India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

[GeorgeWelch]

I think this should settle the debate on F-35 vs MMRCA

Why? Because the IAF can afford to wait till 2015 but not 2018 (or 2020, whatever)?

[Viv S]

is forgetting that stealth is but one solution to deep penetration.
The Rafale is designed for high-lo-lo, which makes it a visible
target only in transit. Most modern fighters will not detect this
hugging the ground :

Maybe not in mountainous terrain as the picture depicts, but its utility is question in the plains and deserts of northern India. Even in mountainous regions, a low flying aircraft is susceptible to MANPADS and mobile QRSAMs. Also, being invisible to other fighters is not strictly speaking true, a decent fighter PESA radar (preferably an AESA) or even better an AEW&C aircraft with interleaving air-to-air and air-to-ground modes may still be able to track the Rafale within the ground clutter.

And then there are range penalties - at low altitude the Rafale's operational range with stores can end up being more than halved.

[GeorgeWelch]

Wink, lol, an image by someone who comes by here.
It would require the two external wing points to be
open which they are not at present but includes two
supersonic tanks.
So tanks gone ten now twelve when points opened!

I wasn't saying the F-35 would carry more than the EF/Rafale when external carriage was allowed, just that it was similar and certainly not 'less than half'.

[Taygibay]

True Viv_S in general but the plane is optimized for it.
Due to design it flies very well close to the ground and the fuel
penalty is lower than one would think, due to the advanced
ground-mapping modes of the RBE2 ( both versions ) and the fact
that in interlaces AtoG/AtoA extremely fast and using either
AASM/SCALP/ASMP-A it does not need to go up at all.
It was made for that, lol, which is why it gives back in high-fast.


@ George Welch
Of course not less than half, I must have missed that.

[Viv S]

Filling the gap to what?

The gap in squadron strength that apparently is so critical.

Whatever gap has everyone so convinced that if they wait another couple years the IAF is DOOOOOOOOMED

If one is willing to wait a few more years to get the F-35, why not wait yet another few years and buy the PAK-FA instead? And make up difference in the interim with some stop-gap acquisitions ... say 126 or so Eurofighters or Rafales.

So the question is, where does the F-35 fit in?

Clearly you wouldn't do the full MRCA buy PLUS the F-35.

On the contrary, I would certainly do so. Full MRCA PLUS full F-35 PLUS full PAK-FA, I wouldn't.

Obviously I'm not privy to the details, but they were convinced they could meet the ToT requirements as set forth in the tender.

Can't recall the source at this point, but I remember them clearing ToT in general but leaving ToT on the AESA up for 'negotiations'.

Do you think there's even a remote possibility of that being cleared for India?

Why not? Turkey is getting their own final assembly line. There's nothing particularly sensitive about the actual assembly process. You're going to have access to all the pieces anyways, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Will the Turks be manufacturing... say the composites themselves or will they shipped in from Hexcel Corp? The MoD/HAL is looking to manufacture the aircraft completely in-house i.e. from the raw material stage not just simple assembly. Gaining experience and just as importantly, building a domestic supplier network to carry out those industrial processes is one of the core aims of the MRCA program.

[Viv S]

True Viv_S in general but the plane is optimized for it.

How come? Theoretically the F-16 or Mirage-2000 should be able to do the same equally well. If you're relying on ground clutter to stay undetected, the radar isn't likely to assist except maybe for terrain avoidance. Aside from having a lower RCS, how is it less susceptible to detection by enemy fighter or ground based SAMs, vis-a-vis legacy fighters?

Due to design it flies very well close to the ground and the fuel
penalty is lower than one would think, due to the advanced
ground-mapping modes of the RBE2 ( both versions ) and the fact
that in interlaces AtoG/AtoA extremely fast and using either
AASM/SCALP/ASMP-A it does not need to go up at all.

How does ground mapping reduce the fuel penalty at low altitudes? Drag is bound to be much higher, come what may.

[Taygibay]

Crossed answers, mate.
The aerodynamics and control surfaces use make its
lesser consumption near the ground.*
The low-detectability stems from all other aspects
i.e. nature of materials, low IR signature etc but
the level of warning you get from SPECTRA ( incl.
the AtoA scan mode interlacing ) means evasive
path selection. Do not forget that in a network
centric air war both sides have AWACS and ideally
satellites to give C2 infos needed to plot trajectory.

There are three ways in air penetration, low, mid and high.
To each its merits and downfalls.
A stratospheric bomber fleet and you may not even need
the fighters on day one?


*I recall a Dassault engineer saying that they could have done
without those closed-coupled canards but had tried already and
with high quality FBW commands got much further that way.
Look :

[darshhan]

I think this should settle the debate on F-35 vs MMRCA

Why? Because the IAF can afford to wait till 2015 but not 2018 (or 2020, whatever)?

Absolutely.There is no need to wait any longer.If F-35 has to be included in IAF( I am not against it) , then IAF should place a separate order for it.But MMRCA should be inducted as early as possible.

[Venkarl]

I think this should settle the debate on F-35 vs MMRCA

Why? Because the IAF can afford to wait till 2015 but not 2018 (or 2020, whatever)?

Are you implying that IAF should wait till 2018(or 2020, whatever) for F35?

[brat]

Dear Taygibay,
I like ur posts, Please enlighten me on,
1.Willl MMRCA at this later stage allow contenders to to lower the prices to beat other??
2.if not, what does the price negotiation committe do in the process of negotiation in your openion??
3.Will rafale fare well in that price war at this late stage?

Mallik

The prices themselves should not change or not much.
The Bids should be fixed or almost as price is concerned.

