MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 15 Apr 2011 15:25

akshay wrote:The EF/Rafale is gonna be just too expensive ..maybe they may satisfy the Iaf requirements but its gonna be expensive. In fact in libya it looks like Rafale and EF are in a race to bomb the T55

i keep coming back to the question if they can settle the Offset of 50%.
any thoughts on this?

There is in realty only the rafale and tornados. The EF has only fired a couple of paveways to show it can carry out ground attacks. The cannibalisation and supply chain problems within the consortium indicate how fraught it would be for India to obtain spares when manufacturing countries a few hundred miles from each other and deep pockets cant assure spares during war time. Its no surprise no other countries EF is involved to any degree in Libya.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2011 16:01

Received from Philip on email
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68301.html

Spares shortage keeps Typhoon jets grounded

Friday, 15 April 2011

Pilots of the RAF's most advanced fighter jets are being grounded because shortages of aircraft spares mean they cannot put in enough flying hours to keep their skills up to date, MPs warned today.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Apr 2011 17:56

That is the last thing we wanted to be in. I think spares management is the biggest issue all over the world, except for one well managed country [every one knows which country it is].

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 15 Apr 2011 19:22

I think it's quite unfair to blame the royal airforce for lacking a2g capability and bad planning. The Tiffy got by 2008 the capability to self-designate and engage ground targets. Something the hyped Rafale got last autumn, two years later.
What happened was the Saudi order, which lead to fewer available airframes, and as a direct result the focus on air to air training.
I think the Libya deployment is a pure marketing stunt. The royal airforce has barely enough airframes for QRA over the UK and Falklands. There is not enough money for spares, and the number of sorties flown over Libya make the situation even worse. Will be interesting to see how long they can sustain operations.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 15 Apr 2011 19:26

A very interesting post on the Rafale's sensor fusion. A must read!

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/04/ ... usion.html

A Rafale M dumping fuel before landing on the Charles De Gaulle.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vPAYMG2Dtyo/T ... FszHgw.jpg

Katrina in all her glory....with a Mirage 2000 right behind....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BO-_HYZHrDg/T ... 2011-5.jpg

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2011 19:36

Ajatshatru wrote:BTW, where is Philip? Haven't seen him posting for sometime now....

Apparently he has been banned till May..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2011 20:15

shiv wrote:
Ajatshatru wrote:BTW, where is Philip? Haven't seen him posting for sometime now....
Apparently he has been banned till May..

Thats bad , I enjoyed his post and hope he is back soon hopefully before May.

astal · Post by **astal** » 15 Apr 2011 23:32

Looking at the pictures of the operation in Libya, it seems that the Rafales have a fixed refueling probe. That is incongruous with the typical French fit and finish attitude. Some questions for Rafale experts:

1. Are the refueling probes on Rafale retractable?
2. Will the probes on the MRCA Rafale be retractable?

While we are at it, since LCA Mark 1 will also have a non retractable probe, how significant is the aerodynamic penalty of a retractable vs non retractable probe? TIA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Apr 2011 23:52

Logically, not a big drag to say the least, but technically I guess we would like it to be retractable. Better aerodynamics always good!

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Apr 2011 00:13

NRao wrote:

That is all communication gear!! Your cell phone has tracking capabilities!!

...

Right! ... now add some logging stuff on it to record things like locations where they are getting based, number of hours they are flying, which areas they are flying, how long they are flying, etc. During "routine" maintenance of parts, the US personnel could just download these logs and taken back to the US for further analysis. A lot of information could be gleaned from such troves of data on the IAF ... its deployment patterns, its flying hours practices, etc.

Also, communications between pilots and command centre could be recorded ... like an airplane's black box. All of these are useful to help break IAF codes etc.

Both could be monitored "live" as well ... but have a higher chance of detection by the IAF.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Apr 2011 01:54

astal wrote:
1. Are the refueling probes on Rafale retractable?
2. Will the probes on the MRCA Rafale be retractable?

No and No.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2011 02:06

srai wrote: Right! ... now add some logging stuff on it to record things like locations where they are getting based, number of hours they are flying, which areas they are flying, how long they are flying, etc. During "routine" maintenance of parts, the US personnel could just download these logs and taken back to the US for further analysis. A lot of information could be gleaned from such troves of data on the IAF ... its deployment patterns, its flying hours practices, etc.

Also, communications between pilots and command centre could be recorded ... like an airplane's black box. All of these are useful to help break IAF codes etc.

Both could be monitored "live" as well ... but have a higher chance of detection by the IAF.

