JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[NRao]

3 ) Prone to future sanctions affecting spares and support making a substantial fleet of IAF Aircraft less available or worse grounded , something we cannot rule out

So, what about the fleet of 20 C-17 and at least 12 C-130Js? The prior for strategic airlift and the latter for use in special operations.

I do not expect the F-35 in any shape or form to arrive in India - even for an air show, but such an argument really hold less water today and seems to me will hold even lesser in the near future considering that the IA is expecting to get a boat load of Apaches. Right?

Then there is that little news item that the two nation's services are considering joint procurement !!!!

So, what gives? Asking that question not to place you in a corner, but to find real answers. Times have changed and old concerns just may not apply. ?????

[Philip]

NR Aug 5/12 2013 issue,the latest.Very relevant!

[NRao]

4 ) Non Availability of full source but only capability to add new module for new weapons etc which makes it impossible to know whats inside and does not give full flexibility to programs weapons/sensor according to IAF needs.

Yes, this (I am told - via some grape vines) is the REAL (and someone said, the ONLY) cause for Indian reluctance to buy the F-35.

And, if true (from my PoV it is speculative), a very good reason I would say.

[NRao]

NR Aug 5/12 2013 issue,the latest.Very relevant!

OK, thanks. I took your post (Aug 5/12) to mean August 5, 2012. What you meant was "week of" Aug 5-12. Fair enough on the date.

BUT, those figures are for LRIP and you need to address that - open issue.

Resolve all issues, not just the one that is OK with you please.

[NRao]

1 ) India Objections to US restrictive laws like Logistics Support Agreement, Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) and the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Understanding (CISMOA)

Again these were major issues, then they became less major. The purchase of the C-17 and C-130 - yes, I understand that they are mere transports - provides some insight into this matter. That the GoI has worked it out.

To be sure, from what I know - the services did not have major issues, it was the GoI that had issues.

Jul, 2011 :: India averse to inking military pacts with U.S.

The U.S. argues that there is no hidden aim behind the LSA. It is an inter-bank type of clearing arrangement — there will be periodical settlement of accounts for the use of each other's facilities.

For instance, Indian naval ships have had 45 refuellings from the U.S. ships in the Gulf of Aden. Under the LSA, payments need not be made each time. The expenses could be adjusted against the money owed to India if U.S. ships came calling here.

But the Indian leadership feels that the LSA will give the impression of a strategic agreement with the Pentagon in military operations.

This is not a services related issue. The then GoI deemed it to be an issue with some of political partners.

India confronts a technical issue in signing the CISMOA, though officials feel it sounds heavier than it is. They also feel that interoperability, as argued by the U.S., need not be dependent on signing the CISMOA.

The communication will be encrypted and no other algorithm can be used on the system. During joint exercises, U.S. personnel sit on Indian ships with their own equipment.

But on aircraft there is no space for two or three different kinds of equipment.

The Navy and the Air Force have said they had no problems either way but politically this remains a sensitive issue though officials say it is not as heavy as it sounds.

Again - a political issue. Although I would think it to be more than that. There was concern about sharing Indian communications with the Pakis (by mistake was the reason given by the IN) for instance

India also has reservations on the third military agreement sought by the U.S. — BECA. The U.S. says the pact will enable C-130 and C-17 planes to fly close to the ground.

This entails installation of ground sensors, which none in the security establishment, except the Defence Research & Development Organisation is keen on.

Seems to be a technical topic and Indian agencies do nto seem to be keen. So it should not be an issue.

After the Defence-Secretary level Defence Policy Group (DPG) meeting in Washington earlier this year (2011), both sides agreed to work towards a more “mature arrangement.'' But there was no “question of a blanket agreement,'' said the official sources.

Have no clue where this stands, but, seems to me that both are working around some, if not all, of these agreements 9as we think to know them).

[NRao]

AWST Aug 5/12 issue.latest costs:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the original article:

Aug 5, 2013 :: New F-35 Cost Target Slips Toward Goal

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have agreed to a handshake deal for the latest two lots of F-35 airframes, and based on cost projections the program for the first time is targeting a unit price under $100 million, excluding engines and retrofits.

But this goal in the seventh production run (next year) covers only the airframe. A breakdown of additional prices such as the F135 engine and projected retrofits reveals a far higher cost. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is preparing to consider whether the single-engine, stealthy aircraft is ready for full-rate production, as officials target a total unit cost at peak production of $80-90 million.

