PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

[Philip]

I don't have a "death wish" for the JSF.US allies need it to succeed to face China in the future.However,all the negative news is coming from the US defence establishment itself.When you add up the list ,you can see that the programme is in serious crisis.
Reduced operating parameters/capabilities,equiv to 30 yr. old designs."irrelevant without the F-22",component unreliability like tyres,an AAM that doesn't work properly with the aircraft's communications,the helmet--there's no HUD, that needs to be replaced,parts cracking up,and the worst problem of all,the software glitches.

The same Bogdan also said:

Lieutenant General Bogdan said with more planes in the skies, program bosses now know parts are coming off the aircraft "too frequently" for maintenance. (!)
"The problem here is you're not going to see results in the next two to three months," he said.
"It's going to take months and months and months of constant efforts to see this improve.
"Our goal is by 2015 to see the aircraft at 60 per cent (reliability)."

When is 100% reliability going to arrive? Which buyer will want a less than 100% reliability primary strike fighter paying anywhere between $110M to $150Ma bird at current flexible estimates? Oz's 58 aircraft are costing a total figure of $11.5B! This makes the Rafale look like a steal.

The rising acquisition costs ,maintenance costs,etc.,and extra funding needed to keep the programme on track is getting dangerously close to the Pentagon's "unaffordable" figure.True,orders are coming in from loyal allies,but at reduced numbers which add another 3% approx to unit costs. If you read carefully the GAO report,it says that "Additionally, the most recent life-cycle sustainment cost estimate for the F-35 fleet is more than $1 trillion, which DOD officials have deemed unaffordable. "

The allies unlike the US which has the F-22,however do have a major problem.The aircraft was "never meant to be an air superiority fighter",and US analysts say that it is even inferior in that aspect to current 4th-gen aircraft from both east and west.So they need to buy-like Oz,a fleet of EW Growlers in addition to make up for the JSF's EW deficiencies.When faced with overwhelming superiority in numbers of 4th-gen aircraft like Chinese Flankers ,which can carry upto 16 AAMs,the small numbers of JSFs will as the Rand report said,be outnumbered and outgunned.

Now compare that programme with the FGFA/T-50.If this too like the JSF comes in at horrendous "unaffordable" prices,surely the IAF /MOD will take a good hard look at it before going for it or dumping it. Its development however has been apparently less troublesome thus far.It's the Russian incremental philosophy of testing some tech on existing frontline aircraft like the SU-35,validating them and using upgraded existing engines for initial versions.It is working to an initial IOC by 2016 and is receiving the max support from the govt.The AWST report with the numerous innovations and difference/improvement over the F-22 concept has been well spelt out (posted earlier).There may be delays here too,but given the track record of post Cold War Russian aviation development of the Flanker variants,on solid ground.What the IAF want or do not want in the programme is a matter that must be sorted out asap,once the new dispensation takes charge. One expects that the defence budget will be raised,given the clarion cry from the armed forces,starved of replacements and new weaponry for decades,but there is so much of expectation from the voters that money will be in short supply to go around and priorities must be clearly reviewed and defined.

Xcpt from the Senate hearings on the DEf. avquisitions,budget,etc:
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/im ... 4-8-14.pdf

Senator McCain.
. This is the first trillion dollar system that we
have ever had. What are the lessons learned in this imbroglio
where we have gone from $233 billion in 2001 to over $391 billion
this year? What are the lessons learned here, General?
General BOGDAN
. Sir, we could probably, you and I, get together
and write a book about this. But I will give you a couple of the
things from my perspective on some good lessons learned.
The first lesson is we tend to be overly optimistic when we start
programs in terms of how much they are going to cost, what the
real risk is, and how long they are going to take. We need to do
a better job up front of being more realistic and more honest with
ourselves about how much programs are really going to cost and
what the real technical and fiscal risks are. I do not think we did
that on this program. That is one.
Two, it is very, very hard to run a program when you start pro-
duction before you have ever tested a single airplane because every
time you find something new in flight test, you now have to not
only go back and fix airplanes you have already produced, but you
have to cut all those fixes into the production line. That creates a
complexity that is pretty significant and it costs some money.

Senator MC CAIN
. Well, at least we ought to know the names ofthe people made this kind of cockamamie agreement to start with
because there were many of us that—you forgot the fundamentalthat we adopted during the Reagan years: fly before you buy. Fly
before you buy.
General BOGDAN
. I do not disagree with you, sir.
Senator MCCAIN.If we had adhered to that principle, we probably would not find ourselves in the situation we are in.
I just have a short time left. General Davis, right now I understand the A–10s are to be phased out. Is that your understanding?
General DAVIS
Sir, that is.
Senator MCCAIN.What is going to replace it?
General DAVIS
. Sir, if you look at the systems we are using today and have used since Iraq, the A–10s have basically failed about 20
percent of the call for CAS missions. So that means we are doing it with F–16s. We are doing it with F–15Es. We are doing it with
B–1s and B–52s. We are doing it with precision weapons that werenot part of the A–10 suite.
Senator MCCAIN
. So they are better suited for close air supportthan the A–10 is. Is that correct?
General DAVIS
. Sir, I did not say they are better suited. I saidthey can do that mission based on—
Senator MCCAIN
. Depending on what kind of conflict we are in.Right?
General DAVIS
. It does.
Senator MCCAIN
. If we are in a more conventional conflict, there
is no aircraft or weapons system that does the job of the A–10. Is
there?
General DAVIS
. Sir, it does its mission very well. It is designed or one mission. It does that mission well.
Senator MCCAIN
. That one mission happens to be close air support.
General DAVIS
. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCAIN
. I thank the chairman

[NRao]

There is always a need for a comic relief in such serious matter. So welcome to *the* show.

Senator MC CAIN
. Well, at least we ought to know the names ofthe people made this kind of cockamamie agreement to start with
because there were many of us that—you forgot the fundamentalthat we adopted during the Reagan years: fly before you buy. Fly
before you buy.
General BOGDAN
. I do not disagree with you, sir.
Senator MCCAIN.If we had adhered to that principle, we probably would not find ourselves in the situation we are in.
I just have a short time left. General Davis, right now I understand the A–10s are to be phased out. Is that your understanding?
General DAVIS
......................................
. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCAIN
. I thank the chairman

That is a very, very small part of a much larger discussion at the US Senate.

The entire Senate proceedings can be found here and is not that bad. After all it is appropriations. And ................ ta da, after all that noise, dog and pony dance, keeping the Ozies in good humor and employed (I guess others outside Oz too), the Senate provided sufficient funds. Bottom line:

Senator BLUMENTHAL
. But you gave us an estimate earlier, going by memory, that it would go from $112 million a copy down to about $80 million——
General BOGDAN
. $80 million to $85 million. That includes all the things we just talked about, sir.

Even with those falling parts? (Bet Chinese sleuths will congregate in Oz to collect all these falling parts.)

Now we all can go back to doing our daily jobs knowing that the F-35B will attain IOC next year - as planned.

Thank you.

[NRao]

If *anyone* cares to read, Australians evidently do not and that trend seems to be catching on in other parts of the world?

How odd. When did anyone last follow an Oz?

from those "parts are falling" Senate proceedings:

General BOGDAN
. Yes, sir. The Gen 2 helmet, which will be available from now until 2016, is adequate to meet the U.S. Marine Corps’ IOC. And I defer to General Schmidle because he is the gentleman I asked when we went and talked about is it good enough. He is the guy that said it is good enough. Beyond 2016, when we get the Gen 3 helmet, I believe that from a technical standpoint we will have a fully capable helmet that meets all of the requirements at the end of the program for everybody.

We had a tough time over the last 2 years, but I think we have turned the corner on that, sir.

From *the* horses mouth, the road map for the one and only helmet "with falling parts".

Senator BLUMENTHAL
. General Schmidle, I think you have commented on that helmet, the Gen 2 helmet, as being suitable for the IOC. Is that correct?
General SCHMIDLE
. Yes, sir, we did, Chairman. From talking to the pilots that are flying in the helmet today and putting it through its paces, we believe that that helmet will, in fact, be adequate to get us to the initial operational capability. What General Bogdan just said is in 2016, we look forward to getting the Gen 3 helmet which will give us the full capability prior to the squadron’s first deployment in 2017.
Senator BLUMENTHAL
. Thank you.

When people talk to the *right* people, then they get the right answers.

Point must be practiced.

[Sid]

Last time they had such a botched project was with F-111. That time too they had the same thought process of common platform for all arms. Instead of a affordable all around fighter, it turned into a jack of all.

F-35 is no different. They will soon realize the blunder they have done.

[NRao]

"Falling parts" continued (backwards granted):

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHRISTOPHER C. BOGDAN, USAF,PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, F–35 LIGHTNING II JOINT
PROGRAM OFFICE
General BOGDAN
. Thank you, sir. Chairman Blumenthal, Rank-
ing Member Wicker, and distinguished members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to address this committee and dis-
cuss the F–35 Lightning II program.
Over the past few years, we have focused on creating and main-
taining a realistic program baseline for DOD’s largest acquisition
program, and despite a turbulent past, the program is making slow
but steady progress on all fronts, to include technical improve-
ments and driving costs out of the program.
I believe the F–35 is headed in the right direction and I am con-
fident in our ability to meet the U.S. Marine Corps initial oper-
ating capability and the Air Force’s initial operating capability in
the summer of 2015 and the summer of 2016, respectively, with all
the capabilities our warfighters need. We are now seeing the bene-
fits of the disciplined systems engineering process that we insti-
tuted a few years ago in response to technical issues, including im-
provements in our helmet, the C-model hook, fuel dump capability,
weapons capability, lightning restrictions, and night all-weather
flying. We are closely managing the F–35 onboard and offboard
software, and software remains the number one technical risk on
the program. We have also fundamentally changed the way we are
developing ALIS, our logistics information system, and are also
fully committed to making the F–35 more affordable in both the
cost of buying the aircraft and the cost of operating and sustaining
the aircraft.
Finally, I want to thank Congress and the Department of De-
fense for their support during the past 2 years of budget instability.
The program has weathered this storm relatively intact with no
changes to the development program and our aircraft quantities
were preserved in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, though the
Department has reduced those quantities in fiscal year 2015.