Sir,

That information can be obtained in a variety of ways - AND, (assuming you are talking about the US) they are doing it today too - recall that during the Kargil fiasco "someone" provided India with the conversation that took place between a Paki General visiting China and his sidekicks in Pakistan. All one needs is a humongous computing power. India also listened into the conversation between ISI head Pahsa and Karzai!!! There are umpteen other ways to get that info too - granted it will be quite difficult, but not impossible.

I would be far more concerned about a China bribing her way via EU, where she has already promised to provide economic relief to EU nations that need economic help. This is FAR more realistic - in the current environment - than a US Congress trying to plug India. I have said this for a long time, Indo-US strategic interests will converge. The two nations cannot afford to be at each other's throats much longer.

Chinese economic power is huge - they (some Chinese strategists) are already talking of buying Indian currency to legally manipulate India. That is above the table, for heaven's sake!! Spain with some ungodly unemployment can be far more susceptible to Chinese threats than a US Congress - for perhaps then next 10-20 years. How about a gift of a $100 billion to BD + SL + a few African countries to move India out of the way?

Am I to be afraid of a threat that has existed for some time now? Or try and prevent one that is a greater threat?

IMHO, without being demeaning, a tracker in a plane is pedestrian. And, BTW, India installs her own com systems in all these planes. The list of US comm systems are more sophisticated, however, per the US, they suggest them to make them "interoperable".

Perhaps the GE engines for the LCA have trackerS and, oh, why not add, the old kill switch.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Apr 2011 02:27

NRao wrote:...

Perhaps the GE engines for the LCA have trackerS and, oh, why not add, the old kill switch.

Yes ... why not do an overkill

In any case, I am not talking about whether it will be done or not. Technically, these things are feasible, especially in those components that are "sealed" to be only opened by designated personnel.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 16 Apr 2011 02:35

with info from the wikileaks thread, it looks like BRF analysis of needing an air-superiority jet with su-30 MKI as the bomb truck is what is coming true.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Apr 2011 02:42

@NRao^^^

+1

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2011 03:28

The question is not if "it will be done'. The question is if it will be used (against India).

An US plane made in Turkey or given to Pakistan has some undesirable components. The chances are excruciating high that a US plane made in India will have it too.

I suspect that is how the US is able to claim that the Pakis are not doing enough. Pakis are being tracked. Not just where they go, but they drop. Then what they drop is compared to what really happened on the ground - which "assets" are around or not around.

Let us assume that PakiLand lives up to expectation, wipes out LeT - forget Taliban - the question is will the US still use that tracking info to yell and scream? They will have the same data. I am inclined to believe that the US will send an ex pilot who broke the sound barrier to advice the Pakis on how to execute the next war!!!

Nations have interests.

I have to believe, that, under the current circumstances, the US will send the same pilot to India, IF India allows. Until circumstances change that pilot will live very well in Bangalore, advising India on how to execute a war against US interests.

Such is life.

One more thing - my last post for this I hope - do NOT live in fear.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 16 Apr 2011 04:24

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Apr 2011 04:39

NRao wrote:The question is not if "it will be done'. The question is if it will be used (against India).

...

I think we are talking in parallel here. You are talking more about the geopolitics of things while I am talking merely from the point of technical feasibility of things.

From geopolitics, yes you are right.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Apr 2011 06:02

Defence contract: MoD likely to relax certain offset provisions for MMRCA deal
Livemint

The ministry of defence (MoD) may relax certain offset provisions that will be applicable to the proposed $10.8 billion order to buy 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF), according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.

An indication to this effect was conveyed to all the six companies that are in contention for the contract, in a letter sent on 4 April, according to the people cited above. The letter had invited the companies participating in the contract to send in their offset proposals by 17 April.

Under its defence procurement procedure, India imposes counter-trade obligations on original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that are awarded defence contracts worth more than Rs.300 crore by way of transfer of critical technologies and production of components in India. To meet this obligation, foreign vendors partner with Indian firms. At present, the offset obligation for the MMRCA contract is 50%, which roughly translates into a possible $5 billion worth of business being generated via the offset route.

The two people said that the MoD has formally allowed all six foreign contractors in the race for the deal to fulfil their offset obligations, in part, via the tier-1 foreign sub-contractors executing their projects.

The people cited above said that the MoD has formally allowed “tripartite memoranda of understanding (MoUs)” to be signed among the primary vendor, the sub-contractor and the Indian company that the vendor or sub-contractor may partner in order to fulfil offset obligations.