The deal covers 36 aircraft in low-rate, initial production (LRIP) 6 and another 35 in LRIP 7. Defense spending cuts handed down by sequestration in the fiscal 2013 budget did not ultimately affect the number of aircraft in LRIP 6, as once thought.

The total contract and per-unit price figures will not be released until the contract is signed, says Michael Rein, a Lockheed Martin spokesman.

However, the company says the unit cost of each variant will be reduced by about 4% lot over lot. Based on pricing targets for LRIP 5, per-unit goals can be projected for the new LRIP 6 and 7 jets.

The F-35A airframe, designed for conventional U.S. Air Force takeoff and landing (and the version with greatest appeal to international partners) is projected to cost $100.8 million in LRIP 6 and $96.8 million in LRIP 7. This is the first time since the program began production that the projected unit cost will fall below $100 million.

These prices do not include engines; the government contracts separately with Pratt & Whitney to purchase the F135. Pratt will not release its unit price, but a defense official says each F-35A engine costs roughly $14 million, and each F-35B engine is about $38 million. Pratt and the Pentagon are still negotiating terms for LRIP 6 engines, a company spokesman says.

These estimates exclude the cost of retrofits to airframes that are required as a result of discoveries in flight testing that is running in parallel with LRIPs 6 and 7.

Based on a May report, the Pentagon estimates that airframes in LRIP 6 and 7 would require another $7.4 million for retrofits. The government and Lockheed have agreed to split the amount of those known retrofits at the time of contract signature. Any new problems that crop up in flight trials will require full payment by the government.

Adding up known engine costs, retrofit estimates and the target-unit projections, an F-35A in LRIP 6 would cost the U.S. government roughly $118.5 million and in LRIP 7, $114.5 million.

It remains to be seen whether Lockheed Martin will manage to fabricate the airframes on the cost targets laid out in LRIPs 6 and 7. As of March, program officials say, the airframes in LRIP 4 are being produced at about 7% higher-than-targeted price. However, the risk structure of the agreement protects the government from liability for such an overrun in the two newest lots.

This is the first deal signed between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin since a massive leadership shift at the company put Marillyn Hewson at the helm. Then-CEO-in-waiting Christopher Kubasik abruptly exited late last year after details emerged about his extramarital affair with a company employee. His prospective second-in-command, Hewson, ascended. Kubasik was widely thought to have adhered to former CEO Robert Stevens's approach to F-35 negotiations; hashing out LRIP 5 took over a year. Hewson, by contrast, seems to have a more collaborative way of bargaining.

And since she has come onboard there have been changes in Fort Worth, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' headquarters. The former sector president, Larry Lawson, left the company to become CEO of Spirit AeroSystems, and Orlando Carvalho, formerly the vice president overseeing the F-35, took his place. Lorraine Martin, formerly the F-35 deputy, now oversees the massive program.

LRIPs 6 and 7 will be the first contract for which Lockheed Martin assumes all responsibility for exceeding the target cost of the airframes, Rein says.

LRIP 6 includes 18 F-35As for USAF, six F-35Bs for the Marine Corps and seven F-35Cs for the Navy. Also included are three F-35As for Italy and two for Australia.

LRIP 7 includes 19 F-35As for USAF, six F-35Bs for the Marine Corps and four F-35Cs for the Navy. Also covered are another three F-35As for Italy, two F-35As for Norway and 1 F-35B for the U.K.

Note that costs you mention are not in the article itself, they are in a table { that I am unable to post - cut-paste }

[Austin]

To be sure, from what I know - the services did not have major issues, it was the GoI that had issues.

The U.S. argues that there is no hidden aim behind the LSA. It is an inter-bank type of clearing arrangement — there will be periodical settlement of accounts for the use of each other's facilities.

Seems to be a technical topic and Indian agencies do nto seem to be keen. So it should not be an issue.

Thats not true , Indian Service Chief and MOD have objected to CISMOA , in any case MOD objection is still there.

MoD, Navy and Air chiefs object to US defence pact

Also do not forget that US will never allow its fighter jet sold to India to be Hardwired for Nuclear Weapons something France and Russia does not object to.

[Austin]

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

US does not need F-35 for Nuclear Delivery because they have dedicated bombers for the role but we would want those capabilities in all our flying asset be it Rafale or Su-30MKI or PAK-FA , Its more of a question of freedom of action without restrictions on IAF.