I would like to close by saying that my team is focused and m-
mitted to doing the very best we can for the warfighters, taxpayers,
and our partners to ensure that the F–35 meets the needs of all
our Nation’s defenses. To that end, my team is rising to the chal-
lenge of managing this very large, complex program with integrity,
transparency, accountability, and discipline. I ask that you hold me
and my team accountable in the coming years to ensure that we
develop and deliver the warfighting capability this country needs
and expects.

[NRao]

No matter what have the decency to post the good and the bad.

And, are we really to believe that the commercial (civilian) side does not make such large mistakes?

____________________________

More out of curiosity, on:

They will soon realize the blunder they have done.

Do you consider the concept. design or its implementation that could be botched? Or all three? And, what exactly would be considered a "blunder"?

[Cain Marko]

The JSF only needs to come close of the mission complexity so demands. The line up of Stand off and medium-long range weapons for the F-35 is extensive and includes multiple options. Not only that but the approach from day 1 (program conception) has been to have it net enabled so a considerable dollar amount was spent to get the weapons ready so that they are net-enabled as well. This is the concept for the Air sea battle spearheaded by the US navy. For SO targeting the F-35 has options to carry the JASSMER externally (1000 km range), JASSM (350 km), JSOW (Internally or externally ; 130 km), AGM-84H (250+ km), Kongsberg JSM (250-300 km). Out of the cheaper PGM's (less than 200K$ cost) you have the SDB I and SDB II that will give you a range greater than 100 km from altitude (tri mode weapons with layer of GPS targeting added if required), and of course you have your line of standard US PGM's and LGB's. The external weapons are mostly Stand OFF weapons and much like the F-22 the F-35 would be able to jettison the pylons to recover its LO once it gets into enemy territory (http://www.vaq34.com/junk/f22droptanktest.jpg) Most of these weapons are delivered to their services and operational and will be systematically added to the software through incremental upgrades as and when required. For air to air you have the Aim-120D that is brand new version of the AMRAAM that will become operational later this year, European Meteor (longer ranged weapon to the aim-120D). For the future the US will look at the AMRAAM/HARM replacement (NGM) that should have even longer range, the Navy will get the Blk 3 Aim-9x by 2022 that will have a considerable range overlap to the Aim-120C amraam and will be carried internally, this missile seems to be a direct result of the EODAS capability.

Other future missile projects include the Long range anti ship missile, which is a net enabled long range (500-600 km) weapon (more like a UAV) for AsW that focuses on anti-jamming countermeasures and net-centric tactics (as are being added to the Tomahawk). DARPA has already tested one missile from Lockheed which is a version of the JASSM-ER but other solutions also exist that will participate in the program. This requirement is separate from another one that requires a shorter ranged missile with supersonic speed requirement.

Other more ambitious missile programs out there are your Hypersonic weapons that exist in the classified and the unclassified domain. Out of the unclassified programs, the recent waverider program has now been tasked to produced a weapon that can be carried by the F-35 and the B-2 bomber. Boeing and Lockheed both have proposals for the HSSW program and may even team up given the cross company work that both design houses have performed for hypersonic programs. The goal is to get such a weapon out by 2020-2025 time frame.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/high-speed ... -51-flight

The need to get close for A2G is born out of experience and not through free will. Stand off SEAD or air to ground work sounds very good on paper but in reality its tough to execute especially against a peer-adversary. Your SAM guy is just not sitting there with an emitting element just dying to become a martyr when an ARM missile hurls towards him from hundereds of km's away. In reality a lot of the A2G and SEAD work is to use sensors to comb areas to pick off passive and active elements. Most of the SO targeting is reserved for fixed C2C assets, infrastructure targeting or legacy Air defences. The challenge for the JSF program and for the operators was to create not the weapons (most of the weapons existed anyways) but to prepare them for what was coming. The US Navy for example is spending billions to get a new family of tactical data links that are long range and LPI that would effectively enable the Standard missile to be launched from a ship based on a real time targeting track done by an F-35C (Data linke being tested right now under the NIFC-CA banner, to be brought in through the E-2D and the F-35C (AADL block 4 capability) that enables OTH linking of sensors and weapons). The air sea battle (aimed towards CHINA) only looks at the battlespace through the lense of "sensors", "weapons", "cyber-warfare". It refuses to look at whether its an F-35, A-10, F-18 or a damn Cesna doing the bloody work, all it cares for is a sensor on target linked to a weapon on target. SM6 and F-35C EOTS/Apg-81 link up is only a start for where that effort wishes to take the capability.

About the JSF and net centricity, the way I see it: here is a difference between the needs of the USN/AF and others, which do not enjoy the same level of support infrastructure. The JSF (as is the Shornet) is enabled by the many assets that the US uses to keep the shooter/weapon in the loop. This is reflected by the focus on subsonics. Otoh, Russia and even India, rely on fast movers fired from a distance. To build up the kind of capability that the US has and requires for optimally using the JSF is beyond their capability (read massive carrier support with AEGIS destroyers, satellite coverage, AWACS, MPAs, all around. Makes sense to get them all datalinked with fast links). It is for this reason that the USN might think of using a cessna to fire standoff pgms or even the relatively kinematic disaster that is the JSF. Countries that don't have such assets, choose other routes - fast birds with exceptional agility/maneuverability, and even faster missiles.

Thing is, all this is great for A2S work, but once the Chinese have any worthwhile number of stealth platforms airborne, the life of the JSF becomes quite miserable. Its ability to provide continuous tracks will be contested quite robustly by PLAN/AF 5gen assets if it is not already. The JSF might be the most intensely networked fighter ever, however, how far it will actually be able to pass along the information remains to be seen in an airspace that could be saturated with long range radars, AWACs, SAMS and 4.5/5 gen fighters. That is where the reliance on the F22 with its superior kinematic ability will help.

More pertinently, will the networking ability of the JSF and its netenabled weapons be limited by the infrastructure that the IAF possesses? Basic rule of networking remains - the network is only as good as its weakest link. The more I read about this bird, the more it seems to be designed to take out AL Qeeda types with dare I say, an over reliance on stealth - something that could be challenged if not jeopardized in hotly contested airspace. Ironic, its greatest strength might just be its achilles heel.

While the PAKFA has many very impressive capabilities and i strongly believe that for an air dominance mission it is the best bet for the IAF given the options in front if it (i however disagree with the path the IAF is taking, I would have saved the 6 billion and bought off the shelf T-50's while putting that 6 billion into the AMCA) however weapons lineup, capability both at IOC/FOC and projected weapons development is not its strong suite when compared to the F-35, for in the weapons development race its the $$ that count and amrika has spent the billions over the last decade or so to have a long list of net-enabled weapons both operational and in the pipeline, in addition to the fact that they along with others are spending money to make sure partner weapons are also integrated which the PAKFA/FGFA program never will due to it being a fairly closed program. Come 2020's and many European (Meteors, maybe storm shadow, JSM/NSM), Israeli and asian (japanese and South Korean) weapons would involve zero integration costs for a new customer.

AFAIK the 6 billion has not yet been spent, and whether it is a worthy investment or not, we can judge only after some details on the JV contract are disclosed. As far as weapons are concerned, one can expect the Pakfa to get newer gen weapons both from Russia and India and possibly Israel. Thing is, integrating Indian weapons with a JSF will probably entail another astronomical price, if at all all the end user agreements allow this in the first place. But overall, I agree that the sheer variety of new gen weapons available for the JSF (potentially) is quite mind boggling.

[Cain Marko]

CM ji,

Do not know what to say.

We are not even in the same city, leave alone the same ball park.

IF that is your understanding of the situation, then best of luck.

I would be scared as hell with that kind of a Russian plane.

To each his own I suppose. there are those who might feel similarly about a sanction prone, super expensive aircraft that is no more than a hobbled, one trick pony (stealth). But seeing it purely from India's pov, may the decision-makers make the right decision. Doubt anyone here doesn't see the AMCA as the true way forward.

[NRao]

About the JSF and net centricity, the way I see it: here is a difference between the needs of the USN/AF and others, which do not enjoy the same level of support infrastructure. The JSF (as is the Shornet) is enabled by the many assets that the US uses to keep the shooter/weapon in the loop. This is reflected by the focus on subsonics. Otoh, Russia and even India, rely on fast movers fired from a distance. To build up the kind of capability that the US has and requires for optimally using the JSF is beyond their capability (read massive carrier support with AEGIS destroyers, satellite coverage, AWACS, MPAs, all around. Makes sense to get them all datalinked with fast links). It is for this reason that the USN might think of using a cessna to fire standoff pgms or even the relatively kinematic disaster that is the JSF. Countries that don't have such assets, choose other routes - fast birds with exceptional agility/maneuverability, and even faster missiles.

Thing is, all this is great for A2S work, but once the Chinese have any worthwhile number of stealth platforms airborne, the life of the JSF becomes quite miserable. Its ability to provide continuous tracks will be contested quite robustly by PLAN/AF 5gen assets if it is not already. The JSF might be the most intensely networked fighter ever, however, how far it will actually be able to pass along the information remains to be seen in an airspace that could be saturated with long range radars, AWACs, SAMS and 4.5/5 gen fighters. That is where the reliance on the F22 with its superior kinematic ability will help.

More pertinently, will the networking ability of the JSF be limited by the infrastructure that the IAF possesses? Basic rule of networking remains - the network is only as good as its weakest link. The more I read about this bird, the more it seems to be designed to take out AL Qeeda types with dare I say, an over reliance on stealth - something that could be challenged if not jeopardized in hotly contested airspace. Ironic, its greatest strength might just be its achilles heel.

1) "Network" is not the network we are used to. This one has insane bandwidth, built in security, built in routing and many other features. which is why it is very difficult for most beat writers to even understand some of what is designed in platforms to accommodate this "network".