The committee will try to calculate the total costs of the
submissions it has just opened. There may be things that
it values more in the offers say ToT and it would then give
a bigger factor to it. If the unit cost of one is lower, the value
of the Technology may be seen as less too and thus bring that
vendor back to par in the computed value of the deal.
( i.e. cheaper in price but cheaper in value = normal price )

Also, the nature of the offsets may come in play as one could
offer deals for them that are not directly related to the planes.
If say one offers to bring back more in value but less of it from
the military, does India want a new truck plant or less in value
but a gun factory instead.
Those are the things being checked to determine the L1.

After that, the chosen bidder and Indian govt officials will get
together and discuss the legal aspects and put an agreement
on paper. I'm afraid that we will have to wait until then to know.
Full disclosure may take much longer even.

As for Rafale doing well, let's just say that the past cooperation
between India and France has been good and that may help;
there should be less legal difficulties as well being a single source.
But there are no guarantees.

Let me add that while we do not know much this part of the process
is essential to India.
There are going to be some adjustments made yet and how well
those are dealt with will change the end result lot.

Tay.

while Rafale is the better choice,
But if the EF is offering full ToT including for Engine wouldn't it be hard to ignore!

[SaiK]

one has to be careful on the depth of ToT we are talking here. There are no blueprints that is provided for the engines by any manufacturer. They might give rights to assemble local, and perhaps non-niche parts.

unless we know what exactly those 50% transpires, we should not be way too excited with ToT. Screwdriver ++ to HAL++ is no use analysis, considering the large deal.

It may help tatas et al private cos on the production engineering setup, and the learning curve for private industries can bump up. we have to see who helps in establishing local private industries to help drdo labs and hal in the future. are they helping to port Kaveri++ into the MMRCA, etc.

I am also concerned here at high level of HAL preparedness. If hal is all integration masters, then nothing more than screw driver*[metaphor] is all they will learn. Unless our lab boys specifies what needs to tweaked, what interfaces needs to be exposed so that we can fire whatever weapon we want, etc. is important.

remember the choke points are always weapons and parts supply. our local industries should be able to provide that during next time, where paki map may not exists after that.

[Taygibay]

^^^

But of course, brat!

If it comes to an equality in offset in quantity and quality
after a less than 5% price difference as we have heard
or that offsets balance price back to an equality THEN ...
India will be in the best possible position.
It will likely get back to the IAF to give a "numbered" opinion,
put in % their preference, adding IAF "feeling" to trials.
With that in mind, the negociators going for ToT can ask
each to go overboard until one gives in.
However, in a proper negociation, the seller should neither
be defenceless nor mistreated.
If you pressure your planemaker so that it leaves too little
to profit from, it may hinder the future of the aircraft or
even the company which you don't want.

The example of the motorization is not the best perhaps?
But yes, if an offer comes to full ToT or near it, it should win
but Saik's explanation that ToT is not uniform is accurate too.
We'll have to wait some more,

[GeorgeWelch]

If one is willing to wait a few more years to get the F-35, why not wait yet another few years and buy the PAK-FA instead?

F-35 and PAK-FA are in different classes and are complimentary.

And make up difference in the interim with some stop-gap acquisitions ... say 126 or so Eurofighters or Rafales.

Because buying platinum-plated 4th gen fighters makes no sense.

If you just need numbers, get some cheap 4th gens. If you're going to spend that much money, might as well get 5th gen.

Spending next gen money on last gen aircraft just seems wasteful.

[brat]

Thank you guys.

[Cosmo_R]

Since we are all marking time until we can get our teeth into the next phase of the MMRCA saga—the L1 selection which will give us further grist for our mill, I thought I'd ask a very simple and very hypothetical question.

First the assumptions:

1. The US Supercommittee on debt reduction (report due 11/23) fails to come up with anything. The result is a automatic across the board cut that will heavily impact the DoD budget. In this scenario, Panetta has indicated he will axe bleeding edge stuff and perhaps even scale back purchases of the F35

2. To prevent a death spiral on the F-35 program, Panetta offers India the UK spec CTOL JSF at a price comparable to or less than the EF/Rafale with a ToT package comparable to the EF/Rafale

3. Cognizant of the time line difference to operational clearance between the EF/Rafale, Panetta (and remember this is hypothetical) offers India first dibs even ahead of the US and certainly the UK on deliveries so that India would get the F-35 +/- 6-12 months of the projected EF/Rafale schedule

Question: Which plane then makes most sense for India to buy? Of course, it's a game but very seriously, if the the super committee on debt fails to reach a consensus and it seems likely they will not, then all bets are off. Stuff really hits the fan. LM is frantic and Boeing plans to fill the gap with Silent Hornet for the USN

Awaiting thoughts.....

[Taygibay]

ToT package comparable to the EF/Rafale

huh ... duh ...?????????

Totally surrealistic and even ubuesque but ...
if it happened and India gets a production line
at some point, go for it.
That line could switch to F-35 derived bimotor AMCA later.
Regardless of how I value EF/Rafale/F-35, that would be a great deal.
Do note that I feel as safe to say : Go for it!
as I feel safe that it will not happen though!

[Kovy]

is forgetting that stealth is but one solution to deep penetration.
The Rafale is designed for high-lo-lo, which makes it a visible
target only in transit. Most modern fighters will not detect this
hugging the ground :

Maybe not in mountainous terrain as the picture depicts, but its utility is question in the plains and deserts of northern India. Even in mountainous regions, a low flying aircraft is susceptible to MANPADS and mobile QRSAMs

true, but those kind of high speed low altitude penetration mission usually occur at night, somehow reducing the manpad threat efficiency.
For other bigger threats, Rafale ATF work directly with spectra to avoid dangerous zone.