The point being the NPA in US will never allow an F-35 to be configured for Nuclear Strike Role which will be a major let down if IAF opts for F-35 in big numbers.

[NRao]

To be sure, from what I know - the services did not have major issues, it was the GoI that had issues.

The U.S. argues that there is no hidden aim behind the LSA. It is an inter-bank type of clearing arrangement — there will be periodical settlement of accounts for the use of each other's facilities.

Seems to be a technical topic and Indian agencies do nto seem to be keen. So it should not be an issue.

Thats not true , Indian Service Chief and MOD have objected to CISMOA , in any case MOD objection is still there.

MoD, Navy and Air chiefs object to US defence pact

THAT article is a year older than the one I cited. Things changed along the way - especially see my last quote in my post - they were starting to work around the normal agreements. So, what I stated still stands - until you come out with a more recent article.

Also, the MoD/GoI objections are politically based. So, if the govt changes these objections could too. OR, if the political partner who may object is "bought" of (hmmm....), then this could change too.

May be it is a big deal, but I just do not see it that a way.

At least the C-17/C-130/Apaches/M777 seem to have slipped through the crackS.

[Philip]

Correct,the relevant costs are in the table and the tile of the report is "Hidden Cost"

On page 34,the UK's initial acquisition plans after its "flip-flop" from F-35C to F-35Bs,will be for 14 aircraft in "Main Gate 4" procurement contract for the UK's first sqd.This will according to Mr.Thompson of DESO,head of the project "Lightning-2", to move back to the UK in 2018.Initial land-based ops would also be in late 2018.Thompson would not comment on reports that the UK would not buy more than "48".

In an earlier post from AWST by Bill Sweetman,a global map shows the true picture of orders,anticipated orders,substantially down from initial projections.This is bound to drive the cost up substantially.Nevertheless, in US colours,the aircraft will be fielded in large (though reduced) number.But here too,the layered software development,which requires each layer to be built upon the former is delaying the various Blocks and their full capability from being exploited,since the aircraft is so heavily software driven.

[NRao]

Correct,the relevant costs are in the table and the tile of the report is "Hidden Cost"

Nothing hidden about them (although that I assume is the title of the article in print) (the same article on the web has a totally diff title).

Besides, even in that table the prices have been falling - (drum role) as the orders have been increasing.

Which is what the article I posted stated. That by 2020, IF (BIG IF) the orders were to be at a certain level, then they can produce more than 100 F-35s a year and the cost per plane should be at $85 million.

On fact the price for the F-35A has slipped from $124 million to $114 million over three years, the B from 156 to 146 and the C from 144 to 132. What LM is saying is that they expect the price of the A to be at $85 million in 2020. Doable.

[NRao]

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

US does not need F-35 for Nuclear Delivery because they have dedicated bombers for the role but we would want those capabilities in all our flying asset be it Rafale or Su-30MKI or PAK-FA , Its more of a question of freedom of action without restrictions on IAF.

The point being the NPA in US will never allow an F-35 to be configured for Nuclear Strike Role which will be a major let down if IAF opts for F-35 in big numbers.

On the need of the US:
Wrong. The US does see a need for nuclear delivery, just that:
* it is tactical and not strategic, and
* it is not now, they have plans for the future

On freedom of action for IAF:
Why do you think the F-35 would restrict the IAF? Did the MMRCA have such a requirement? The IAF has more than enough assets to deal with a strategic nuclear strike. In 2010 the SFC was questioned as to why more MKIs when the IAF had assets. So, the same question stands - why do they need this ability to wire a F-35. ????? Build that feature in the AMCA if need be.

[Victor]

Thats not true , Indian Service Chief and MOD have objected to CISMOA , in any case MOD objection is still there.
MoD, Navy and Air chiefs object to US defence pact

See, this is the mystery. That report is from 2010 but we have ordered 100 GEF414s to be the very guts of our most strategically important program without fear. We are arming ourselves with the world's most advanced weapons systems that completely outclass and neutralize anything pakistan or china will have in the next 20 years, ranging from Apache to M777 to P8I. We are completely overhauling our airlift capability to a radical new level and putting it in American hands literally (C-17 GSP). And now DRDO wants to jointly develop weapons with the Americans . None of this seems like we have a problem with cismoa/shismoa and are in fact indicative of a rapidly developing meshing of objectives between the US and India.