2) I have no clue what the Russians have, but it is my understanding that India has gravitated towards the US model - certainly with Indian tweaks (security, etc). But, the basic idea of insane bandwidth, etc has been retained. Could anyone confirm this?

I am sure that everyone will catch up, but, for sure the old thinking will have to be ditched.

It is things like #2 that makes me believe that India cannot induct - any more - a off-the-shelf platform from *any* nation. A "PAK-FA" - I feel - is a no go from the start. it has got to be a FGFA/AMCA.

The same reason I think the JSF is not a good fit - the situation can be modified, true, but at large cost.

The Chinese should be more advanced than the Russians - simply because they stole a lot of stuff. But, they have no R&D to lean on and therefore are in a twilight zone and will remain there till they improvise, steal more or their R&D catches up (the last one I doubt very much). Even what they stole is over engineered. They still need Russian help for basic things. What they have is formidable - no doubt, but not sustainable. So, if India can overcome what the Chinese have, the Chinese I very much doubt will be able to field the next version that is formidable enough to be considered as teh next gen.

[Sid]

No matter what have the decency to post the good and the bad.

And, are we really to believe that the commercial (civilian) side does not make such large mistakes?

____________________________

More out of curiosity, on:

They will soon realize the blunder they have done.

Do you consider the concept. design or its implementation that could be botched? Or all three? And, what exactly would be considered a "blunder"?

"Blunder" in the sense of trying to create a common platform for USAF, Marines and Navy, all in one. All three arms have too different requirements to fit into a common platform.

One logic they used in the past as well was about common parts that this platform will use, reducing the overall life-cycle and maintenance cost. Well, that does not seem to be happening.

Overweight STOL/VTOL F-35 version. Just in the name of VTOL capability, F-35 have made so many compromises (less weapon load, less acceleration, etc).

F-35 is not the first plane to try VTOL using extra lift fans. Dassault/LM/Yakovlev all have tried and failed at reducing the overall weight problem.

Crux of the issue is every service have their unique requirements and there is no silver bullet to this problem.

[NRao]

To each his own I suppose. there are those who might feel similarly about a sanction prone, super expensive aircraft that is no more than a hobbled, one trick pony (stealth). But seeing it purely from India's pov, may the decision-makers make the right decision. Doubt anyone here doesn't see the AMCA as the true way forward.

I entirely agree "to each his own" - no two ways.

But, to conduct a discussion one needs some base - what I call data points. On matters like "network centricity" I would not compare.

But, up to you.

[NRao]

"Blunder" in the sense of trying to create a common platform for USAF, Marines and Navy, all in one. All three arms have too different requirements to fit into a common platform.

One logic they used in the past as well was about common parts that this platform will use, reducing the overall life-cycle and maintenance cost. Well, that does not seem to be happening.

Overweight STOL/VTOL F-35 version. Just in the name of VTOL capability, F-35 have made so many compromises (less weapon load, less acceleration, etc).

F-35 is not the first plane to try VTOL using extra lift fans. Dassault/LM/Yakovlev all have tried and failed at reducing the overall weight problem.

Crux of the issue is every service have their unique requirements and there is no silver bullet to this problem.

I do not think this to be a weak argument, but I do consider it to be an incomplete one.

Along with the "design" of the F-35 there was a rethinking of many other factors - including how to fight a ground war. (Which is why I complain that people need to read up - padho, phir padahi karo.)

So, as an example, those that have not read up (exception; US Senators and reps) on this ground war bit, are bound to complain about the F-35 replacing the A-10.

Or the famous time it takes the F-35 to turn. Why does it need to get into a contest of turning time?

Now, all these bits of info are not in one place. They are also released over time and many a times one has to connect dots. The latest info that was "released" was with the AU folks (posted in the JSF thread). I fully expect the next "release" to be at the UK event coming up.

Two items to consider: when they painted the F-35 picture they took a very broad brush - they took into account a lot more than what one normally would take into account (which is why I *feel* that the PAK-FA/J-20 will not be able to compete - my take). And, no one has the experience in this matter that the US industry has, not even close.

Finally, having said all that, you are absolutely right that it could be botched. But, I do not think it would be for the reasons you have provided.

Thanks tho'. Appreciate your response.

[brar_w]

The JSF only needs to come close of the mission complexity so demands. The line up of Stand off and medium-long range weapons for the F-35 is extensive and includes multiple options. Not only that but the approach from day 1 (program conception) has been to have it net enabled so a considerable dollar amount was spent to get the weapons ready so that they are net-enabled as well. This is the concept for the Air sea battle spearheaded by the US navy. For SO targeting the F-35 has options to carry the JASSMER externally (1000 km range), JASSM (350 km), JSOW (Internally or externally ; 130 km), AGM-84H (250+ km), Kongsberg JSM (250-300 km). Out of the cheaper PGM's (less than 200K$ cost) you have the SDB I and SDB II that will give you a range greater than 100 km from altitude (tri mode weapons with layer of GPS targeting added if required), and of course you have your line of standard US PGM's and LGB's. The external weapons are mostly Stand OFF weapons and much like the F-22 the F-35 would be able to jettison the pylons to recover its LO once it gets into enemy territory (http://www.vaq34.com/junk/f22droptanktest.jpg) Most of these weapons are delivered to their services and operational and will be systematically added to the software through incremental upgrades as and when required. For air to air you have the Aim-120D that is brand new version of the AMRAAM that will become operational later this year, European Meteor (longer ranged weapon to the aim-120D). For the future the US will look at the AMRAAM/HARM replacement (NGM) that should have even longer range, the Navy will get the Blk 3 Aim-9x by 2022 that will have a considerable range overlap to the Aim-120C amraam and will be carried internally, this missile seems to be a direct result of the EODAS capability.

Other future missile projects include the Long range anti ship missile, which is a net enabled long range (500-600 km) weapon (more like a UAV) for AsW that focuses on anti-jamming countermeasures and net-centric tactics (as are being added to the Tomahawk). DARPA has already tested one missile from Lockheed which is a version of the JASSM-ER but other solutions also exist that will participate in the program. This requirement is separate from another one that requires a shorter ranged missile with supersonic speed requirement.

Other more ambitious missile programs out there are your Hypersonic weapons that exist in the classified and the unclassified domain. Out of the unclassified programs, the recent waverider program has now been tasked to produced a weapon that can be carried by the F-35 and the B-2 bomber. Boeing and Lockheed both have proposals for the HSSW program and may even team up given the cross company work that both design houses have performed for hypersonic programs. The goal is to get such a weapon out by 2020-2025 time frame.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/high-speed ... -51-flight

The need to get close for A2G is born out of experience and not through free will. Stand off SEAD or air to ground work sounds very good on paper but in reality its tough to execute especially against a peer-adversary. Your SAM guy is just not sitting there with an emitting element just dying to become a martyr when an ARM missile hurls towards him from hundereds of km's away. In reality a lot of the A2G and SEAD work is to use sensors to comb areas to pick off passive and active elements. Most of the SO targeting is reserved for fixed C2C assets, infrastructure targeting or legacy Air defences. The challenge for the JSF program and for the operators was to create not the weapons (most of the weapons existed anyways) but to prepare them for what was coming. The US Navy for example is spending billions to get a new family of tactical data links that are long range and LPI that would effectively enable the Standard missile to be launched from a ship based on a real time targeting track done by an F-35C (Data linke being tested right now under the NIFC-CA banner, to be brought in through the E-2D and the F-35C (AADL block 4 capability) that enables OTH linking of sensors and weapons). The air sea battle (aimed towards CHINA) only looks at the battlespace through the lense of "sensors", "weapons", "cyber-warfare". It refuses to look at whether its an F-35, A-10, F-18 or a damn Cesna doing the bloody work, all it cares for is a sensor on target linked to a weapon on target. SM6 and F-35C EOTS/Apg-81 link up is only a start for where that effort wishes to take the capability.

About the JSF and net centricity, the way I see it: here is a difference between the needs of the USN/AF and others, which do not enjoy the same level of support infrastructure. The JSF (as is the Shornet) is enabled by the many assets that the US uses to keep the shooter/weapon in the loop. This is reflected by the focus on subsonics. Otoh, Russia and even India, rely on fast movers fired from a distance. To build up the kind of capability that the US has and requires for optimally using the JSF is beyond their capability (read massive carrier support with AEGIS destroyers, satellite coverage, AWACS, MPAs, all around. Makes sense to get them all datalinked with fast links). It is for this reason that the USN might think of using a cessna to fire standoff pgms or even the relatively kinematic disaster that is the JSF. Countries that don't have such assets, choose other routes - fast birds with exceptional agility/maneuverability, and even faster missiles.

Thing is, all this is great for A2S work, but once the Chinese have any worthwhile number of stealth platforms airborne, the life of the JSF becomes quite miserable. Its ability to provide continuous tracks will be contested quite robustly by PLAN/AF 5gen assets if it is not already. The JSF might be the most intensely networked fighter ever, however, how far it will actually be able to pass along the information remains to be seen in an airspace that could be saturated with long range radars, AWACs, SAMS and 4.5/5 gen fighters. That is where the reliance on the F22 with its superior kinematic ability will help.

More pertinently, will the networking ability of the JSF and its netenabled weapons be limited by the infrastructure that the IAF possesses? Basic rule of networking remains - the network is only as good as its weakest link. The more I read about this bird, the more it seems to be designed to take out AL Qeeda types with dare I say, an over reliance on stealth - something that could be challenged if not jeopardized in hotly contested airspace. Ironic, its greatest strength might just be its achilles heel.