“In other words, any offset obligation fulfilled, say by an engine supplier, would be treated as having been fulfilled by the primary contractor who is selling the aircraft to the Indian government,” one of the two people cited above said. This person also said that the OEM will have to take a guarantee for the subcontractors executing the offset contract, failing which the OEM will be held liable for penalties. In fact, industry officials point out that a similar practice “had been informally on” for several defence projects between 2007 and 2009, but some MoD officials in the defence offsets facilitation agency (DOFA) had raised objections to this in 2010.

In another anticipated change, the MoD may extend the maximum period allowed for fulfilment of offset obligations by five years for the jet deal. “The present regulations mandate the vendor to complete the offset requirements during the period within which the contract is being executed. This could be extended by two to five years,” said a second person.

Industry officials said that the MoD could come up with a fresh set of guidelines on defence offsets in the next few weeks. Six foreign defence companies—Boeing and Lockheed Martin of the US, RSK MiG Russia, Dassault of France, SAAB of Sweden and EADS, a consortium of several European countries, are competing in the project billed as the single largest defence contract that India is likely to award.

Industry officials and analysts said that these changes, if effected, would be a positive step. “Foreign defence vendors had been asking the government for these relaxations for a while now, and this is a welcome step,” said retired colonel and defence analyst Rajiv Chib of PricewaterhouseCoopers India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2011 06:14

You are talking more about the geopolitics of things while I am talking merely from the point of technical feasibility of things.

True. Accepted.

However,

Technology (to some extent) = Rafale or EF
Geo..... = F-18 with tracking and snooping systems.

: )

Geo will always trump tech.

C'est la vie!

(IMVVVHO, the Libyan crsis has exposed certain deficiencies, which I do not think can be recovered from. That does not mean that the EU options are dead. Just means we now know what the weakness are.)

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Apr 2011 13:02

NRao wrote:
One more thing - my last post for this I hope - do NOT live in fear.

Isn't buy MMRCA from US (with undesired components) guided by fear of:

I would be far more concerned about a China bribing her way via EU, where she has already promised to provide economic relief to EU nations that need economic help. This is FAR more realistic - in the current environment - than a US Congress trying to plug India. I have said this for a long time, Indo-US strategic interests will converge. The two nations cannot afford to be at each other's throats much longer.

Chinese economic power is huge - they (some Chinese strategists) are already talking of buying Indian currency to legally manipulate India. That is above the table, for heaven's sake!! Spain with some ungodly unemployment can be far more susceptible to Chinese threats than a US Congress - for perhaps then next 10-20 years. How about a gift of a $100 billion to BD + SL + a few African countries to move India out of the way?

Am I to be afraid of a threat that has existed for some time now? Or try and prevent one that is a greater threat?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2011 17:09

Isn't buy MMRCA from US (with undesired components) guided by fear of:

(I do not think you have read my posts, but anyways ...........)

You quote a post where I state do not be afraid and then you pose a question where you think I have some fear!!

No.

I manage risk, which is why I have no fear. Built into my risk matrix are failures (2-3 kinds). What the US is providing, assuming the worst case, is still known. The value is in the strategic relationship - which is bound to change (I feel in 20-30 years).

The way I see it today:

EU: That non-intrusive facade is a fake. Libya, IMHO, exposed their true nature. No strategic value (because of intra-squabbling) (they ARE horrible - no other way to put it)
France: Will want a lot more flesh and blood. Dogs bark, cats meow, lions roar, France like flesh and blood. Little strategic value
Russia: Limping at best, with a horrible supply chain. Little strategic vlaue
(The above statements are observations/data points, NOT meant to be knocks on anybody/nation.)

From an Indian PoV, when it comes to the MMRCA, they ALL are bad, that is the truth. So, I have to select the best out of the worst and reduce my risks.

Here is what I would suggest (based on my limited knowledge granted), for the next 15-20 years: Indo-Russia be given all of India's nuclear future. France+Germany be given all of IN sub requirements. US be given AF recs. ALL of them have to help India build out, including helping India consolidate IOR++. No Aussies and no Japan. I will concede Pakistan to China, that is it. Dismantle the string of pearls for good. After the 15-20 years, India should be a stand-alone nation in most, if not all, strategic aspects.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Apr 2011 19:29

@NRao ^^^: "France: Will want a lot more flesh and blood. Dogs bark, cats meow, lions roar, France like flesh and blood. Little strategic value"

Agree Europe is a facade. As to France, just think how long the M2K deal has taken and what the Frenchies want for the upgrade. If we put our MRCA eggs in their basket, we'll be bled to death not only because of the leverage but more importantly because Rafale will not have the economies of scale that the US contenders have given the numbers. I would also argue, that if we negotiate the contract properly with a Boeing (for example), non-performance can be litigated in US courts and enforced. I don't see that happening in France.