Also do not forget that US will never allow its fighter jet sold to India to be Hardwired for Nuclear Weapons something France and Russia does not object to.

This is diplospeak and totally irrelevant to ground realities. No one in their right minds expect the US to give India a stealth nuclear delivery capability against pakistan or china. They expect India to develop its own capability in this regard which we are doing. Bottom line: we don't need F-35 for nuclear delivery. We already can deliver nukes by land, sea or air in a 5,000 mile radius without it.

[Austin]

THAT article is a year older than the one I cited. Things changed along the way - especially see my last quote in my post - they were starting to work around the normal agreements. So, what I stated still stands - until you come out with a more recent article.

Also, the MoD/GoI objections are politically based. So, if the govt changes these objections could too. OR, if the political partner who may object is "bought" of (hmmm....), then this could change too.

IF the report is old then we should have signed the deal by now the fact is GOI has objections to LSA/CISCMO stands valid , when the government changes and if objection changes remains to be seen , That is the way I see it for now

[Austin]

Bottom line: we don't need F-35 for nuclear delivery.

By that logic we dont need Rafale or FGFA or Su-30 to deliver nuclear weapons because we have still M2K that can do the job perhaps more better after the upgrade.

[NRao]

THAT article is a year older than the one I cited. Things changed along the way - especially see my last quote in my post - they were starting to work around the normal agreements. So, what I stated still stands - until you come out with a more recent article.

Also, the MoD/GoI objections are politically based. So, if the govt changes these objections could too. OR, if the political partner who may object is "bought" of (hmmm....), then this could change too.

IF the report is old then we should have signed the deal by now the fact is GOI has objections to LSA/CISCMO stands valid , when the government changes and if objection changes remains to be seen , That is the way I see it for now

Cannot help if you bury your head in the sand. You want to stick with signing LSA/CISCMO - as is - nope, that will never get done. I for one do not expect that to happen - ever. But a revised LSA/whatever has got signed to the satisfaction of all parties - you see them flying in the form of C-17/C-130/P-8I. : ). I have no idea what the work around is, but certainly there is some work around. I think a US ship or two has got repairs in Indian docks. (Right?)

You do not seem to realize that such deals have a huge political dimension (posted above). And ANY political stuff can and will be worked around if both parties want it to happen. And, it has. Just not in the form you have been looking at/for all these years. "India signs LSA" - nope, cannot expect such a headline in a news paper or on livefist.

added l8r:

reposting for your convenience:

After the Defence-Secretary level Defence Policy Group (DPG) meeting in Washington earlier this year (2011), both sides agreed to work towards a more “mature arrangement.'' But there was no “question of a blanket agreement,'' said the official sources.

[NRao]

Bottom line: we don't need F-35 for nuclear delivery.

By that logic we dont need Rafale or FGFA or Su-30 to deliver nuclear weapons because we have still M2K that can do the job perhaps more better after the upgrade.

PTI: India's Joint Nuclear Command Wants 40 Nuclear Strike Jets

Under the present threat perception AND the progress made on land/water, yes, India does not need more planes for delivering strategic nuclear weapons. They have sufficient planes to handle the job.

[NRao]

May, 2013 :: Marines Outline F-35B IOC Plans

The U.S. Marine Corps plans to declare initial operational capability (IOC) with the F-35B in late 2015, says Commandant Gen. James Amos.

The Marines are the first customer slated to declare IOC, and as such are willing to use the 2B software package, which allows for a limited flight envelope and limited weapons carriage, in the short term. A more expansive 3F software release is slated for 2017. {This is what the LCA should have done too - multi stage IOC}

The Pentagon plans to report May 31 to Congress on when the Marines, Air Force and Navy will introduce the single-engine, stealthy F-35 into service. This has been an issue of contention as the F-35 program has repeatedly slipped its in-service date due to poor management and execution, along with technical challenges.

Air Force officials have shown a willingness to allow for IOC with the 2B software, but had previously said they would wait for the 3F package, with expanded capabilities, in 2017. The Block 3 software critical design review is slated for this summer, according to April testimony from F-35 Program Executive Officer USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. He also said he has “moderate confidence” that the 2B software will be delivered by prime contractor Lockheed Martin as needed in 2015, with a lower expectation of success in completing the 3F work as needed in 2017.