While the PAKFA has many very impressive capabilities and i strongly believe that for an air dominance mission it is the best bet for the IAF given the options in front if it (i however disagree with the path the IAF is taking, I would have saved the 6 billion and bought off the shelf T-50's while putting that 6 billion into the AMCA) however weapons lineup, capability both at IOC/FOC and projected weapons development is not its strong suite when compared to the F-35, for in the weapons development race its the $$ that count and amrika has spent the billions over the last decade or so to have a long list of net-enabled weapons both operational and in the pipeline, in addition to the fact that they along with others are spending money to make sure partner weapons are also integrated which the PAKFA/FGFA program never will due to it being a fairly closed program. Come 2020's and many European (Meteors, maybe storm shadow, JSM/NSM), Israeli and asian (japanese and South Korean) weapons would involve zero integration costs for a new customer.

AFAIK the 6 billion has not yet been spent, and whether it is a worthy investment or not, we can judge only after some details on the JV contract are disclosed. As far as weapons are concerned, one can expect the Pakfa to get newer gen weapons both from Russia and India and possibly Israel. Thing is, integrating Indian weapons with a JSF will probably entail another astronomical price, if at all all the end user agreements allow this in the first place. But overall, I agree that the sheer variety of new gen weapons available for the JSF (potentially) is quite mind boggling.

I quite disagree with most of your assessment. Fast shooting missiles are not something the US is not considering (or has not considered) quite unlike you put it. As I have pointed out they expect fast stand off missiles (hypersonics) specifically for the F-35 and have them in development. As far as CHINESE capabilities making the JSF less potent, it is basically a poor argument since no one knows those capabilities (if you do kindly do share with me the sophistication of the chinese 5th gen jets) and the fact that evaluator after evaluator in the asia pacific region has endorsed the F-35 to confront those capabilities, including the US that has a history of making fighters.

Otoh, Russia and even India, rely on fast movers fired from a distance.

The USN also will be relying on fast movers as you put. Their concept (along with that of the AF) For the role of fast movers is different. It will be a SO prompt strike weapon. You have to justifying launching a hypersonic that costs millions per round, and cannot treat it at the same level of discretion as a JDAM or a SDB that cost a few hundred thousand at most. They already have subsonic LONG RANGE stand off capability in the form of the JASSM and JASSMER and F-35 customers will probably have non american SO weapon options (NSM JSM for the start, perhaps later storm shadow). My original point was about a claim that was made to the tune of " JSF Air to Ground concept has it getting close while the PAKFA/T-50 A2G concept is stand off". I merely pointed a point of view that claimed that such was not the case, the US has more weapons in its arsenal (that would be cleared for the f-35 as well) that are truly Stand OFF in the modern battlefield sense of the word. I did not enter much in the "FAST" weapons category as that was not the point being discussed. I can however talk about US and western fast weapon plans for the f-35 and beyond if one so wishes to discuss. I also attempted to drive home the point that the US funding on air to ground is an evolution of SEAD lessons learnt and how the Air defense capability of a peer adversary is evolving. They do not foresee a world where air defense suppression is as easy as standing back and launching a few mach 4 missles from 100-200km away. They are not adding all this "hunting" capability into the f-35 (Network, MADL, EOTS, EODAS, HMD etc) for fun bt to tackle real issues with non-cooperating integrating air defenses.

To build up the kind of capability that the US has and requires for optimally using the JSF is beyond their capability (read massive carrier support with AEGIS destroyers, satellite coverage, AWACS, MPAs, all around. Makes sense to get them all datalinked with fast links). It is for this reason that the USN might think of using a cessna to fire standoff pgms or even the relatively kinematic disaster that is the JSF. Countries that don't have such assets, choose other routes - fast birds with exceptional agility/maneuverability, and even faster missiles.

.

While it is true that everyone has its own choices to make, but the move towards net-centricity is hardly a US exclusive phenomenon. Every air force with any sort of funding is trying to do the same (to the level that it can afford).

Thing is, all this is great for A2S work, but once the Chinese have any worthwhile number of stealth platforms airborne, the life of the JSF becomes quite miserable.

How does it become miserable? What areas are the chinese fighters superior? to the F-35C/B/A and how do their network backends compare to the F-35 and USN's (as the navy would be at the tip of the spear for any such escalation). The US Navy is interested in a networked and layered approach to tackling the chinese rise in the pacific. They are not looking for a "silver" bullet approach where one knight in shining armor comes with mind boggling performance and takes the cake. In practicality they would be foolish not have their investments net-enabled and working synergistically, and those investments do not exist to make up for the F-35 perceived shortcomings, but they exist there for a ROLE, it just so happens that they have built and are building existing networks to link everything up. The Pacific is a vast place, no one option can cover it 100% , better to link everything up for the most flexibility.

When is 100% reliability going to arrive? Which buyer will want a less than 100% reliability primary strike fighter paying anywhere between $110M to $150Ma bird at current flexible estimates? Oz's 58 aircraft are costing a total figure of $11.5B! This makes the Rafale look like a steal.

No International customer is looking to declare Initial operational capability before 2018 or 2019 when full mission capability software arrives and is handed over post testing and debug. I think Australia is looking at 2020 for its IOC. Plenty of time for software work to go on and reliability to catch up. The RAAF as a matter of hedging has built themselves a 12 month buffer between when they expect (the program, the US navy) to receive full block 3 software (3f) and when they IOC. Even if there is no increase in the pace of software work which would be surprising given that there are 4-5 years in between the JPO head does not expect more than a 4-6 month delay, well within the 12 month buffer australia has comfortably built in. The buffer approach is also not dissimilar to what the USAF is doing. The marines expect block 2b to be mature for their parameters by 2015 end. The Air force that requires the same software, will wait till end of the following year to IOC with essentially the same software. The hardware that is required to take the F-35 mission systems from 2b to 3i are not the reason for delay or to worry about for they are flying on test beds as we speak. All three services did add some buffer to the IOC once the re-adjusted them post the delay to the program.

BTW, What's the reliability on the T-50 mission software? Has one production representative mission software even flown? with full mission rep hardware and sub systems?

[brar_w]

Last time they had such a botched project was with F-111. That time too they had the same thought process of common platform for all arms. Instead of a affordable all around fighter, it turned into a jack of all.

F-35 is no different. They will soon realize the blunder they have done.

Nothing like that. The F-16 would be a good comparison, especially given what is written around in the media (and what was written about it then). The F-35 aims very high, Granted. Both in terms of a common platform and system performance. It aims high and aims to enter with a lot of capability in addition to capability in the spiral. There is no blunder here to realize, only a weapons system to develop and get out into the field. Software is always going to be a problem, because the hardware folks keep designing awesome hardware that requires a tremendous capability from the software to extract the most out of it. How will the russians manage without software for all the hardware that is being speculated about for the PAKFA? The F-35's software is its biggest concern as far as delays are concerned, much like the F-22 program (Go over the archives). Yet just like the F-22 program the software will catch up and provide what its required to. Software also has a different "curve" than traditional hardware cockups. While hardware delays are painstaking due to physical stuff that needs to be re-done to validate changed designs, software control can be established once you add more engineers to the team and once they are up to the standard as far as experience is concerned.

I don't have a "death wish" for the JSF.US allies need it to succeed to face China in the future.However,all the negative news is coming from the US defence establishment itself.When you add up the list ,you can see that the programme is in serious crisis.
Reduced operating parameters/capabilities,equiv to 30 yr. old designs."irrelevant without the F-22",component unreliability like tyres,an AAM that doesn't work properly with the aircraft's communications,the helmet--there's no HUD, that needs to be replaced,parts cracking up,and the worst problem of all,the software glitches.

The same Bogdan also said:

Lieutenant General Bogdan said with more planes in the skies, program bosses now know parts are coming off the aircraft "too frequently" for maintenance. (!)
"The problem here is you're not going to see results in the next two to three months," he said.
"It's going to take months and months and months of constant efforts to see this improve.
"Our goal is by 2015 to see the aircraft at 60 per cent (reliability)."

When is 100% reliability going to arrive? Which buyer will want a less than 100% reliability primary strike fighter paying anywhere between $110M to $150Ma bird at current flexible estimates? Oz's 58 aircraft are costing a total figure of $11.5B! This makes the Rafale look like a steal.

The rising acquisition costs ,maintenance costs,etc.,and extra funding needed to keep the programme on track is getting dangerously close to the Pentagon's "unaffordable" figure.True,orders are coming in from loyal allies,but at reduced numbers which add another 3% approx to unit costs. If you read carefully the GAO report,it says that "Additionally, the most recent life-cycle sustainment cost estimate for the F-35 fleet is more than $1 trillion, which DOD officials have deemed unaffordable. "

The allies unlike the US which has the F-22,however do have a major problem.The aircraft was "never meant to be an air superiority fighter",and US analysts say that it is even inferior in that aspect to current 4th-gen aircraft from both east and west.So they need to buy-like Oz,a fleet of EW Growlers in addition to make up for the JSF's EW deficiencies.When faced with overwhelming superiority in numbers of 4th-gen aircraft like Chinese Flankers ,which can carry upto 16 AAMs,the small numbers of JSFs will as the Rand report said,be outnumbered and outgunned.

Now compare that programme with the FGFA/T-50.If this too like the JSF comes in at horrendous "unaffordable" prices,surely the IAF /MOD will take a good hard look at it before going for it or dumping it. Its development however has been apparently less troublesome thus far.It's the Russian incremental philosophy of testing some tech on existing frontline aircraft like the SU-35,validating them and using upgraded existing engines for initial versions.It is working to an initial IOC by 2016 and is receiving the max support from the govt.The AWST report with the numerous innovations and difference/improvement over the F-22 concept has been well spelt out (posted earlier).There may be delays here too,but given the track record of post Cold War Russian aviation development of the Flanker variants,on solid ground.What the IAF want or do not want in the programme is a matter that must be sorted out asap,once the new dispensation takes charge. One expects that the defence budget will be raised,given the clarion cry from the armed forces,starved of replacements and new weaponry for decades,but there is so much of expectation from the voters that money will be in short supply to go around and priorities must be clearly reviewed and defined.