Also, being invisible to other fighters is not strictly speaking true, a decent fighter PESA radar (preferably an AESA) or even better an AEW&C aircraft with interleaving air-to-air and air-to-ground modes may still be able to track the Rafale within the ground clutter.

and the rafale will passively monitor the sky while in terrain following mode with the OSF and spectra. You can bet that the Rafale will therefore be aware of any potential high altitude threat before the threat itself, and change its course accordingly to avoid it.

And then there are range penalties - at low altitude the Rafale's operational range with stores can end up being more than halved.

Dassault combat radius figure for a HLowH mission is 1000+ nm. Add at least 300 km for the scalps and you get a stricking range of more than 2000 km.

[Cosmo_R]

@Taygibay^^^

Ubuesque ? Wow! an Alfred Jarry fan. So I give you ""Laughter is born out of the discovery of the contradictory". The question is not whether it will happen but what if it does. Speculation is the lifeblood of the MMRCA thread not to mention the devious minds at the Pentagon.

So I like your reaction: "Go for it" because this puts the relative capabilities into sharper focus.

Strange things happen. I was there when Walt Wriston made this statement :

""Countries don't go out of business....The infrastructure doesn't go away, the productivity of the people doesn't go away, the natural resources don’t go away. And so their assets always exceed their liabilities, which is the technical reason for bankruptcy. And that's very different from a company."

Walter Wriston
Citicorp Chairman "

Greece shows every sign of doing just that.

Also,

"If misery loves company, there’s solace: bonds of the small Latin American nation Peru are considered safer than those of the UK and France, while Japan’s are the 11th riskiest, just above India’s."

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_in ... ld_1609078

Peru was the single biggest hit First National City (Citicorp's predecessor) took in the 1920s

Long way of saying anything can happen. Not that it has to.

[Philip]

Shiver me timbers!

The sound of a JSF death rattle (article written just 5 days ago).

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... nt&src=rss

The sound of a JSF death rattle
Robert Gottliebsen

4 Oct 2011

While all attention is on tax and falling markets, an even more important event for Australia and our region is unfolding: the trillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter project has begun the early stages of a painful and extended death rattle. This threatens to inflict major harm on our defence partner, the United States, and the JSF is by far the largest military obligation in Australia’s history.

Even worse, we convinced our defence manufacturing industry to tool up to be major JSF contractors. As a result, a huge chunk of our defence manufacturing support capacity faces a financial disaster. Three companies have already failed. The long-term air defence planning of the US and Australia is now in tatters.

These are extreme statements which will, as always, be denied by the top brass in the Australian Defence Department. I have been warning about the dangers of the JSF for close to a decade and the defence officials, whose reputations are at risk, have always thrown cold water on my comments. Now, at last, the US marines have decided to tell the truth about the JSF in the American national interest. And the truth confirms all our worst fears.

But it is not all bad news because the US marines are also offering a solution. And better still, if Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Defence Minister Stephen Smith are courageous enough to bypass our reputation-preserving defence chiefs, and back the US marines’ solution, Australia can play a big role in overcoming the JSF problem. We would also maintain the significant US role in the air defence of our region and ensure survival for the large areas of Australia’s defence manufacturing that is hitched to the doomed JSF.

Few Australians will have heard of Major Christopher J Cannon, an operations analyst with the US Marines. Major Cannon did not tell the truth about the JSF by talking to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Rather he did something far more powerful – he told the truth in the Marine Corps Gazette under the heading “F-35B (JSF) needs a Plan B”. There has been silence from the US Marine chiefs. Clearly Major Cannon had their blessing and the blessings of many in the US defence hierarchy. When the truth is out it can be a great relief to those who are hiding it.

Major Cannon and the marines first describe the long JSF delays. Then he explains how the original cost estimate for JSF procurement of $US233 billion has blown out to $466 billion and is still rising.

“But procurement costs are less than half the problem,” he says. Total JSF costs are now estimated at $1,198 billion – almost three times the original estimate of $344 million. Given the looming US and global budgetary cuts, this makes the JSF impossibly expensive for both America and its partners.

Then Major Cannon and the marines explain the reluctance of the American global partners to commit to the JSF given the cost. Australia’s defence think tank, AirPower Australia, has calculated the JSF ordering disaster from US reports. Back in February 2007 (only four years ago), the US planned to produce 1,535 JSF aircraft to 2019, of which 1,077 would be taken by the US. America’s partners, including Australia, would buy the rest.

The current official figures show that US 2019 production has been cut to 622 aircraft but it is almost certain to go down to 522 – a fall of 66 per cent. These enormous falls mean most of the contracts that were given to Australian suppliers by the developer, Lockheed Martin, are useless. Lockheed will look after its American contractors first but the production numbers are now so low that they too will be hit. The JSF optimists say that after 2020 it will change but that’s unlikely because we also know that the JSF is no match for the Russian/Indian equivalent aircraft, although Major Cannon did not mention this.

What’s the answer? The US marines via Major Cannon have come up a very good solution. The US had a brilliant aircraft called the F-22 but in a self-serving lobbying exercise Lockheed Martin convinced the US Congress to stop F-22 production because Lockheed Martin make far greater profits out of the JSF.

The marines say that not only is the F-22 a better aircraft than the JSF, but measured over the life of each aircraft the F-22 will be $100 million per aircraft cheaper than the JSF.

This is where Australia comes in. When President Obama comes to Australia we should ask him if we can switch to the cheaper and better F22. But we should also offer to help with upgrades of the F-22.

Australia, the US and other countries have developed some magnificent systems innovation for the JSF which can inexpensively be converted for use in the F-22, which will make it an even better aircraft.

Australia should commit to the F-22 which will help President Obama back the marines against his defence hierarchy and manage the US switch to the F-22 in a way that incorporates the best of the JSF into the F-22. That way ‘face’ can be saved.