Critics say the Marine Corps decision to declare IOC — which includes 10 aircraft, 10 fully trained maintenance and flight crews and suitable spares for deployment — assumes too much risk for the service’s ground attack capabilities. However, Capt. Richard Ulsh, a Marine Corps spokesman, says the Marines will continue to operate the AV-8B Harrier, which will be replaced by the F-35B, until 2030.

For IOC, these first 10 aircraft must be “shipboard qualified,” Amos told an audience hosted by the Brookings Institution on May 29. Though this small number of aircraft will be enough for the Marines to accept the F-35B, designed for short takeoff and vertical landing on amphibious ships, the full squadron will consist of 16 aircraft.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 in Yuma, Ariz., will be the first squadron to become operational. It will be required to deploy to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, in short order.

The U.K. and Italy are both expected to purchase the F-35B, though their buying plans are not firm.

[Austin]

After the Defence-Secretary level Defence Policy Group (DPG) meeting in Washington earlier this year (2011), both sides agreed to work towards a more “mature arrangement.'' But there was no “question of a blanket agreement,'' said the official sources.

Sure who so ever was the official source that leaked the news in 2011 and its 2013 we still dont have those mature arrangement in place

Lets see how long we have to wait before we see some alternative thats acceptable to India.

PTI: India's Joint Nuclear Command Wants 40 Nuclear Strike Jets

Under the present threat perception AND the progress made on land/water, yes, India does not need more planes for delivering strategic nuclear weapons. They have sufficient planes to handle the job.

So if Nuclear command wants 20 JSF for Nuclear Delivery will they be able to do that as compared to say 20 Rafale for the same role ........Do you now see the point or you would want to bury your head in the sand ?

Do you think the number 40 is a fixed number till eternity and it wont grow and if there was a choice for N delivery between say Rafale and JSF which one would be the obvious choice ?

I hope you realise why we choose the Rafale over F-18 in the MMRCA , the strategic option would have been severely curtailed had we gone for F-18 or other US jets.

[KrishnaK]

Serious differences have cropped up on some of the key pending defence agreements with the US with the Air Chief and the Naval Chief officially conveying to the Defence Ministry that there is not much to be gained by signing the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) as well as the Communications, Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA).

I think it's the MoD that has political objections with the defence chiefs weighing in saying, there isn't much to be gained that those political objections need to be overridden.

[KrishnaK]

I hope you realise why we choose the Rafale over F-18 in the MMRCA , the strategic option would have been severely curtailed had we gone for F-18 or other US jets.

It was because the F-18 failed. Under no possible scenario are we going to become exclusively dependent on american platforms for air warfare. After the SU30 MKI we will continue with the FGFA. I don't think the strategic part counts.

[Philip]

Posted on Aug 2nd. in the LCA td. The glitches that still plague the JSF.

Latest reports on the JSF from the Pentagon's test chief Michael Glimore,indicate that the "Integrated Master Schedule" (IMS) is at risk because of the foll:

*Radar and el-op snags have delayed weapons integration.

*Buffet and transonic wing drop "continue to be a concern to achieving operational combat capability".

*Flight testing way behind schedule for Block 2A,(35% only),Block 2B delayed till Aug 2014,which have to be completed for an operational evaluation in 2015 for the USMC IOC by Dec.2015.

*Sacrificing Block 2B capabilities is not an option because even with full Block 2B,"likely need for significant support from other (fighters)...unless air superiority is assured" !

*Block 3i is also under severe pressure,meant for the USAF by Dec. 2016.Lot 6 cannot fly without this software.Maturing Block 3i within the next 12-18 months ...a "significant challenge" says Gilmore.

*"Most significant source of uncertainity" is what combat capability the JSF will provide in 2018,is that without an operational Block 3i,Bock 3F cannot be developed,meant to meet key parameters set in 2001.

*The helmet (HDMS) tests are "mixed".Night ops problems and "jitter".

*Weapons integration "very slow",SAR modes provided inaccurate coordinates,El-Op targeting systems had difficulty in maintaining tracks.Unless these are remedied,weapon testing cannot take place.Thus operational testing of Block 3F in 2018 a challenge.

*Buffet and transonic roll-off----wing drop in high-speed turns,still affect all variants of the JSF despite control law changes.Further change would "degrade manouevreability or overload the structure" says Gilmore.

*Earlier reports indicate that the F-35s ability to tolerate accidental or combat damage have been critical.Lightning tolerance testing yet to be done because it does not use LT fasteners.On ground,crews will purge the parked aircraft's fuel systems with nitrogen as often as once every 24 hrs.