Xcpt from the Senate hearings on the DEf. avquisitions,budget,etc:
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/im ... 4-8-14.pdf

Senator McCain.
. This is the first trillion dollar system that we
have ever had. What are the lessons learned in this imbroglio
where we have gone from $233 billion in 2001 to over $391 billion
this year? What are the lessons learned here, General?
General BOGDAN
. Sir, we could probably, you and I, get together
and write a book about this. But I will give you a couple of the
things from my perspective on some good lessons learned.
The first lesson is we tend to be overly optimistic when we start
programs in terms of how much they are going to cost, what the
real risk is, and how long they are going to take. We need to do
a better job up front of being more realistic and more honest with
ourselves about how much programs are really going to cost and
what the real technical and fiscal risks are. I do not think we did
that on this program. That is one.
Two, it is very, very hard to run a program when you start pro-
duction before you have ever tested a single airplane because every
time you find something new in flight test, you now have to not
only go back and fix airplanes you have already produced, but you
have to cut all those fixes into the production line. That creates a
complexity that is pretty significant and it costs some money.

Senator MC CAIN
. Well, at least we ought to know the names ofthe people made this kind of cockamamie agreement to start with
because there were many of us that—you forgot the fundamentalthat we adopted during the Reagan years: fly before you buy. Fly
before you buy.
General BOGDAN
. I do not disagree with you, sir.
Senator MCCAIN.If we had adhered to that principle, we probably would not find ourselves in the situation we are in.
I just have a short time left. General Davis, right now I understand the A–10s are to be phased out. Is that your understanding?
General DAVIS
Sir, that is.
Senator MCCAIN.What is going to replace it?
General DAVIS
. Sir, if you look at the systems we are using today and have used since Iraq, the A–10s have basically failed about 20
percent of the call for CAS missions. So that means we are doing it with F–16s. We are doing it with F–15Es. We are doing it with
B–1s and B–52s. We are doing it with precision weapons that werenot part of the A–10 suite.
Senator MCCAIN
. So they are better suited for close air supportthan the A–10 is. Is that correct?
General DAVIS
. Sir, I did not say they are better suited. I saidthey can do that mission based on—
Senator MCCAIN
. Depending on what kind of conflict we are in.Right?
General DAVIS
. It does.
Senator MCCAIN
. If we are in a more conventional conflict, there
is no aircraft or weapons system that does the job of the A–10. Is
there?
General DAVIS
. Sir, it does its mission very well. It is designed or one mission. It does that mission well.
Senator MCCAIN
. That one mission happens to be close air support.
General DAVIS
. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCAIN
. I thank the chairman

What is the point of bringing up the Mccain testimony into this discussion (btw i have seen the entire 3 odd hours video of the event and if you so wish you can as well : http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/he ... -air-force )? His job is to protect the A-10 as it based out of his home state. He laughs at the fact that the B-1 is a CAS platform but it has done CAS in an increasing fashion in the last 2 conflicts as has been shown to him. The Air force has built up its ability to do CAS through various platforms (traditional and non-traditional) due to the demand for it:

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen- ... ly-do-cas/

I can go at lengths, talking about what an idiot Mccain is but that has nothing to do with the F-35 or its program.
First of all reliability is a IOC problem, so where they are can only be determined post the depot work and full missions software for both the aircraft and ALIS. Secondly, the australian money budgeted is a NOTIONAL amount and not a fixed amount with which you can simply divide the number of airframes and get a "cost per jet". Kindly do read the way the JSF program buys its aircrafts and how each partner pays for them exactly. Most international programs work this way. The country budgets a certain amounts, but does not pay it until a contract is negotiated. The final contract may be much lower than what that country may have put aside.

http://www.elementsofpower.blogspot.com ... space.html

Even if the RAAF were to pay current block prices for the F-35 (which are higher than full production jets) the cost of acquiring the jet would be 7 billion 200 million. The LRIP7 APUC is for all to see. Full production jets however are expected to have considerably lower costs, and would require ZERO depot work. The JPO pegs that cost to be around 85 million per jet including everything (At FPC). The overall APUC for the program (All 2000+ fighters) stands at 77 million minus the engine, and an APUC of around 12-15 million for the engine. So the APUC for the Alpha version is expected to be around 90 million per jet which is tilted slightly to the right by the expensive early L-RIP jets of course much like any other fighter before it.

I don't have a "death wish" for the JSF.US allies need it to succeed to face China in the future.However,all the negative news is coming from the US defence establishment itself.When you add up the list ,you can see that the programme is in serious crisis.
Reduced operating parameters/capabilities,equiv to 30 yr. old designs."irrelevant without the F-22",component unreliability like tyres,an AAM that doesn't work properly with the aircraft's communications,the helmet--there's no HUD, that needs to be replaced,parts cracking up,and the worst problem of all,the software glitches.

Like I said earlier, go read the F-16 development history and negative media reports on the same. You had bulkhead cracks, wing refixes, crashes due to poor mission systems occur and widely reported by the media much of which labeled it as a lemon that would be the most risky, unsuccessful big budget program in US history. The US media is free to report on defense matters and the unclassified nature of the JSF means that 100's of pages are released on information from various sources per year. A lot of the times reports that were written in June-July, to be published in September are quoted in January of the following year by the so called defense expert's "blogs" and the program office has to clarify that fixes to the issues "found last year" have either been implemented or designed and being implemented etc. Helmet issues, Tailhook issues, software reliability issues, lightning protection issues have all been dealt like this by the media, despite of the program office issuing clarification after clarification that it has "fixes" in place and its not unusual to find faults during testing and that it was the "entire purpose of rigorous testing". There has been no program in the US department of defense history that did not find issues in developmental and operational testing. Not the F-22, not the F-16 and definitely not the F-15. As far as concurrency (the much talked about buzzword for f-35 basher arm chair generals) there has not been a single weapons program in the US since WW2 that has not required concurrency work. Not a single fighter ever developed in US has waited for full testing of capability block before beginning production. Do you know that over 1500 F-16's were produced for the US and partners before the first useful block 30 version was fully completed? For the F-35 the number will be below 300, and if you exclude the block 8 and 9 that will have retrofits built into the frames as they leave the factory it will be close to 200. The way a program that is required to produce 300-400 fighters is run is much different from a program that needs 3000 fighters. Concurrency costs for the first couple of hundred are negligible to the overall acquisition cost and therefore not a bad thing to have if that means that you can begin introducing active fighters fleet wide at a much faster pace. This was the reason why the concurrency model was chosen for the f-16 and why it was also chosen (although not as aggressively ) for the F-35.

Read: http://www.elementsofpower.blogspot.in/ ... again.html

As the tests progressed, cracks developed in several structural bulkheads. News of this problem resulted in hostile comments in the media, but GD pointed out in its own defence that the cracks had occurred not in flying aircraft but on ground test specimens. If the risk of such cracks during development testing was not a real one, a company spokesman remarked to the author at the time, no-one would be willing to pay for ground structural test rigs. GD redesigned the affected components, thickening the metal, and installed metal plates to reinforce existing units.

Sounds familiar? Its actually from the F-16 development program.

Here's a guy who unlike the so called expert bloggers actually was a part of both the F-16 development program and the F-35 development effort

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... nav%7Chead


I see the US purchase for 2015 being spun into the fact that the performance is poor so they are buying less. This is definitely not the case as most of the folks reporting on it know it (but it does not make for a good click bait). The Navy reduced its 5 year plan much like the french armed forces, to accommodate the new budgetary realities. They saved money by running a SLEP on the classic hornet so that the purchase of the F-35 ramp up could be pushed back to past a point where the budget controls no longer exist (the new sequestration budget). The Air force reduction is small and only reflects the budget they have left after cuts made to it.

I don't claim that you are wishing or hoping for the F-35 to fail, all I am saying is that rather than just reading negative articles and posting them in bulk, you try to understand the "pains" in development, report on them, in a balanced fashion and actually see what are the current roadblock to the three IOC's and how far they are to meeting those targets. Like someone from WAR IS BORING mentioned, 2b is 13% instead of 27% so a 13 month delay in Marine IOC Crap, when they actually totally failed to report what is really happening with the IOC. A basic understanding of the IOC procedures even by looking at past history (Super hornet or F-22 raptor developmental history and IOC) could paint a complete picture. One just needs to spend a few minutes on the internet to figure out what and how each service IOC's and what it looks for to claim that capability. For the USMC its a 200+ parameters that need to be fully tested, debugged and handed over in toto. Secondly, they need the L-RIP4/5 jets to get back to the depot and get concurrency changes (planned from the start just like the F-16 program). They know that its tough to predict how rapid the depot changes will yeild in terms of the jets coming back to them. Hence they have built a minimum threshold of 10 that is required to IOC. When they have 10 2b aircrafts that meet testing targets for their IOC parameters, and that have completed depot work and are back, they will declare IOC. Their target is 16 but that is contingent on the depot work. Anywhere between 10-16 is fine for them and the timeframe they are confident on (including the confidence of the Program head) is between July next year and December of the same year. This is exactly how the F-22 program IOC in 2004 (or 05) for the air force. United States Air force laid out a set of parameters that it required to be completed and delivered, once that was done they declared IOC. The same block software took months after that to deliver full capability, but that is how software development works in a spiral development. The P8 program is a perfect example and relevant for us. It also introduces a baseline capability (comparable to P3) which is added through mostly system integration and software work. The F-35 is no different, just that its software is many times more complex due to the nature of the architecture and performance required from all its sensors and net-centricity demanded by the services.

How confident are the marines of actually meeting the IOC deadline (range) and not the crap 13 month delay as is being claimed? Well for one they have already firmed up plans to deploy the F-35B's in early-mid 2016 outside of the US (Japan or South korea, i cannot recall exactly) for the first unit.

Edit: Here's something i found from f16net forum, an interesting watch, rather long though (nearly 1 hour)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxe4Jv1cJxI

[NRao]

Early gift from Mr. Putin to China:

China to buy S400 to deter Taiwan, Japan and India

http://www.defencereviewasia.com/module ... 8b5969.jpg

........... Putin has approved the sale to China of two to four sets of S-400 air defense missile system. ...........................
.................
Range of the missile system is 400 km

Nice.