We need the US to be a strong air power in our region and with the upgraded F-22, it will retain its current power with an aircraft that is far cheaper to buy and operate than the JSF. And we will retain a defence component industry.

The worst thing that could happen for Australia is for the JSF project to go through its death rattle and die. We need to help the US merge it with a restored F-22. Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith can not only help our nation but also the western world.

PS:Does any Indian want the IAF to crashland by abandoning the MMRCA twins in hand,and buy the bird in the "Bush",the "death-rattler"? Good name for the JSF huh?!

[Hitesh]

^^

Phillip, I am sorry but I must take the above report with a grain of salt. For instance, Robert thinks Australia can get the US to sell the F-22 planes when it is clear in abundant and no uncertain terms that USA will NOT sell F-22s to anyone else.

US is fully committed to the JSF. They have made their bed with the JSF program. They cannot back out of it anyway. Too many commitments to break. One way or the other, the USAF and USN will make the JSF work.

[Philip]

Hitesh,true.The US cannot back out of the JSF programme,it will acquire aircraft at astronomical cost to keep its manufacturers and jobs happy.But,its allies can certainly do so,as I've posted in many a post and heer are some that expose the different standards of inferior capable aircraft for export.

GW.I don't want to descend to the level of the gutter as you are doing ,calling me a liar,I could easily describe you in more colourful words befitting a US pimp.Webmasters/Mods,please clean the mouth or cleanse the Forum of this specimen.In my quotes below,I've proved my point.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

Capability:

The availability of Russian BVR missiles with very modern infrared seekers and heatseeking adaptations of area defence SAMs like the HQ-2 and SA-6B presents a situation where the JSF could be engaged at a respectable distance, despite its intended good X-band stealth capability. Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters could be vectored into a firing position without having to light up their X-band radars, or SAM sites cued in a similar fashion.

This is the pitfall of economy 'narrowband' stealth - it can defeat upper band radars used for the engagement control, but is much less effective in defeating the long range systems used to acquire targets. If an Su-30 can be positioned close enough, it can engage the JSF regardless of stealth, and with a kinematic and missile performance advantage the odds are unlikely to favour the JSF.

While having any real stealth always beats having no stealth, Australia should not develop unrealistically high expectations of the JSF's stealth capability, especially in relation to the principal regional capabilities like the Su-27/30, A-50 AEW&C, S-300/S-400 and supporting long range radar systems. The only fighter optimised for that threat environment at this time is the F-22A Raptor.

Inferior JSFs!...."differing in performance","less capable"...Does GW understand the English langauage?

The JSF is the first 'stealth fighter' to be intended for what is effectively mass export. Production aircraft will likely be delivered in 'high stealth' (US) and 'low stealth' (export) configurations, differing in the performance and application of radar absorbent and lossy materials, as well as 'fully capable' to 'less than fully capable' variants, such capabilities dictated through the single source software load. In an environment where every ally is clamouring for the 'high stealth' model, it might be politically very tricky for Australia to get access to the full stealth potential of the aircraft. Given each partner nation is contributing 'risk capital' to varying degrees to belong to the JSF club, the matter of proprietary rights, real or implied or inferred, is likely to employ members of the legal fraternity for decades to come.

Now the "risk factors",adding to the earlier quote about inferior versions,lower capabilities,if full TOT is absent.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-May-04-P.pdf

IS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
RIGHT FOR AUSTRALIA?
PART 2 – JSF V RISK FACTORS

A second problem is the degree of access Australia actually
gets by SDD buy-in, especially in key areas like stealth,
engine hot end technology, AESA (Active Electronically
Scanned Array) radar and software. Unless personnel with
suitable engineering/science backgrounds and experience
are engaged to exploit the gathered data in depth, it may
contribute little useful value.
The industry benefit may also prove illusory, in that the
highest value added systems integration and software sector
of the industry gets a much smaller bite than the hardware
manufacturing sector, who in turn must compete
against overseas peers to retain their workshare. The worst
case outcome – a risk in its own right – is that the manufacturers
end up with very little, the Commonwealth with little
technology transfer, and the RAAF gets stripped to the bone
over the next decade fending off Army and Navy demands
for budget.

Sheer complexity is a problem in its own right, typically
software bug counts in systems of this complexity increase
at a rate faster than the increase in the size of the code, as
more software components have opportunities to interact
adversely. While cockpit control, radar signal processing,
EW processing, and comm/nav functions are likely to be
less troublesome, the big question will be the bugginess or
otherwise of the DAS (Distributed Aperture Systems) functions,
data fusion functions, and offboard data networking
software. Additional difficulties will arise in testing technique
to validate the system. Odds are the software will be
one of the biggest sources of development cost and time
overruns in the latter phase of SDD and LRIP.
A related risk factor will be whether Australia is permitted
access to the full software functionality, and whether
source code and development systems will be provided for
local enhancements and bug fixes.

*Is Carlo Kop a "liar" too? Are the partners of the US,OZ fools? This also underscores what I've posted earlier about the tiers/classes.Just like our railways,depending upon how much you pay,you will get the equiv. of "AC 1,2,3,Tier" berth/product! This is why the Brits have warned the US that unless they get the full codes,etc. there is little point in not being able to exploit the full stealth potential of the aircraft.If this is inferior capabilty than what is not?

Gentlemen,I can go on and on,but I think that a line need to be drawn here and we must consign the much touted JSF to aother thread where it can last out the decade until the aircraft arrives in style,and allow the IAF to choose which of the two Euro-birds it needs for the moment!

[NRao]

Fools? No
Liars? No
Biased? More than likely yes.

But then to make that argument to one that is inherently biased .................................???

________________________________________

Good amount of very good posts on the JSF fiasco.