*Finally,the prognostic and health monitoring system is "unable to provide timely detection of combat damage to the lift-fan system,which might fail catastrophically before the pilot can react" during transition to vertical landing.In such a 'remote' case.Lockheed say that the pilot would "auto-eject"!

With the price of this turkey on the menu as of now estimated to be between $125m -$150m,as given in earlier posts,it is going to be a brave air force that will buy it...when it arrives in 2001 capability form sometime after 2020.This gives the anti-stealth league another 7 years more to further develop their systems.

[member_26622]

Not sure if this strategic option of air delivery of Nukes is relevant at all.

Pakistan is triple covered by our missile series Prithvi, Agni...why load anything on an airplane?

Trying to aerial bomb any major Chinese city using airplanes is BS raised a million times. Agni will do the job well and square. None of the airframes under consideration have the legs or stealth to go the distance. Su-30 is best bet but the bird will shine on any radar screen a million miles away (a bit exaggeration here)

Missiles have taken over nuke delivery roles even in the US, otherwise we would have seen 100's of B-2 in operation.

[NRao]

Not sure if this strategic option of air delivery of Nukes is relevant at all

Be sure that it is irrelevant in the context of any US supplied equipment. At least in the foreseeable future.

[abhik]

Can some gurus point out what exactly is required for making a fighter capable of delivering Nukes? Pak reportedly has the F-16 in this role. If so the what modifications did they have to make and what agreements did (If they did) they have to sign with the US for this to happen?

[Christopher Sidor]

Let us analyze what use will a nuclear capable fighter aircraft flown from an aircraft carrier of IN be put to, if it carries nuclear weapons. Three of these are
1) Attack a PLAN CBG or a PLAN flotilla.
2) Attack shore based facilities or coastal areas or areas adjacent to the PRC coast
3) Attack Mobile Launchers say any ASBM launchers or any other mobile missile launchers.

Let us take the first option. In this case a aircraft carrier based nuclear capable fighter plane would be an asset. But so can be a guided missile destroyer. And we do not have hunter killer SSNs currently. I am doubtful if we can use INS chakra against PLAN Ships especially when we have to deliver nuclear weapons. Firstly the range of missiles that INS chakra carries is less. Secondly none of these missiles are currently nuclear capable. And Finally we do not know the terms and conditions nor do we know the "rules of engagement" under which it has been leased. So once India develops its own hunter killer SSNs which can accompany our aircraft carriers or undertake operations independent of our aircraft carriers the utility of a carrier based nuclear capable fighter plane would reduce substantially.

Let us take the second. The targets for the second option are predominantly fixed. It would be better to target these with SLBMs or SLCM or ALCM. If we are able to field a ALCM with ranges of over 1000 kms or preferably 2000 kms then IAF with its shore based bombers from Andaman and Nicobar or from our Peninsular will be best. Moreover our Aircraft carriers will be accompanied by a guided missile destroyer. So even such a ship can theoretically launch these missiles. A SSBN can also do this task. Right now we do not have a ALCM with a range higher than 1000 kms and our SLCM capability is also not that great. But we have SLBMs which can be used.

Let us take the third set of targets. With the third set of targets if we use nuclear weapons it would be like using a hammer to take out a wasp nest. A rather blunt object and not surgical in nature. Over here SLCM and SLBMs would be of dubious value due to the nature of the target. But ALCM which can be programmed on the bomber would be another thing all together. Off course bombers cannot remain on station round the clock. But there is still an alternative.

IN is developing LCA-N and will field it in the near future. So our aircraft carriers will have a fighter which we can use as we see fit. LCA-N is not going to be stealth capable, so it will not be able to carry out all the operations which a carrier based stealth fighter can.

All said and done a non nuclear capable F-35B or F-35C would not be deal killer. We currently have alternatives in hand. We are building more alternatives as we speak.

[Austin]

F-35 for future carrier of IN is a possibility and we are looking almost 10-12 years ahead may be more when we have IAC-3 of larger displacement. F-35 wont be alone in the race , it would be competing with Rafale Naval Version and PAK-FA Naval version.

So we might see a 3 sided race for future IN Carrier based aircraft.

[Christopher Sidor]

A PAK-FA naval version would be best. Even a AMCA-N, i.e. naval variant of AMCA which can operate using catapults, would be better. F-35C or F-35B would also be good. A naval version of Rafale would be of dubious value. But these would be good for IAC-II.