China's deployment of the S-400 is not only to deter Taiwan but also Japan over the disputed islands and India too over its unresolved boundary dispute

OK. Were we talking of R&D with Russia on the FGFA? Cannot recall.

[brar_w]

Its a scam all superpowers (Not just US and SU but world powers from history) run or ran at some point in time. Give a tech to one opponent and a potential counter to another. Russia is watching out for its interests both economically and as far as its MIC is concerned. Give stealth to India and counter stealth to China. You can never go wrong

[NRao]

Russia is watching out for its interests both economically and as far as its MIC is concerned.

Time India watched out for herself too.

Dump the FGFA. It is a scam. I agree.

[SaiK]

take a decision and close the thread.. we are discussing jsfs anyway

[brar_w]

I do not think India should dump the FGFA, there is simply nothing out there that will provide India with an air dominance fighter for her needs. Having said that, i wish we just bought them outright, from russian lines (with licence builds coming later, phase 2 perhaps) without much tweaking (gold plating as i see it). Put that money on indigenous projects and let russia develop its PRIDE out of its own pocket.

[SaiK]

Sure, but the precondition for such a venture should be AMCA... if we are doing it all by ourselves, then focus your money where it pays you.

pak-fa is a waste! we are not getting anything.. show me the documents black and white

[brar_w]

If you do not participate in the R&D phase of the program, you have the luxury to choose whether you want the product or not after its fully developed and you have had a chance to evaluate it. All the R&D money goes into the AMCA (which i want as a striker) and given the sort of numbers floating around for our participation in the PAKFA is no small amount. The russians have enormous profits from energy and weapons sales to us and cheen. Let them develop the fighter on their own and call us back to compare it to the other options we may have (more rafales, more super MKI's, AMCA etc)

[Philip]

It isn't as if India has not been offered Russian air defence systems.If we don't buy them,as we're developing our own-someone else will.Simple facts of the market. But what similarities and true capabilities these SAMs will have-as we know how Indian Flankers were more advanced than those sold to China,which we further upgraded,show that there is always a qualititative difference in eqpt. sold to us and similar sold to China.China were never given Akula class SSGNs!

Going through the reams of JSF info,McCain had quoted a Reagan era mantra."Fly before you buy".The JSF problems as well enunciated by Gen."Bogged Down",where "production aircraft" have to be rectified as if they were in the prototype developmental stage! The problem is that JSF enthusiasts refuse to smell the java ...sorry,"lava",that is erupting in the programme,which threatens its abortion . The rectifying of the innumerable problems requires a huge amount of extra funding which is beggaring the defence budget to the detriment of other programmes.Here is the effect it is having on the entire US def, capability.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rm-398282/
US military aviation programmes face $14.2B hit in long-term budget

By: Stephen Trimble
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
02:18 16 Apr 2014

Aircraft and aerial munition suppliers face a $14.2 billion hit over the next five years if the US Congress does not repeal mandatory budget cuts known as sequestration, warns a new report issued on 15 April by the Department of Defense (DOD).

The report, entitled Estimated Impacts of Sequestration Level Funding, details how the automatic budget cuts enacted by Congress two years ago will target 16 aviation and munition programmes in development or production.

In absolute terms, the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is expected to absorb the biggest fiscal hit. Sequestration cuts 17 fighters – including 15 F-35As and two F-35Cs – and $1.72 billion from the five-year budget plan, but that represents only 3.7% of programme’s $45.4 billion budget over the same period.

By comparison, the adaptive engine technology demonstration – aimed at developing a more fuel efficient supersonic jet engine – faces a $1.49 billion budget cut if sequestration is not repealed, and that number could be devastating. It erases a $1 billion funding addition unveiled by the Obama Administration two months ago.

But the impact of sequestration crosses all aircraft and aerial weapons domains, including helicopters, airlifters, tankers and reconnaissance aircraft.

The cuts come on top of proposals in the Fiscal 2015 budget request to divest the Bell Helicopter OH-58D, Fairchild Republic A-10A/C and Lockheed Martin U-2S fleets, which have already prompted heated objections from some lawmakers.

Further sequestration cuts, if enacted, also would divest the Boeing KC-10 and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Block 40 fleets.
Rotorcraft programmes are also a major target of the cuts, with six programmes accounting for $4.6 billion of the $14.2 billion cuts directed at the military’s aviation buget.

The US Army aviation community faces nearly $2.9 billion in additional cuts spread across three major programmes – Sikorsky UH-60M, Boeing AH-64D remanufacture and the Airbus UH-72A fleets. The US Marine Corps’ CH-53K programme, meanwhile, would be reduced by $1.04 billion.

After slashing eight Boeing P-8As from the Fiscal 2015 budget request, the navy could cut another six aircraft estimated to cost a combined $1.02 billion, according to the DOD report. Likewise, the US Air Force would reduce the procurement budget for the KC-46A tanker – one of the service’s three top spending priorities – by $1.14 billion and five of the 69 aircraft in the five-year budget plan.

The DOD report does not mention any impact on the USAF’s plans to develop a long-range strike bomber over the same period.

Let's not forget what Gen.Hostage,the Chief of U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command has stated. He should know better than most of what the JSF 's capabilities are,without the F-22..."irrelevant".
“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times.

[NRao]

It isn't as if India has not been offered Russian air defence systems.If we don't buy them,as we're developing our own-someone else will.Simple facts of the market. But what similarities and true capabilities these SAMs will have-as we know how Indian Flankers were more advanced than those sold to China,which we further upgraded,show that there is always a qualititative difference in eqpt. sold to us and similar sold to China.China were never given Akula class SSGNs!

Now I know why Pakistan is able to buy them F-16s. India does not buy them.

[NRao]

Oh, by the way ................................ India is not buying enough from Russia. India is getting into very bad habits.

Russia Ready To Supply Military Equipment To Pakistan

Russia is a free player on the world arms market, but it is not excluded that the supplies to Pakistan will be coordinated with India and China. This was stated by Russian experts commenting on reports that Russia has placed Pakistan on the list of countries it might supply military products.

According to independent sources, Moscow had supplied about 70 Mi-17 / Mi-171 transport helicopters to Pakistan from 1996 to 2010. At present, Pakistan has shown keen interest in high precision weapons, air defence systems, artillery and long-range guided ammunition. It is also interested in the Mi-26 large transport helicopters.

[NRao]

Just wondering if these stories have anything to do with the FGFA. Is India leaning away from the Russian pup?

[brar_w]

If you are going to rely on past "experiences" then so be it. I however like to be more objective and would like to see evidence that the S400's sold to china are not the highest quality russia allows for export. Moreover, china does not need the highest capability, they are great at figuring things out and knocking off designs. With time they are bound to refine them.

Coming back to the JSF.

MCcain says "fly before you buy"? Where was when every damn weapons system (fighter) developed to date (In the US Post WW2 history) had concurrency work associated with it? He signed off on every damn program. F-16, F-15, F-22, F-4 (ALL fighters) all had concurrency worked built into the program. As mentioned more than 1500 F-16's were built before the first full capability block 30 was fully tested and done with. A good book explaining the various US fighters programs is recommended here, at least one that covers more than 10 pages per fighter (at least the teens if nothing more (f-4 would be nice as well)

The Huge "amount" of extra funding was always built into the program, just like the F-16. That it has come down considerably from earlier estimates goes to show that its still a very small percentage of the overall procurement spending on the 2000+ jets. The point is that its a 390+ billion dollar acquisition program (estimated) and the numbers required are in the thousands. A concurrency model was chosen as the way to go, even the last time such a weapons system development was scheduled (F-16). Why is such a model worth executing? Because as it has PROVEN in the F-16 program, the biggest cost savings in the long term come from a production supply chain that is geared and mechanised for high tempo production. When a program is required to produce 100-200 aircraft per annum and produces just 20 it is moving at an extremely inefficient pace compared to what it is designed to operate at. Now you can design a production process to be very efficient @ 20 aircraft per annum, but then that production design does not scale up to 200 as well (Top investment in mechanisation is impossible for such low volumes, while AUTOMATION is the only way to get to high production rates in the triple digits). It was concluded that the biggest cost savings would be realized if the high tempo production rate was reached quickly as that way APUC could be brought down considerably yielding to cost savings. This worked remarkably well for the F-16, despite it having dozen of different models with different capabilities, and like i mentioned earlier it took more than 1500 fighters to be out of the factory and in the customers hands ( US and partners) before they could fully test a stable full capability configuration (Block 30). The Initial LRIP 1 jets (f-35) had APUC costs (minus the engine) of more than 220 million per jet leading to a lot of hue and cry. The LRIP 7 jets ordered last year had an APUC of 98 million (minus the engine) a cost saving of more than 180% over first "trickle rate" jets. The cost saving has extended to even same volume production batches as is evident from the cost savings from LRIP 5 APUC to LRIP 7 APUC, but that has come through a greater vendor confidence and cost saving measures. In the original concurrency model the F-35's cost savings would have been even greater but the ramp has been delayed due to program delays and politics of sequester. The final call on concurrency would be made when the final figure is found (remember later LRIP jets such as LRIP 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 have known concurrency costs split 50:50 between Lockheed and the JPO) and I am willing to bet that it would have been much cheaper to retro fit jets than to delay ramp up, reduce readiness and prolong the life of the legacy fleet even beyond the initial delays (due to ramp up taking much longer). There is a way to run mega programs, and like the F-16 program showed, concurrency is not a bad thing. Not that the concurrency model has not been practiced for smaller projects like the F-18, F-15 and F-22, F-4 etc. And before you speak out about the concurrency jets being prototypes, do look at what prototypes are in the program contextual sense (historically) before you shoot yourself in the foot.

So I along with the others call Mccain out on this STUNT. He has endorsed every fighter's concurrent development till date, so the idiot should just shut up. But then he is a politician, and a hypocrite by trade.