However, one must remember that decisions such as these are also influenced by other happenings. GoI cannot ignore the Chinese presence way down south of where they ought to be ............... in war games in Pakistan. Nor can GoI ignore their presence in PoK.

I bet Sino-Japanese incidences influence GoI.

To a lesser degree perhaps, but Iran nuclear efforts and Russian comments on Israeli thinking of attacking Iran has to have some say in Indo-US matters.

JSF being a very, very small aspect of a much larger picture being painted - at a GoI level.

And, at some point int time even the IAF will have to accept what the GoI wants. How it will turn out I do not know, but this much I am certain of - the JSF is just a very small pawn in this game.

[NRao]

Sorry, I take that back. You did say:

"Oz fools".

That by simple logic has to be yes.

[Victor]

2... Panetta... offers India the UK spec CTOL JSF at a price comparable to or less than the EF/Rafale with a ToT package comparable to the EF/Rafale

3. .. deliveries so that India would get the F-35 +/- 6-12 months of the projected EF/Rafale schedule..

This is speculation? I thought we were already there on all counts for the most part with maybe an additional year for deliveries on top of what you wrote?

While Unkil's financial woes can definitely play to our benefit, it's the opposite with the Euros--their situation is so bad that the chances of their spending on further development is doubtful not just because of financial constraints but because they simply don't need this stuff. Who are they going to bomb next, the Syrians? Maybe that's why the Rafale which first flew 25 years ago is only now talking about AESA and the Typhoon which first flew 18 years ago is only now getting around to A2G?

These unprecedented economic conditions were unthinkable a few months ago when the downselect was done but they do have the potential to queer the pitch now. It seems that the least prudent thing to do is bash ahead with blinkers firmly on, sticking doggedly to the written script. Still, I'm sure there is a lot we don't know below the surface and I trust the IAF to do the right thing. But I also hope that strict adherence to the "procurement process" which was put in motion over 10 years ago hasn't become the main objective over the final aircraft. I sometimes get the feeling we're going beyond the call of duty with this "transparency" thing.

[Singha]

one q: can khan offer CTOL JSF @ $80 mil unit price for delivery starting 2015?

I dont think they can meet either the price or delivery of the two e-canards.

and PRC isnt going to wait around until after JSF deliveries start to us in 2018 to slap us around.

[sohels]

one q: can khan offer CTOL JSF @ $80 mil unit price for delivery starting 2015?

I dont think they can meet either the price or delivery of the two e-canards.

Have you been following the news? The bids could be around twice that figure.

[ldev]

3. Cognizant of the time line difference to operational clearance between the EF/Rafale, Panetta (and remember this is hypothetical) offers India first dibs even ahead of the US and certainly the UK on deliveries so that India would get the F-35 +/- 6-12 months of the projected EF/Rafale schedule

Strange things happen. I was there when Walt Wriston made this statement//

You certainly go back a long way!!.

Frankly it does not make sense for India to spend $20 Billion on either the Rafale (which nobody outside of France has thought it worthwhile to buy) or the Typhoon, whose future development is uncertain because of the disaster that is European finances. Not to mention that I believe that at most in 5 years, but probably much, much, sooner, the Europeans (all of them) will start selling arms to China. I predict that before the last MMRCA rolls off HAL's assembly lines sometime in the 2020s, the Chinese will have more of the type than India has.

If the F35 is as good as its specs suggest it to be, it makes infinitely more sense to spend $20 Billion on it.

Added later: When the Chinese have more of either the Rafale or the Typhoon (whatever India has chosen as the MMRCA), than India's planned buy of 126-200 (sometime in the 2020s)..that is when India will run around and try and get the JSF to again open up a technology gap!!

[ldev]

self deleted

[sohels]

Not to mention that I believe that at most in 5 years, but probably much, much, sooner, the Europeans (all of them) will start selling arms to China... If the F35 is as good as its specs suggest it to be, it makes infinitely more sense to spend $20 Billion on it.

Yes! I said the same earlier in the thread, but was asked not to bring up geopolitics

[shukla]

MoD Begins Calculations to evaluate Life Cycle Cost of aircrafts for MMRCA

New Delhi: The Indian Defence Ministry has initiated the process of calculation of the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of the two shortlisted aircrafts - the Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale - in order to determine the lowest bidder and the ultimate winner of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal.

On November 4th, commercial bids from the two firms were opened in the presence of their representatives, by the Contracts Negotiation Committee of the Defence Ministry. Though both firms were notified about the cost per unit of each aircraft, confidentiality clauses prevent the figures from being revealed.

According to sources, the per unit cost of the Dassault Rafale is understood to be around 5 percent lower than the Eurofighter. However the final decision will be made on the basis of Life Cycle Cost of these aircrafts, which would be operated for around 40 years or 6,000 hours. The offset and technology transfer proposals made by the firms may also influence the decision.

[GeorgeWelch]

The JSF is the first 'stealth fighter' to be intended for what is effectively mass export. Production aircraft will likely be delivered in 'high stealth' (US) and 'low stealth' (export) configurations

LOL, I was wondering how long it would take you to find that quote from the notorious F-35 hater Kopp to backup your story

Now here's your challenge: find a reputable source that says the same thing.

And notice, even Kopp is careful in what he actually says. He doesn't say 'will be' he says 'will LIKELY be'. Why the qualifier? Because it's an opinion. In other words HE MADE IT UP.

You know why you won't find a reputable source to say it? Because it's not true.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArch ... ealth.aspx

in a subsequent statement issued by the F-35 program office, officials said "the quick answer to the statement regarding partners being less stealthy than the US is 'no.' (Partners will have same capability)."

If Kopp the Kook is wrong about such a basic factor, it makes you wonder if perhaps he's wrong on other things too? Hmmmmm.