For IAC-III it would be better if we could have X47B like plane. Forget F-35B or F-35C or PAK-FA or AMCA-N. We should target completely pilot-less aircraft. Take the limiting human out of the equation.

[NRao]

On F-35:
* Not a good fit between the current productS and Indian needs (IMHO of course) (I would not even touch the . The FGFA seems to be a better fit for the IAF. Cannot say about a naval version until it comes out or at least is proposed.

In 15-20 years:
* It would be a major travesty if India is unable to develop a sustainable effort to design/build/support both naval and other planes on her own (IMHO)

The main problem:
* As I see it: Indian politicianS. Corruption + (there seems to be a new dimension (to me?)) total lack of focus. (I for one think Kalam was right and with the right set of people he would have delivered on the LCA (exception: engine))
* Indian Labs need support from users. Forget the past: start with what they need in 5-10 years.
* Indian Labs: They need to deliver on time. Perhaps cost over runs are to be expected to some extent (?????)

Rather dated article, but a good intro on nuclear aircrafts/ships/etc: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/nep5text.htm (Check out 5. Air-Delivered Nuclear Weapons)

On UAVs, these are not easy technologies. They are not easy technologies. India has very unique needs and Indians need to concentrate on those needs and deliver. Doable.

[Christopher Sidor]

Right now UAV technology is in its infancy. If we grab this opportunity with both hands and go for it then we will be able to leapfrog the entire development 5th Gen fighter planes. Right now AMCA is just on a proposal stage. We should not even expect a prototype before another 3-4 years. Or to be realistic we should not expect a prototype till PLAAF starts to induct any of its home grown stealth fighters. Then all of a sudden our defense establishment will wake up and scream blue murder and only then AMCA will get a kick start. But at the end of the day we will still be playing catch up with PRC. So the proposal is to leap frog the current fighters and their limitations and go into UAV. But I guess this is a pipe dream.

[Philip]

We have a lot on our plate right now.HAL is chock-a-block with orders.It has to deliver on the LCA MK1 and MK2,the IJT,which is also badly delayed,forget about the HTT-which it is going to waste time and money by insisting that it goes alon,frittering away valuable human resources when we have the 5th-gen FGFA to jointly develop,the most crucial of all our fighter programmes,gear itself up to setting up a production line for the LCA of which a paltry figure of just "8" per year is the target! As I said elsewhere,this is going to take us to 2040 to build all 200 anticipated! Where is the MOD/DM available to kick ass when it is needed? AKA has been an unmitigated disaster,who is least interested in doing his duty,but more interested in seeing that his dhoti remains "white"!

As Adm.Prakash rightly said,unless we succeed with the LCA,we will never be able to build our own aircraft.The IN had the faith to put down 90 crores for the NLCA's development (MK-2 std.).From the looks of things,its going to be 2020 before it will get a glimpse of the bird...that is if it lucky!

[Christopher Sidor]

This is going to be way OT so will beg your indulgence. The problem is that HAL has no competition. There ought to ideally be three pure-play Indian companies vying for the AMCA project. What I meant with Pure-play companies is Indian companies who are into development and research in aerospace sector on their own. Not these recent flurry of tie-ups which are basically Indian companies playing the role of assemblers and North Atlantic companies providing the IP and all the other crucial items. Off course if we had more than 3 companies than that too would be better. The problem with HAL is that it becomes a single point shop.

[NRao]

^^^^^

That too.

However, the more I dig into these entities it seems to support my old thinking of bad management. Talk of "too much on their plate", "AMCA should start after LCA is completed" are all management related issues - and their origin is somewhere a decade or two ago.

Talking to some, the problem seems to be related to techies being promoted to lead either without adequate natural skills to lead or training in management.

The current set of problems have been brought upon the nation by Indians and only good management (IMHO) can pull the nation out. It is doable and from what little I have seen/heard from the new DRDO chief, he seems to "get-it".

Pakalam

[Austin]

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

[NRao]

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

I thought I read that exact article some place else. (besides, some people cannot keep their emotions in check while making simple decisions.)

Anyways, there are some good pointers in it: the best one - keep away from jump jets. Especially in the case of India a jump jet is not a necessity. Second: plan. For the US the F-35 seems to fit into a bigger picture. But I am not sure if that is true for other nations - I am inclined to believe that it will not be a good fit. And, even if it is not a good fit, the US can always throw more funds and make something work, others do not have that luxury.