More on him and his retarded RANT about the B-1 and the A-10.

he idea of a B-1 flying close air support would not comport with Senator McCain’s honorable experience in the military. For the first 10 years of my 23-year career as a B-1 pilot, I would have agreed with the senator.

By then, the A-10 was the go-to aircraft for CAS, even though it was originally designed as a tank killer. Like the B-1, the A-10 was not originally designed for CAS. However, the tragedy of 9/11 blew away everyone’s paradigm of warfighting. Drastic times called for rapid innovation. So, to get the most airpower to protect our ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost every attack aircraft in the US inventory — the F-15E, F-16, F-18, AH-64, AC-130, RPAs, B-52s and even the B-1B — become close air support assets. Their aircrews received extensive training in the challenging tactics, techniques and procedures demanded by the role of bombing or shooting the enemy as they closed with American troops.

Advancements in technology; changes in training; and updates to CAS procedures were needed. Capabilities such as Global Positioning System (GPS), Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), targeting pods (e.g., SNIPER and LANTIRN), and satellite communications gave these aircraft the precision to conduct CAS.

Pilot training at the Red Flag war-games and the Air Force’s Weapons School was changed to emphasize CAS TTPs. Traditional CAS procedures were updated to take into account each plane’s capabilities and the needs of those on the ground, the Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs) who are embedded with ground troops. For many of the fixed-wing fighters, this was a relatively easy transition since many squadrons already trained for CAS as an additional mission. But for the B-1, training for CAS was a completely new ball game.

In 2001, the idea that B-1s could operate in a Close Air Support environment was more theory than practice. When B-52s and B-1s were deployed to Diego Garcia to kick off Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) bomber aircrews had to learn CAS procedures on the fly, working with Special Operations troops embedded with the Northern Alliance. As OEF progressed, the JTACs and bomber crews quickly built the trust both sides needed.

The B-1 and B-52 communities learned from A-10 pilots and met face-to-face with Army Special Forces units and Air Force Special Tactic squadrons. B-1s and B-52s were integrated into the Army’s Air Warrior exercises to improve their skills. By 2003, CAS training for bomber crews had become standard. In 2008, the B-1 was certified to fly with the SNIPER Targeting Pod…similar to the one used by the A-10. Thanks to funding from Congress, this pod greatly increased the B-1 aircrews’ ability to differentiate hostile targets from friendlies and to increase their weapons’ accuracy. B-1s and B-52s now drop laser-guided bombs (LGBs) with fighter-like precision and continue to operate in theater.

As I watched Senator McCain grill General Welsh about which platform would handle the A-10′s CAS mission, I imagined a stack of air power (B-1s, B-52s, F-15Es, F-16s, and F-18s) that was airborne providing Armed Over Watch of our ground troops, ready to answer their call for CAS.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen- ... ly-do-cas/

Here's a report on concurrency in weapons system (it looks at 28 systems) from the 80's (1988). The F-35 model is not new, its a well established practice that has proven itself earlier, but it does so in the long run. Just as the F-16 was criticized for being in production (in fact being in FULL RATE production which for it was greater than 300 jets per annum) while its bulkheads were cracking, wings requiring fixing or physically it was crashing etc. In the long run, affordability proved to be a key hallmark of the program

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/15725

which threatens its abortion

Yup dream on. Its going to abort cancelled and never fly. I'll add that to the 13 month Marine Core delay jem.

Let's not forget what Gen.Hostage,the Chief of U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command has stated. He should know better than most of what the JSF 's capabilities are,without the F-22..."irrelevant".
“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” says Hostage to Air Force Times.

Of course he'll say that. He needs the dollars that are being shaved away from block development of the F-22 platform. And for the USAF the A2G F-35 is enabled by A2A F-35A's and F-22's. This is a part of their doctrine and no secret. Of course any reasonable person will try to study the strategy and not take everything at face value.

[P Chitkara]

Talking about the initial grant of $6 bn for the FGFA, any idea how much has been earmarked for the AMCA

[NRao]

Talking about the initial grant of $6 bn for the FGFA, any idea how much has been earmarked for the AMCA

IIRC they have spent some $300 million so far. I have not seen any numbers in the recent past, although they expect to have a machine by 2018 or so.

But, certainly not in the Billions.

[Viv S]

Viv, from what I see reg. the Pakfa itself, the aircraft in its flight parameters seems excellent. It is very similar to the flanker vs. f-18, f-16, f-15 situation. The former is such an exceptional airframe that stays competitive with multiple upgrades over a period of decades. the performance of the pakfa so far seems encouraging - buggers did a cobra during the last MAKS, speaks volumes about their confidence.

That utility of a supermaneuverable airframe declines hugely when pitted against a DAS-like system.

And yes, they are still at the 5th prototype, which means a true comparison with the in production JSF might be too early.

Aside from the pitot tubes disappearing there doesn't appear to have been any structural advancement in the newer prototypes. Given that its due for delivery to the RuAF next year as Philip reminds us, one can help but be skeptical about how much change will be implemented in the interim. Not to mention design compromises like the employment of radar blockers in lieu of S-ducts that cannot be modified/rectified.

And this is for other posters as well in terms of the sensor suite available for the Pakfa:

1) the use of GaN based TRMS for the FCR (expected around circa 2018). Currently being worked on by Phaza, and NIIP will probably just buy + integrate the same.

Most new designs are some point will field GaN AESAs. According to some reports the Swedes are claiming the the Gripen NG will be the first. Personally, I think it'll be a while for all, as was seen with regular GaAs modules, they'll be employed with non-FCR applications first (particularly EW systems - SPECTRA, NGJ etc).

But on the same there was a debate on the US v Russian tech levels vis a vis GaN on Keypub. The Russian posters were a bit quite disgruntled, but it does appear that the US is still a long way ahead at the hardware aspect.

2) L-Band radar in the LEX

Also fielded on the F-22 and F-35.

3) The DAS analogue is a comprehensive 360 deg. suite to tackle IR, RF and laser threats.

Well the F-35 system has been in development for over 15 years. Lets see how well the Russians bridge that gap.

My take on this is simple: the Russians have cleverly developed a basic airframe that is sound and provides a very high end performance - ultra maneuverability to supercruise, they have not compromised here at all. Thing is, the sensors, electronics etc. can always be upgraded throughout the life of the a/c. But when it comes to the aero layout, upgrading is painfully difficult (the Shornet is a fine example and so is the Solah). This is a huge drawback for the JSF imvho.

You can eventually upgrade the PAK FA's sensor fit yes, but its RF & IR signature cannot be significantly altered. Speed vs stealth is one aspect. But again, most observers (Kopp excepted) would bet on the F-35 fielding superior sensors, better sensor fusion and a better (and much wider) munitions complement.

At this early stage, Sukhoi seems to have compromised a bit on stealth in the rear aspect. However, this might change once the definitive engine comes up - it is as yet an unknown quantity (at least to me since I have not kept up).

Its not just the rear aspect. Its also the IRST bulge, the exposed compressor face, the 'grills' on the air intakes, the 'intakes' on the vertical fins not to mention the overall shoddy build quality and 'fit' (even accounting for the prototype status).

Further, they have done enough in terms of shaping and materials that head on at least, most feel that the Pakfa is quite competitive. Again, the philosophies behind the two birds are quite different - I expect the JSF needs to come in rather close to attack surface targets, the all aspect stealth is needed. The Pakfa otoh, aims to have a number of long ranged weapons for such tasks.

As B_w said, the F-35 fields a far larger arsenal of stand off weaponry. Even the plain vanilla SDB can be employed from ranges of over 100km. For air-to-air roles the Meteor is an option and despite the range estimates of the Aim-120D going upto an impressive 180km, its pilots are pushing for even longer ranged Aim-120.

Of course, one might view it critically and say that these are all "plans", but the bottomline remains that the Pakfa is flying, and quite well at that. There were naysayers about the program for years but then it did actually happen in 2009-10. Still a new bird, but I expect to see the real deal circa 2018 and FGFA, if it comes about, in 2022.

Its good if it can deliver that. But I'd still prefer to wait till 2018 before making any payments to the Russian side.

[brar_w]

The problem with longer ranged weapons is targeting. As the stealth line up around the world rises, there are two dilemmas facing missile and fighter designers. A) You have to target aircraft that have an extremely low frontal RCS. B ) Your targeting fighter has to make sure that he has strict discipline regarding EMCON and if emits needs to do so in short bursts in Range limiting LPI modes. I do not see the effective killing BVR range get significantly better than the Aim-120C/D MRAAM territory. What newer Anti-fighter missiles would push towards is to better pk's at those ranges (much like the meteor). An effective future BVR missile for anti-stealth ops almost has to employ multi seeker approach to targeting.

Regarding Gallium Nitride, The US already treats the technology at par with gallium arsenide as far as Department of Defence contracts are concerned. Raytheon has factories and production facilities that have reached maturity to a point where they can compete for radar contracts against GAA radars without loosing points for RISK due to a new technology. The Department of defense in the US uses a rating system to rate the risk allotted to new technology. Northrop should achieve the same readiness levels before year end.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/foundry/

And these won't be labs but actual factories making radars worth billions on an annual basis. Northop has exceeded radar performance requirements for every radar it has put up on a fighter (including the f-22). The USAF will only look for a newer radar or a TR Module swap (F-35's radar is open architecture so can accept newer modules at any time, it also has cooling and computing room for expansion) if it demands capability that the current level of technology cannot provide.

[Viv S]

Why aren't we under sanctions right now then?

Because no dhamaka has taken place yet. Another POK type test, and sanctions are automatic.

Actually my question was that why aren't we still labouring under the '98 era sanctions? The law has been drafted in a manner where it is ultimately an executive decision (which where all the lobbies and Sino-centric strategic interests come into play).

So far India has not invested the $ 6 billion has it? Let us see if they find it worthwhile to do so and see what the contract entails.

True. But any significant investment that 'locks us' into the program will strip us of leverage when we're negotiating the production contracts.