[SaiK]

it is going to be interesting, in the sense Rafale has more history data than Ef2k for calculating the life cycle cost.

[Pogula]

LOL, I was wondering how long it would take you to find that quote from the notorious F-35 hater Kopp to backup your story

Now here's your challenge: find a reputable source that says the same thing.

Karlo Kopp is as biased against the JSF program as you are for it. So, how is that bad?
Karlo Kopp is much more credible in his "opinions" than you, any day! He atleast has his career to back his claims up. What credentials do you have to trump Karlo Kopp?
Even the famous A-10 and F-16 designer, Pierre Sprey, is a vocal critic of the JSF program.
The 36 year White House Defense veteran advisor, Winslow Wheeler, holds similarly negative opinions on the JSF program.

You, buddy, have no credibility to support your bias FOR the JSF. And hence, it is idiotic to question the credibility of defense analysts who are against the JSF.
Moreover, you are the one trying to sell the JSF as an alternative to Rafale/EF, and hence the whole burden of proof is on your shoulders alone!!!

Prove the following 3 points beyond reasonable doubt with credible and verifiable sources, or just shut the topic up!
1. 18 fully operational (atleast IOC) F-35s will be delivered to the IAF between 2014-16.
2. USG will waive all monitoring/communication conditions that IAF/MoD/GoI already declined to agree to.
3. HAL will be able to manufacture complete F-35s from raw materials by 2020.

Like I said, if you can't find credible sources of information to show that the JSF will fulfill the above 3 conditions, just take your JSF and shove it up Pervez's musharraf and call it a day!

[rajanb]

FWIW. That too in a derailed thread!

Rec'd via email:
Update: Australia sends team to JSF plant to assess delay risks
Australia has sent a team of experts to Lockheed Martin's production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, to ascertain whether the company can adhere to its delivery schedule for the first 14 of what is expected to be an Australian fleet of about 100 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, a Lockheed Martin executive told Jane's on 25 October. Keith Notts, F-35 business development manager for Australia and Canada, said the team from Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation would spend a week undertaking "a scheduled risk assessment"

[first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 28 October 2011]

[Philip]

In Goerge's eyes,everyone but himself is a liar! I suppose AWST too are liars when they say that LM have told them that they will get the first sqd. only in 2019,the irst nation to acquire the aircraft.Anyway,GW take your defence,touting of the JSF to the right thread.This is for the MMRCA dolt!

[Philip]

In the above post it should read,"told the Israelis".We've just had the report of the first SU-30MKI totaly built from Indian raw material.This is what we want with the MMRCA TOT clause,not being shafted like US allies with an inferior turkey.

Back to the thread's topic.

In the above post it should read,"told the Israelis".We've just had the report of the first SU-30MKI totaly built from Indian raw material.This is what we want with the MMRCA TOT clause,not being shafted like US allies with an inferior turkey.

Overview of the contest:

Let's take a quick look at why the others failed which might give us a clue as to which will win.

Here's a quote from DID (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/)
why the F-18SH,F-16.MIG-35,Gripen,the failures, did not make the cut.

Weaknesses of the Super Hornet platform included deep distrust of America’s reliability as an arms supplier, technology transfer concerns, and the aircraft’s expense. Given the costs to other customers so far, it seems unlikely that Boeing can deliver 126 fully-equipped F/A-18 E/F Block II aircraft for just $10.2 billion, let alone aircraft plus lifetime support. Since it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF, that entire support infrastructure would have to be developed from the ground up. Finally, the Super Hornet offers poorer aerodynamic performance than the Eurofighter or Rafale, due to inherent airframe limitations. Carnegie Endowment’s Andrew Tellis says that last disadvantage was the killer.

Even so, the Indian Air Force never seemed very interested in the F-16. Weaknesses include the fact that Pakistan also flies F-16s; the fact it’s a new aircraft type, so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; Lockheed Martin’s difficulty in complying with industrial offset provisions, given their lack of penetration in India. The MMRCA RFP’s delays may have helped Lockheed, by allowing them ample time to find arrangements with Indian firms. There are also reports that the US government was pushing this option, because of the regional reassurance factor. While the common underlying aircraft type would probably take some of the edge off of the deal from Pakistan’s point of view, and an F-16 E/F Block 60+ would have a number of important advantages over even Pakistan’s new F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft, its conformal fuel tanks would give it poorer turn performance and handling. This disadvantage, and perceptions that the platform had limited capacity for further upgrades, were reportedly fatal in India’s trials.

The MiG-29’s biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability; the MiG-35 largely fixes these issues, and may even add an AESA radar of its own if Phazotron-NIIR can have its new Zhuk-AE ready in time. Technology sharing and co-production are also considered to be strengths; as one Indian officer put it: “Russians have their problems of delayed projects and unreliable spare supply but they give access to everything, unlike the Americans.” He’s referring to the IAF’s not-so-great experience with India’s existing MiG-29s, which have had maintenance problems in addition to their other deficits.

...Reports that MiG-35 delivery cannot start before 2014 at the earliest add a further disadvantage, especially compared to competitors with active production lines and rapid delivery capability.

...India has ordered a handful of MiG-29K variants as its future carrier aircraft. Nevertheless, doubling down to add the MiG-35 would make India the first customer for both variants – neither of which has other sale opportunities on the near horizon. That could be spun as a positive industrial opportunity, but it was also a cost and risk issue.

