Thanks for that post/article.
srai wrote:
Still a good deal?
Do not know good or bad. But it is the *only* deal in town.
We have heard (AI-17) that GE's Bangalore branch has started work on the enhanced F414 engine for the AMCA. I have not seen - to date - any costs associated with that effort. As I have stated before the two are tied at the hips. It is still my opinion that the the "F-16" was negotiated to be the payment for that JV.
We have till Oct/Nov to resolve the issue. Time will tell. One of the first indicators - IMHO - would be either a cost associated with that JV (AMCA engine) or the withdrawal of that DTTI based effort. Let us see.
Now to the article itself:
A key reason for this is that Lockheed Martin does not envisage transferring more than a few hundred jobs to India, of workers involved in final assembly of the F-16 at Fort Worth. Meanwhile, some 6,000 American jobs connected with producing assemblies and sub-assemblies for the F-16 would get a lease of life. Without an Indian order, these jobs would be lost, since there are no other buyers for the F-16.
Good data point. I suspect that the Obama admin negotiated for transfer of the F-16 line and around 6000 jobs, related to the F-16, to India. Trump - as would be expected - has placed a lid due to that number. It looks like Trump is fine with the rest (including the carrier related and the AMCA engine efforts) (another article in the ToI states that he is fine with the rest - without specifically mentioning either).
A quick word or two on "jobs". In the US the job ratio for aerospace is 1:4 (O&G is 1:2 and I think IT is about 1:1). So, an aerospace job - in the US - generates 4 other jobs. So, if indeed 6,000 jobs are slated to leave the US, then the bean counters in the Trump WH are actually saying they lose 6,000+(6,000*4) = 30,000 jobs. To the Obama WH it was "we are going to lose that anyways". To Trump it is the other way around - IF there is a F-16 line somewhere, we lose that many jobs.
While Lockheed Martin is pitching to India the opportunity to build F-16s for all future purchases worldwide, DefenseNews quotes Heidi Grant, deputy under secretary of the US Air Force, as stating that interest from potential F-16 buyers was directed mainly towards the used F-16s of countries that were upgrading their fleet to the F-35 Lightning II.
Yeah, I do not see too many exports. But the arg is that there are nations that would like the F-35 and will nto be offered it. And, that is where the F-16 *can be* offered. No guarantees.
On the flip side, the jobs that do supply to an Indian made F-16 will join a global supply chain. And that would be beyond the F-16, for any craft/product that may come up globally.
“We are not expecting any announcements [related to the sale of F-16s] in the next six months”, says an official who is aware of US-India negotiations.
As I stated above, there is a cushion till Oct/Nov. This was part of the plan laid down by Parrikar. SP by Mar/Apr and assignments by Oct/Nov (these are NOT my dates).
Fuelling speculation over Saab’s continued relevance in the fighter procurement, Modi phoned up his Swedish counterpart, Stefan Lofven on Wednesday morning. Following what he lauded as a “good discussion”, Modi tweeted: “I deeply appreciate Sweden’s support for Make in India.”
Modi playing hard ball - which is good.
He is telling LM to get behind the deal they made in the Obama era and get the approval from the Trump WH.
I just do not see the Grippen coming. IF at all it will be more Rafales - they will dump the SE, buy the F-18 (which should be more palatable for the Trump admin - it should not be a threat to US jobs) and pay for the AMCA engine through that.
Lockheed Martin has waged an aggressive, American style campaign to push the F-16 -- employing media briefings, sponsoring think tank papers and, at the ongoing Paris Air Show, announcing a joint venture with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd (TASL) to build the F-16 in India on an integration line transferred from Forth Worth, Texas.
There was a deal made during the Obama admin, which was left in abeyance. That the Trump admin was willing to say "MII" is by itself a knuckler. Let us see what comes out in the next two days. I do not expect too much, but the question is if the ball will stop rolling.
Saab has sweetened its offer by undertaking to help India in developing and manufacturing the Tejas Mark 1A – an improved version of the current indigenous fighter – and also helping in the development of India’s planned next-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft.
A thorn that has not gone away.
"LCA".
The above is a great indicator - for whatever reason BR never talks of it - that the "LCA" has problems. SAAB has been ofereing to help with the MK1A - specifically - for about two years now!!!!!!
Which bring me to multiple topics on the "LCA", bt will address one/two
The "LCA" - to me - has three phases/lives. First is the MIC (ADA/HAL/what-have-you), the production and the client IAF.
1) The MIC LCA.
It is a great effort and a greater product. The MIC LCA is following the curve that most vendors have experienced. The long time it has taken is due to the low risks (reflecting in no crashes). This LCA is par for the course. However, it will take much, much longer than what has been proposed ny the MIC entities. The MIC has dealt with the easier aspects of the LCA and is now facing the more complex parts. They need time (and funds) and cannot be hurried. So, what we view as slippage (FOC for Mk1, MK1A, etc) are par for the course. Following the curve.
2) The production "LCA"
Austin alluded to this a few posts ago. Let me just add, it is a huge problem just to manufacture this plane. Scaling it up is another dimension by itself. Just ordering more can never solve the problem. In fact it will make it even worse. IF they do not meet the deadlines for scaling it up to 16 do not worry - it is par for the course. We just need to be patient.
BTW, is 120 planes not sufficient an order to assist in scaling up? If not what is the number?
3) IAF "LCA".
As CM and someone else mentioned, the IAF can never wait till the LCA is delivered whenever. That the MIC needs time for the maturation of the LCA (which it deservedly needs) should not be confused with the needs of the IAF.
I have said this before and will restate it - the IAF will withdraw from the MK2 too, like the IN. And, not because it is a bad craft.
KEY: The three are actually function independent of each other and need to be funded individually. However, there should be a harmony between each neighboring effort. (In short)
Quickly, on the death of the LCA.
It depends on what one means by death of the LCA. They have orders for 120 LCAs. However, if one means that the MIC itself will no longer exist - what about the AMCA? Do you all see that the F-16 will kill the entire MIC, including the AMCA? I think the "LCA" (techs) will live through the AMCA and further on. Unless, of course, one is expecting India to slide back to 1980 eco status. Then yes, I do see that happening - for sure. BUT, if the eco gallops at 6-7%, perhaps the MIC will see some touch times, but if the eco is doing 7+%, then I just do not see anyone being able to topple this effort other than India itself.
Predictions:
LCA MK1 + MK1A (120)
F-16 (150)
F-18 (75)
AMCA (200+). Flying tech demo by 2022, a prototype by 2025, then on enhancements.
Filed under BTW:
* The F-16 Block 70 has a 50% greater life span than the earlier models - out of the box.
* I know it has been claimed that it is a dead end. I do not think so, especially for India