[Viv S]

The problem with longer ranged weapons is targeting. As the stealth line up around the world rises, there are two dilemmas facing missile and fighter designers. A) You have to target aircraft that have an extremely low frontal RCS. B ) Your targeting fighter has to make sure that he has strict discipline regarding EMCON and if emits needs to do so in short bursts in Range limiting LPI modes. I do not see the effective killing BVR range get significantly better than the Aim-120C/D MRAAM territory. What newer Anti-fighter missiles would push towards is to better pk's at those ranges (much like the meteor). An effective future BVR missile for anti-stealth ops almost has to employ multi seeker approach to targeting.

They likely won't engage at those extreme ranges but then again the NEZ is in general (Meteor excepted) a function of the maximum range (1/3rd as a rule of thumb IIRC). Plus it has its utility against slow lumbering high value target; tankers, AWACS and the like.

[Austin]

WINGS of RUSSIA studio aired a very extensive two-part documentary on PAK-FA last year with a title "T-50 - the Russian 5th generation fighter" [ English subtitles ]

Part-1


Part-2

[alexis]

I was initially supporting FGFA but as the time progresses without any agreement on what we are getting and what we are learning, the programme looks more and more untenable from a financial standpoint.

PAKFA may be a good choice but it needs to evaluated in FY18 when it is available vis a vis F-35 and Rafale/Typhoon.

[Manish_Sharma]

Because no dhamaka has taken place yet. Another POK type test, and sanctions are automatic.

Actually my question was that why aren't we still labouring under the '98 era sanctions?

In a way we're, the delay in Tejas even today is due to sanctions by US. We anyway didn't have much from US at the time to be sanctioned. Except Tejas and seaking helicopters (US parts) we didn't have much at the time from US; unlike now the P-8s, c-130, c-17, LM2500, GE 404 + 414, WLRs....... and so on already the US has much bigger and solid grip on us then Shakti - I tests time. It would be fatal to have more platforms and system vulnerable to US sanctions.

Even to get out of those sanctions Vajpayee had to give in to lots of cia demands which were put through clinton. Like allowing the foreign funding in media (channels like CNN-IBN owned by Southern Baptist Church), The Hindu news paper bought by chicago's evangelist church hence so much venom spewed against patriots like General (Retired) Sh. V.K. Singh. Also aside from CTs it is said that for some reason klinton was pushing EVMs aggressively with NDA govt. Though technically advanced nations like Japan and Germany had rejected the possibility.

The law has been drafted in a manner where it is ultimately an executive decision (which where all the lobbies and Sino-centric strategic interests come into play).

Hmmm gamble a very very BIG GAMBLE. It will be against the interest of the nation to gamble with such hopes. Hoping a klinton type of president won't be there to put sanctions when coming govt. does Shakti-II. Anyway the point is moot no matter who the president is the sanctions will be put.

Even with such a obdient servant as mms the US didn't relax EULA & EUMA so to think that at the time of Pokharan 3 US won't play the dirty game shows only contempt for the Bharatiya interests.

[Viv S]

In a way we're, the delay in Tejas even today is due to sanctions by US. We anyway didn't have much from US at the time to be sanctioned. Except Tejas and seaking helicopters (US parts) we didn't have much at the time from US; unlike now the P-8s, c-130, c-17, LM2500, GE 404 + 414, WLRs....... and so on already the US has much bigger and solid grip on us then Shakti - I tests time. It would be fatal to have more platforms and system vulnerable to US sanctions.

The sanctions lasted for less than three years. Delays at worst would only equal that. As for us not having much to be sanctioned - that works both ways. A US that values its trade with India (and it does) will want to continue that. Sanctions aren't unidirectional. Everytime a country sanctions another country, it is also sanctioning itself. In 1998, trade was minuscule and there were no strategic ties of note. The fact is known to the MoD and the defence services and that's why the US has overtaken Israel and Russia as India's biggest arms supplier.

Even to get out of those sanctions Vajpayee had to give in to lots of cia demands which were put through clinton. Like allowing the foreign funding in media (channels like CNN-IBN owned by Southern Baptist Church), The Hindu news paper bought by chicago's evangelist church hence so much venom spewed against patriots like General (Retired) Sh. V.K. Singh. Also aside from CTs it is said that for some reason klinton was pushing EVMs aggressively with NDA govt. Though technically advanced nations like Japan and Germany had rejected the possibility.

These are conspiracy theories and I see little point in chasing after them.

Hmmm gamble a very very BIG GAMBLE. It will be against the interest of the nation to gamble with such hopes. Hoping a klinton type of president won't be there to put sanctions when coming govt. does Shakti-II. Anyway the point is moot no matter who the president is the sanctions will be put.

The US responses aren't too hard to gauge and anyone who's read even a fraction of the numerous tomes on US strategic affairs that are published every year will tell you the US will not shoot itself in the foot by sanctioning India. It'll lose on its defence trade, it'll lose on its civilian trade, it'll lose on strategic cooperation, it'll lose on anti-terror cooperation, it'll lose a friendly state that shares its concerns on China, and it'll gain... nothing. With Chinese poised to overtake the US in PPP terms this year and in nominal terms in a decades time, only the Chinese 'win' in the event of a breakdown in Indo-US relations.

[NRao]

Like for a war, one must prepare for sanctions (and other similar obnoxious events).

Complaining as part of a larger strategy is OK (China does this rather well), otherwise it is a sign of a weakness. Especially the same set of complains over a decade or more!!!

When one prepares for such events, the complains, although they are there, no longer impact your actions.

Preparation also takes care of fear.


IF India, in the last 15 years, has not overcome the LCA affair (which really hurt no doubt), then there is something wrong with that picture. IF the P-8I/C-130J/C-17/etc are *not* already sanction proofed, then there is something wrong in those transactions.

The DK affair is a good indicator.

[vishvak]

We are talking about PAK-FA and FGFA and current discussion about 5th Gen fighter jet, this perhaps is unprecedented and needs a wiser understanding. In particular, sanctions is a serious issue which needs much more explanation- considering that Indians have been at receiving end - than mere rhetorics.

American handling of sanctions is at best selective and worse otherwise. No wordplay can go around approach of USA that overlooked China-Paki nuke nexus while supplying weapons as exceptions to its own sanctions. Also, sanctions work both ways is no more a rhetoric than saying leftist orgs are independent.

Having independent strategic outlook for India is needed also for other nations with own independent outlook and learning from experience of each other. American equipments however don't score well on this issue at all.

Hopefully PAK-FA will be useful for India not just as fighter jet but also as a platform, as Sukhoi 30 MKI has been, including testing of indegenous missiles and special hardpoints for air launched (Brahmos) missiles and so on and so forth.

[KrishnaK]

Because no dhamaka has taken place yet. Another POK type test, and sanctions are automatic.

In a way we're, the delay in Tejas even today is due to sanctions by US. We anyway didn't have much from US at the time to be sanctioned. Except Tejas and seaking helicopters (US parts) we didn't have much at the time from US; unlike now the P-8s, c-130, c-17, LM2500, GE 404 + 414, WLRs....... and so on already the US has much bigger and solid grip on us then Shakti - I tests time. It would be fatal to have more platforms and system vulnerable to US sanctions.

India doesn't plan to have any more dhamakas. There's no point really, our security is not imperilled by not undertaking more tests. Even then, this self-restraint is only temporary. Nobody can sanction a USD 10 Trn economy. Even at that level India will still have 5-6 times headroom to grow based on western levels of per capita GDP. If we don't grow enough economically, there's no point in whining, because we would've been our worst enemies. Break out of our economic non-performance and the world is literally our oyster.

Even to get out of those sanctions Vajpayee had to give in to lots of cia demands which were put through clinton. Like allowing the foreign funding in media (channels like CNN-IBN owned by Southern Baptist Church), The Hindu news paper bought by chicago's evangelist church hence so much venom spewed against patriots like General (Retired) Sh. V.K. Singh. Also aside from CTs it is said that for some reason klinton was pushing EVMs aggressively with NDA govt. Though technically advanced nations like Japan and Germany had rejected the possibility.

The law has been drafted in a manner where it is ultimately an executive decision (which where all the lobbies and Sino-centric strategic interests come into play).

Hmmm gamble a very very BIG GAMBLE. It will be against the interest of the nation to gamble with such hopes. Hoping a klinton type of president won't be there to put sanctions when coming govt. does Shakti-II. Anyway the point is moot no matter who the president is the sanctions will be put.

Even with such a obdient servant as mms the US didn't relax EULA & EUMA so to think that at the time of Pokharan 3 US won't play the dirty game shows only contempt for the Bharatiya interests.

Conspiracy theory nonsense, all of it. It is India's job to uphold Bharatiya interests, not Americas.

[Manish_Sharma]

When one prepares for such events, the complains, although they are there, no longer impact your actions.

What kind of preparation? After spending 20 Billion plus on let's say 189 F/A 18s what kind of preparation we need to do to 'escape the wrath of US? Should we buy each and every nut-bolt part to stock up spending another 40 billion dollars? Why buy from such jerks?

Preparation also takes care of fear.

"I can dodge folly, without backing into fear" - Nero Wolfe

When we test the nukes who gets their knickers in twist apart from cheen-pakistan? Its US. For Russkies even if they protest its more like a show instead of real angst. French openly supported us, Shri Jackques Chirac said something on lines of "France understands Bharat's compulsions....."

But US gets really angry, they FEEL it!

IF India, in the last 15 years, has not overcome the LCA affair (which really hurt no doubt), then there is something wrong with that picture. IF the P-8I/C-130J/C-17/etc are *not* already sanction proofed, then there is something wrong in those transactions.

There is always something or other wrong with individuals or deals but US as whole gets absolved from all their sins against us.

See the list gets on getting longer and longer NRao ji:

1.) We need to prepare against sanctions.......

2.) We should make the transactions correctly.....

and so on...

Why buy from such an enemy supporter? Let it continue with super expensive French and unreliable russians and deshi mix, at the most buy Israeli.

We're getting tied up dangerously - very very dangerously.