The Gripen is a true 4th+ generation lightweight fighter and significantly more capable than category competitors like the F-16 and Mirage 2000, though the MiG-35 may give it a run for the money. Gripen NG begins to address the aircraft’s range limitations, and would include an AESA radar among its other enhancements. Other strengths include a wide choice of integrated weapons and pods; reasonable purchase cost; the fact that it has been designed for exceptional cost of ownership; and the ability operate from roads instead of runways if necessary. With respect to industrial offsets, Saab has made a strong offer, backed by excellent record in countries like South Africa, Hungary, The Czech Republic et. al

...As an interesting side note, the JAS-39NG’s use of GE’s F414G engine would have created future commonality with India’s own Tejas Mk2, which will also be powered by the F414 after DRDO’s Kaveri engine failures put the entire project in jeopardy.

The JAS-39’s drawbacks include its short range; the fact it’s a new aircraft type for the IAF; its AESA radar’s developmental status; perceived similarity (whether valid or not) to the Tejas fighter’s potential performance; and a low volume of international orders to date that raises questions about the platform’s ability to modernize over the next 30-40 years.

...The long-running Bofors scandal is reported to have tainted any future buys from Sweden, casting an irrational and unjustified, but still present, shadow over the Gripen’s chances.

Other influences:

The Tejas is not an M-MRCA competitor – but confidence in its development plans, its ability to stay under $25 million per plane, the potential for a naval variant, etc. has had a behind-the-curtains influence on every MRCA decision.

The Tejas program’s qualified success over the past few years would probably have doomed the Mirage 2000. Instead, India will upgrade its existing 51-plane Mirage fleet, in a separate $2.3+ billion deal.

Lockheed Martin and the US government have been pushing the F-35 ever since the F-16 and F-18 were eliminated, but even if India changed its mind, the F-35’s advanced systems, established industrial partnership structure and program procurement policies could also make it nearly impossible to meet India’s technology transfer and industrial offset rules.

Latest news:

Nov 4/11: India opens the final bids, which are reportedly within the range of $80-110 million per aircraft. At $80 million each, 126 fighters may come in just under budget. At $110 million each, the cost rises well over budget to $13 billion. Indian officials have said that they are prepared to raise their budget if needed. The realities of Indian procurement will create difficulties, however, unless the move has very strong and high level political support.

Indian media report that the Dassault’s base bid was slightly lower, but the final “L-1” bid costing will also include life-cycle costs over 6,000 flight hours, costs of technology transfer, and other factors. It will take a few weeks to even arrive at a verifiable cost model to determine each bidder’s L-1, and begin establish which is really the lowest price. Some reports suggest that an answer could be forthcoming by the end of the year, but based on past performance, early 2012 is a more realistic expectation.

Meanwhile, the USA and Lockheed Martin are still pushing the F-35 from outside the MMRCA process, and Sweden’s Saab waits with its capable and less-expensive JAS-39IN Gripen. If the finalists’ cost figures create a crisis, they are prepared. Economic Times of India | The Hindu | Indian Express | Live Mint | Times of India | Zee News || India’s Business Standard op-ed re: F-35.

The last note indicates why the Gripen and JSF corners are pitching and touting their birds so desperately,that is if the cost of the two EU MMRCA birds is seen as unaffordable.In my opinion,neither of the two,with the EU in eco crisis will want to lose out on this deal,which will impinge upon future deals globally.It will also be a real hard-sell to the Indian polity if a technically rejected aircraft like the Gripen or an evem more expensive pipe-dream like the JSF is chosen! If the price of the Rafale is just "slightly lower" than the EF as reported,then the EF stands a good chance if it has won technically,as the political aspect of several EU nations manufacturing the aircraft,especially the UK and Germany,lobbying intensively,should trump the French,who have already been given the very expensive M-2000 upgrade.For the French to win,the Rafale must be significantly lower in its cost than the EF.It will also be easier for the EF nations to meet the 50% offset investments requirement.If it finally ends up as a political choice,then the EF will win.

[GeorgeWelch]

Karlo Kopp is much more credible in his "opinions" than you, any day!

Equal levels of stealth isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

What credentials do you have to trump Karlo Kopp?

An official release from the F-35 program office.

Facts trump opinion every time.

Prove the following 3 points beyond reasonable doubt with credible and verifiable sources, or just shut the topic up!
1. 18 fully operational (atleast IOC) F-35s will be delivered to the IAF between 2014-16.

Never said they would. My position is that it's not relevant. There are other ways to cover the gap. Whether it's buying cheaper gap-fillers or extending the service life of existing planes, the IAF has plenty of reasonable options.

2. USG will waive all monitoring/communication conditions that IAF/MoD/GoI already declined to agree to.

Apparently they reached enough of an agreement to consider the F-16 and SH. The bigger point is that you don't have anything to worry about it. If there are conditions the IAF can't agree to, they won't buy it and problem solved from your perspective.

However to not even CONSIDER it because of what the conditions MIGHT be would be very foolish indeed.

3. HAL will be able to manufacture complete F-35s from raw materials by 2020.

That's not what the MRCA tender calls for, so why are you holding the F-35 to a higher standard than the MRCA?

[koti]

.....

X posted in new JSF thread

[Philip]

"Facts trump opinion all the time"!

X-posted from the Turkey thread.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... fly/40834/
Adam Clark Estes Aug 4, 2011

The Pentagon's Priciest Plane Can't Fly

Fighter jets have always been an expensive line item for the Pentagon, but the cost of the new F-35 fleet sets a startling precedent. As Dominic Tierney explains at The Atlantic, the cost of building and operating the 2,443 planes the military is planning to buy tops out at over $1 trillion: "In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion)." You would think for all that money, they would at least fly (as well as maybe do your laundry and give you some tax advice.) But for the moment, the entire fleet is grounded.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports, "the power system that starts and cools the aircraft failed during an engine ground test," and until engineers can figure out why, the pricey planes are simply expensive lawn ornaments. This is the third time that this has happened in less than a year--an electrical problem afflicted the fleet in March and software problems grounded the fleet last October. Responding to this latest development, The Atlantic's Joshua Foust points out that while these problems were cropping up, the Pentagon was scrambling to find a way to cut costs and distracted by a plan to design a second, cheaper engine for the jet.