The whole thing about sanctions, kill switches and tracking is passe. We did not go to war with Bakistan after 26/11 because GoI was pressured by India Inc. who in turn were pressured by their US and European customers to avoid having the DoS put India under a travel advisory.

IOW, if the US wants to prevent India from striking Pakistan, it does not need any sanctions, kill switches or trackers. I can't foresee them hobbling us in any confrontation with China.

It's still all about what the IAF wants in terms of capability/operational availability/supply chain and what GoI wants in strategic terms.

France and Europe may offer raw capability but IMHO, in the other areas they are sadly lacking as Libya shows.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 17 Apr 2011 02:43

NRao wrote:
Isn't buy MMRCA from US (with undesired components) guided by fear of:
(I do not think you have read my posts, but anyways ...........)

You quote a post where I state do not be afraid and then you pose a question where you think I have some fear!!

No.

I manage risk, which is why I have no fear. Built into my risk matrix are failures (2-3 kinds). What the US is providing, assuming the worst case, is still known. The value is in the strategic relationship - which is bound to change (I feel in 20-30 years).

The way I see it today:

EU: That non-intrusive facade is a fake. Libya, IMHO, exposed their true nature. No strategic value (because of intra-squabbling) (they ARE horrible - no other way to put it)
France: Will want a lot more flesh and blood. Dogs bark, cats meow, lions roar, France like flesh and blood. Little strategic value
Russia: Limping at best, with a horrible supply chain. Little strategic vlaue
(The above statements are observations/data points, NOT meant to be knocks on anybody/nation.)

From an Indian PoV, when it comes to the MMRCA, they ALL are bad, that is the truth. So, I have to select the best out of the worst and reduce my risks.

Here is what I would suggest (based on my limited knowledge granted), for the next 15-20 years: Indo-Russia be given all of India's nuclear future. France+Germany be given all of IN sub requirements. US be given AF recs. ALL of them have to help India build out, including helping India consolidate IOR++. No Aussies and no Japan. I will concede Pakistan to China, that is it. Dismantle the string of pearls for good. After the 15-20 years, India should be a stand-alone nation in most, if not all, strategic aspects.

Ok, with this picture becomes more clear, thanks for explaining.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Apr 2011 03:30

duh! pakistan is already taken by chippanda. Unkill getting all AF is out of the world thought. The same is true for any country trying to capitalize us. What for we have indigenous development plan and putting enough money into it especially strategic and advanced systems for IAF and other forces' requirements.

I would have pumped in more into a quick turn around MRCA with a redesigned twin engined MCA, not advanced MCA, where we could have delivered it had it been started by some years ago [not a wishful thinking, but highly possible even today].

AMCA anyways needs a staging platform. Out of these 6 contenders, who is ready to bought out? and that would be another option to consider. Rafale will never sell it off! But, do we need this ToT at increased price? or just the right technology where we think we need the boost? The rest can be imported for MRCA at a cheaper option if available.

I am not thinking that building at home is any cheaper than building it abroad with the contenders pro-rating the rates for any of these options.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 17 Apr 2011 04:35

Multi-million-dollar defence contracts get brighter for India Inc
Economic Times

50% offset clause to benifit Indian companies..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2011 05:36

50% has NO ring to it.

Say $5 Billion and it suddenly comes alive.

Now, come with a plan and execute. I expect good things to happen.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 17 Apr 2011 10:39

Watchdog slams delays, high costs of Typhoon jet

In a scathing report, the parliament's Committee of Public Accounts, which scrutinises the way government departments spend money but has no regulatory powers, said the Typhoon project was mismanaged, pushing up costs.

"The history of the Typhoon fighter aircraft represents yet another example of over-optimism, bad planning and an unacceptably high bill for the taxpayer," said committee chair Margaret Hodge in a statement.

"The (defence ministry) is now buying 30 percent fewer Typhoon fighter aircraft than originally planned, the cost of the project is now expected to be 3.5 billion pounds more than was originally approved ... the cost of each aircraft has increased by 75 per cent," she added.

The watchdog said the overall project cost had risen to 20.2 billion pounds and that the cost of each plane had risen to 126 million pounds each. The body also said it had taken too long to bring the jet -- conceived in the 1980s -- into service. Britain is buying 160 of the aircraft, and the accounts committee suggested that support costs for the plane could be higher than originally budgeted.

