe and costs! From available info,with economies in slowdown,other than the US,the aircraft is going to be few and far between in service,at least until 2025.A build rate of 40 per yr. ,as mentioned,down from 50 because of dwindling numbers,also means that only 400-500 aircraft can be built in a decade.That's the number that one can expect by 2030 and the bulk will be first for the USAF,USN and USMC ,the latter probably being the first to operate the type.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2013 08:35

Philip wrote:You seem very optimistic about JSF timeframe and costs! From available info,with economies in slowdown,other than the US,the aircraft is going to be few and far between in service,at least until 2025.A build rate of 40 per yr. ,as mentioned {where?},down from 50 because of dwindling numbers,also means that only 400-500 aircraft can be built in a decade.That's the number that one can expect by 2030 and the bulk will be first for the USAF,USN and USMC ,the latter probably being the first to operate the type.

If you have a more recent article then I stand corrected.

June 13, 2013 :: Lockheed Martin Says F-35 Production Gain to Reduce Costs

Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) said it has sufficient time to more than double production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter when needed, with higher building rates allowing cost reductions of about 30 percent.

U.S. and international buyers will help spur output {KEY: demand} to more than 100 planes annually by about 2020 from 36 aircraft this year, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for the F-35 program, said in an interview at the Paris Air Show. Efficiencies from the growth will down a single fighter’s production costs to about $85 million then from $120 million now, he said.

The Pentagon is in final talks with Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin on several billion dollars in orders for the next two annual batches of F-35 production amid efforts to make up for earlier delays stemming from cost and technology disputes. The new contracts may exceed 70 planes.

“This is a program at a tipping point,” O’Bryan said. “I am cautiously optimistic.”

The U.S., which has bought 29 of the jets annually in recent years, will increase order volume in 2015, with purchases from abroad also helping drive deliveries. The eighth year of production is scheduled to include building F-35s for Norway, Italy, Japan and Israel. Lockheed Martin already has adequate production capacity in place to build 60 planes a year, O’Bryan said.

“We are ahead of that bow wave and we feel confident we can do that,” O’Bryan said.

Lockheed Martin also is competing in South Korea for an order of as many as 60 planes, with the Boeing Co. (BA) F-15 and the Eurofighter venture’s Typhoon model in the running. Singapore also is looking at buying the single-engine Lockheed jet, O’Bryan said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Wall in Paris via [email protected]

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2013 08:53

Commenting on the PAK-FA:

"There is no mission and no adversary for such plane," Russian defense analyst Konovalov says. "It would be more expedient to fit modern avionics to older generation jets."

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 13 Aug 2013 08:56

85 to 120 million for JSF.

Wow, at this price why in the crazy world is IAF going in for Rafale. 20 billion for 200 Rafales make it 100 million a piece. I suggest we leave the Rafale for Pakis to buy and get Bankrupt.

JSF Needs more serious consideration. I personally believe it will be better than PAK-FA just because of the learning curve for Russians and the regress in their capabilities post cold war.

This is as shiny bird as one can get their hands on for our Imported Air Force. (going to call IAF this until the babudom gets shamed in to inducting LCA in 100's)

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 13 Aug 2013 14:02

Very True indeed, The Raffy is turning out to be a terrible waste of mullah. With an all time rupee low and Raffy's expensive price per unit and very high operational costs the Raffy is one crime of an acquisition while other areas in our military have severe shortage in funds. for the same value of 20 billion, we should be able to get 250 F-35s (125 F-35A for IAF, 75 F-35B for (25) IN & (50)IA & 50 F-35C for IN), in 3 different versions far more useful to all our services. Place this order now and we should be able to recieve the bird starting 2020. India could be 'the' assembly sight for all of Asia, Middle East and Africa (many orders can be expected). Taking part in this program would be one of the most rewarding for aerospace industry in the country. With a large order of 250-300 it should be fairly easy to secure local assembly with most of TOT for airframe, the avionics will still come from unkil but that would be similar to what we get for PAKFA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2013 16:21

The problem with purchasing a US Fighter Aircraft be it F-18 or JSF would be the same as before

1 ) India Objections to US restrictive laws like Logistics Support Agreement, Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) and the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Understanding (CISMOA)
2 ) US Objection for Hard wiring of its fighter aircraft for Nuclear Delivery Role , India wants full independence here ( hence Rafale over F-18 and PAK-FA over JSF )
3 ) Prone to future sanctions affecting spares and support making a substantial fleet of IAF Aircraft less available or worse grounded , something we cannot rule out.
4 ) Non Availability of full source but only capability to add new module for new weapons etc which makes it impossible to know whats inside and does not give full flexibility to programs weapons/sensor according to IAF needs.