The latest mechanical failure might prove helpful to those who would like to see more scrutiny directed at the fate of the fleet. (At least, the F-35 pilots don't have anti-freeze in their blood.) The Pentagon is scrambling to figure out how they'll deal with the possible $500 billion in budget cuts as outlined by the new debt deal. According to a Bloomberg report out Thursday, the gnarly new fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters on order from Lockheed Martin "has been in the crosshairs" for a while. And it's not too difficult to see why. The fleet will be the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history.

Sources
Problem with power system grounds all F-35s, Bob Cox, Fort Worth Star-Telegram
The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia, Dominic Tierney, The Atlantic
Competition for Military Contracts Doesn't Lower Costs, Joshua Foust, The Atlantic
Topics: U.S. Navy, F-35, Budget Cuts, Pentagon

More on the Turkey,the "weapon that costs more than Australia"!

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... lia/72454/

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an impressive aircraft: a fifth generation multirole fighter plane with stealth technology. It's also a symbol of everything that's wrong with defense spending in America.

In a rational world, U.S. military expenditure would focus on the likely threats that the United States faces today and in the future. And at a time of mounting national debt, the Tea Party would be knocking down the Pentagon's door to cut waste.

But the only tea party in sight is the one overseen by the Mad Hatter, as we head down the rabbit hole into the military industrial wonderland....

Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.

Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.

In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).

The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste.

Money is pouring into the F-35 vortex. In 2010, Pentagon officials found that the cost of each plane had soared by over 50 percent above the original projections. The program has fallen years behind schedule, causing billions of dollars of additional expense, and won't be ready until 2016. An internal Pentagon report concluded that: "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar."

In January 2011, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a champion of the aircraft, voiced his frustration: "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint."

....The 2010 bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission on deficit reduction suggested canceling the Marine Corps's version of the F-35, and halving the number of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy--replacing them with current generation F-16s, which cost one-third as much. This would save close to $30 billion from 2011 to 2015.

The plan went nowhere.

We used to be content to outspend Australia on aircraft. Now we literally spend Australia on aircraft.

[Cosmo_R]

2... Panetta... offers India the UK spec CTOL JSF at a price comparable to or less than the EF/Rafale with a ToT package comparable to the EF/Rafale

3. .. deliveries so that India would get the F-35 +/- 6-12 months of the projected EF/Rafale schedule..

This is speculation? I thought we were already there on all counts for the most part with maybe an additional year for deliveries on top of what you wrote?

While Unkil's financial woes can definitely play to our benefit, it's the opposite with the Euros--their situation is so bad that the chances of their spending on further development is doubtful not just because of financial constraints but because they simply don't need this stuff. Who are they going to bomb next, the Syrians? Maybe that's why the Rafale which first flew 25 years ago is only now talking about AESA and the Typhoon which first flew 18 years ago is only now getting around to A2G?

These unprecedented economic conditions were unthinkable a few months ago when the downselect was done but they do have the potential to queer the pitch now. It seems that the least prudent thing to do is bash ahead with blinkers firmly on, sticking doggedly to the written script. Still, I'm sure there is a lot we don't know below the surface and I trust the IAF to do the right thing. But I also hope that strict adherence to the "procurement process" which was put in motion over 10 years ago hasn't become the main objective over the final aircraft. I sometimes get the feeling we're going beyond the call of duty with this "transparency" thing.

I hope I am not derailing the thread. I thought of responding in the JSF thread but the issue is linked to the MMRCA as well. So mods please bear with me as I pick up on Victor's points.

You've put it well IIUYC. I am no JSF fanboy and I welcomed the decision in April to downselect and just get on with it. The IAF has been trying to get new planes since 2001 and I think it is critical that they now get new planes ASAP.

But things have changed in Europe. The Brits, the Germans and others are all cutting back and even offering their place in line to the Saudis and anyone else with the dough. As I've mentioned before, there is real risk of buying an 'orphan' platform.

Italy is now under the guns of the bond nazis and Spain and even France will follow. The UK can't afford the F35Bs on their second CV .These countries are going to ratchet down defense spending even more, sell the planes to PRC and do whatever it takes short of a Lavi episode.

In short, forget about R&D and that should give us pause. Unit costs, supply chain are going to be impacted in ways that even the vendors did not think of back when the put in their bids. The Europeans are not going to be able or willing to help us out against the PRC (rushing in attrition replacements etc).

I also agree we should not become prisoners to a procurement process that may be irrelevant to current conditions.

FWIW, my impression is that in some ways, the EF/Rafafle <->JSF problems are a mirror image. By this I mean, the Europeans are increasingly desperate to wash their hands off the planes by selling them to others while the US is increasingly desperate to save the JSF program in the face of across the board cuts.

From an Indian perspective, the fly in the ointment is the JSF timing. IIUC, we need 18 MMRCAs by 2014 and 108 more by 2020 (is that right?). I don't think the 2014 goal is a possibility for the JSF but this article in the Korea Herald is interesting:

http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Det ... 1109000645

"Lockheed Martin has said that the per-unit price for the F-35 to be delivered to South Korea is expected to be around $65 million in 2016."

Now, I don't know whether they 2016 prices or whether they can deliver by 2016. OTOH, the EF/Rafale would handily meet the 2014 deadline even if it means Germany/UK/Italy surrendering their place for the first 18. LM and its SCs on the other hand have vast experience in ramping up production and so they could probably make up the total at the back end.

JMT.