[member_20067]

We just need plenty of nukes as deterrent...we don't need to feed off multi-billion dollar military complex like US... no need emulate every possible weapon platform in the world and in the process losing the plot..

[NRao]

"Plenty of nukes" need to go in the deterrence thread (where you should learn about credible minimum deterrence). Besides even if "plenty" means an increase from the current number of warheads and associated delivery systems, the AF will be the very last service to be impacted by an increase in the delivery systems - if at all (I do not see it happening).

A mil industry is a necessity. Cannot afford one like the US (or for that matter even China and there could be a few other nations there too), but no harm in an Indian one.

TopicS for some other threads.

[NRao]

Marine Pilot Makes 1st F-35B Night Landing at Sea

USS WASP, At Sea -- A key milestone on the path to declaring F-35B initial operating capability for the U.S. Marine Corps is underway.

The F-35 Integrated Test Force from NAS Patuxent River, Md. embarked USS Wasp, Aug. 12, for the second at-sea test of the F-35B Lightning II, the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Developmental Test Phase Two is the second of three planned tests aimed at expanding the F-35B’s shipboard operating envelope for the U.S. Marine Corps. The first shipboard testing phase was successfully completed in October 2011. A milestone many point to as a turning point in F-35B development.

During the 18-day long ship trials, two F-35Bs will conduct a series of tests to determine the aircraft’s suitability for sea-based operations. Pilots will expand the F-35Bs allowable wind envelope for launch and recovery, conduct first-ever night operations at sea, conduct initial mission systems evaluations at sea, evaluate the dynamic interface associated with aircraft operations on a moving flight deck, and further evaluate shipboard sustainment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

On Aug. 14, the first DT-II night vertical landing was accomplished by F-35 Marine Corps test pilot, Lt. Col. C.R. “Jimi” Clift. Clift, a Harrier pilot by training was pleased to be part of the milestone event.

“It all went extremely well,” said Clift. “Eight successful landings in one night, so we’re tracking favorably along the learning curve.”

Preparing for DT- II was no small task. Extensive Field Carrier Landing Practice training and qualifications wrapped up last week for the ITF at Patuxent River. Engineers completed electromagnetic environmental effects testing on the pair of F-35Bs being used in the ship trials. During the past month, F-35 maintainers have completed several actions to ensure the aircraft and support equipment were ready for shipboard operations.

Meanwhile, USS Wasp underwent a series of shipyard modifications to accommodate the F-35B, to include application of a new composite deck coating that offers additional heat protection, movement of some lights and sensors to better support F-35 landings, and installation of equipment to monitor environmental effects and collect data during F-35 operations. major actions taken included an on-site engine removal,which was performed in record time to ensure the aircraft were ready to deploy.

At the conclusion of DT-II, the Navy and Marine Corps team should have sufficient data to support certification for future F-35B Lighting II shipboard operations in anticipation of 2015 deployment.

[NRao]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Navy version begins training

Updated: Wednesday, August 14 2013, 04:49 PM CDT
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE -- The US Navy has joined the list of military services flying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force Base.

The Navy's version of the jet made its first training flight this morning..
Laura Hussey "This F35-C and another like it arrived here at Eglin Air Force Base about six weeks ago. They had to have complete mechanical and safety evaluations before they could get back in the air."

The F-35-C will eventually take off and land from aircraft carriers.
A tailhook wasn't needed for today's landing.

Ten Navy pilots are currently in instructor training here at Eglin.
The simulator training is so advanced that they become qualified F-35 pilots after just six flights in the jet.

Laura Hussey "A sortie is a term that means a takeoff and a landing. Yesterday the F35 fleet here at Eglin passed the benchmark of two-thousand sorties.

[member_20067]

"Plenty of nukes" need to go in the deterrence thread (where you should learn about credible minimum deterrence). Besides even if "plenty" means an increase from the current number of warheads and associated delivery systems, the AF will be the very last service to be impacted by an increase in the delivery systems - if at all (I do not see it happening).

A mil industry is a necessity. Cannot afford one like the US (or for that matter even China and there could be a few other nations there too), but no harm in an Indian one.

TopicS for some other threads.

I agree but a crudely nuclear armed North Korea is enough deterrence for uncle not to interfere ..anyway as you said topic of a different thread