JSF has its own short coming even if we discount the cost and other factors that really one cant rely on LM word for it when they have been proven wrong before , JSF does not have Supercruise capability a must for 5th Gen fighter something even 4th Gen fighter like Typhoon boast off. AMCA too would have SC capability

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Aug 2013 16:48

AWST Aug 5/12 issue.latest costs:

F-35A LRIP 5 (32 nos) $124M,LRIP 6 (36) $118.5, 35BLRIP 7 (36) $114.5M

F-35B LRIP 5 $156M, LRIP 6 $150.2M, LRIP 7 $146.9M

F-35C LRIP 5 $144M, LRIP 6 137.7M, LRIP 7 132.9M

The UK has ordered only 48 as against the earlier figure of 138.Block 4 upgrades will take 6 years (!) to develop,because of the time taken to "define the requirements",said Rick Thomson head of the UK's CA

With these costs and further development time being taken by the US which is the global leader in aviation high-tech,surely it is highly optimistic that India will be able to develop a 5th-gen AMCA within a decade,or even by 2015.It is also evident that JSF acquisitions by India if contemplated sometime after 2020,will be prohibitive.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2013 18:16

AWST Aug 5/12 issue.latest costs:

F-35A LRIP 5 (32 nos) $124M,LRIP 6 (36) $118.5, 35BLRIP 7 (36) $114.5M

F-35B LRIP 5 $156M, LRIP 6 $150.2M, LRIP 7 $146.9M

F-35C LRIP 5 $144M, LRIP 6 137.7M, LRIP 7 132.9M

Multiple questions:

* Why post something that is a year old?
* What year dollars are those figures in? (Remember $63 million in 2002 is about the same as $120 million in 2012)
* These figures are for LIRP (Late Rate Initial Production), they WILL be high
* the costs and rate of production I provided were for this year, so please find something comparable. I think they have gone beyond LRIP - so my thinking is that you cannot find figures for LRIP for this year

Philip,

It is very difficult to hold a discussion if you keep posting irrelevant information. IF you want to use cost/price there are fairly recent numbers out there - a month or two off.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2013 18:17

Austin wrote:The problem with purchasing a US Fighter Aircraft be it F-18 or JSF would be the same as before

1 ) India Objections to US restrictive laws like Logistics Support Agreement, Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) and the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Understanding (CISMOA)
2 ) US Objection for Hard wiring of its fighter aircraft for Nuclear Delivery Role , India wants full independence here ( hence Rafale over F-18 and PAK-FA over JSF )
3 ) Prone to future sanctions affecting spares and support making a substantial fleet of IAF Aircraft less available or worse grounded , something we cannot rule out.
4 ) Non Availability of full source but only capability to add new module for new weapons etc which makes it impossible to know whats inside and does not give full flexibility to programs weapons/sensor according to IAF needs.

JSF has its own short coming even if we discount the cost and other factors that really one cant rely on LM word for it when they have been proven wrong before , JSF does not have Supercruise capability a must for 5th Gen fighter something even 4th Gen fighter like Typhoon boast off. AMCA too would have SC capability

I will take them one by one (one in each post):

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2013 18:22

2 ) US Objection for Hard wiring of its fighter aircraft for Nuclear Delivery Role , India wants full independence here ( hence Rafale over F-18 and PAK-FA over JSF )

Nope.

The F-35 is NOT configured - even in the US - for nuclear strikes. They propose to develop a tactical capability (NOT strategic) in the future. BUT TODAY NO F-35 is "Hard wiring" for nuclear capability. None. Zilch.

Having said that I found a cite from 2009, so unless you have something newer than that, that should stand.

On "hence Rafale over F-18 and PAK-FA over JSF" - the prior won on IAF technical grounds, which - I am not too sure - did not have a nuclear dimension to it. The JSF topic is a non issue as noted above.

(My feel is that you wanted to post something against the F-35 and went on to post this point without researching.)