Global demand for a new generation of fighter jets has surged, and the arms market is likely to be watching the Typhoon's performance in Libya closely, weighing up its advantages against its purchase and running costs. The defence ministry defended the Typhoon project, and said problems in its production were being resolved.

"The Typhoon is a world beating air-to-air fighter and is fast developing a ground attack capability as is being demonstrated in Libya," Defence Secretary Liam Fox said in a statement. "I am determined that in the future such projects are properly run from the outset, and I have announced reforms to reduce equipment delays and cost overruns," he added.

It is just staggering how much more the EF costs comparedmto the others in the race.. The EF with supports is easily going to strech the 11bn$ budget beyond breaking point.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2011 11:07

NRao wrote:The question is not if "it will be done'. The question is if it will be used (against India).

The question is if it can be done then it will be used ( or unused ) will depend on the whims and wishes of US , reminds me of the old proverb which says Intentions can change over night if capability exist.

A question that I would ask is if Indian Defence Community is comfortable with such snooping capability that comes built in with sophisticated systems , for US allies or for nations that further US interest or sustains it this snooping capability is no big deal.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Apr 2011 13:32

shukla wrote:Watchdog slams delays, high costs of Typhoon jet

It is just staggering how much more the EF costs comparedmto the others in the race.. The EF with supports is easily going to strech the 11bn$ budget beyond breaking point.

£126 million includes development costs which were indeed very high. But if you factor in the same for the Rafale, you'll find the French aircraft is still a more expensive option. Not that its known how much of the dev cost was carried over to their MRCA bids.

When manufactured at HAL, the EF and Rafale should cost roughly the same, with the SH being somewhat cheaper.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2011 14:47

Austin wrote:
NRao wrote:The question is not if "it will be done'. The question is if it will be used (against India).
The question is if it can be done then it will be used ( or unused ) will depend on the whims and wishes of US , reminds me of the old proverb which says Intentions can change over night if capability exist.

True. I gave the example of Pakistan above.

(And, since Indo-US strategic interests are converging and in my estimation will continue and remain so for about 20-30 years, I believe that India does not need to fear as much. In fact India IMHO is far better placed than the UK/Germany/Japan (Aussies do not even exist on my radar) were. India has geo location that none of them have.)

A question that I would ask is if Indian Defence Community is comfortable with such snooping capability that comes built in with sophisticated systems , for US allies or for nations that further US interest or sustains it this snooping capability is no big deal.

With the IAF purchase of C-160J, the IN purchase of the P-8 and the potential purchase of the C-17 (BTW, there is a brand new C-17 out there ............ real quite for sure), is a decent indicator. Of course it does not mean that the same amount of "tolerance" would apply to a fighter air craft.

I feel that this capability IS a big deal. No self respecting AF would like it. The question is what risk it carries and can such a risk be mitigated or tolerated (perhaps during non-combat times, what happens during combat is debatable).

Also, IF we assume that the F-18 is selected, for sure, the IAF will lean on the USN (!!! yeah) to teach it some dog tricks to start of. I would think that if the F-18 came into existence in the IAF, say, in 2017is, that the IAF would take some 3-5 years to learn the ropes of this air craft. Outside of the MiG-35 (???) the rest will need some hand holding for 3-5 years. It is, in my estimation, only AFTER those years will the "snooping" devices have any real impact (from gathering Intel).

(And, if and when the new engine comes, perhaps the USN and the IAF would learn together.)

Just BTW, if the US wants to snoop, IAF can get the Rafale and the snooping will occur. It is silly to think that the US needs to sell a F-18 to gather Intel about the IAF. It would become that much more easier, granted. In fact, IF at all, the US has helped India with snooping capabilities. Frankly, the more I think, the more I am convinced that people (BRites?) are very badly underestimating US capabilities to "snoop".

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 17 Apr 2011 16:05

Viv S wrote:
shukla wrote:Watchdog slams delays, high costs of Typhoon jet

It is just staggering how much more the EF costs comparedmto the others in the race.. The EF with supports is easily going to strech the 11bn$ budget beyond breaking point.
£126 million includes development costs which were indeed very high. But if you factor in the same for the Rafale, you'll find the French aircraft is still a more expensive option. Not that its known how much of the dev cost was carried over to their MRCA bids.

When manufactured at HAL, the EF and Rafale should cost roughly the same, with the SH being somewhat cheaper.

Here is a pithy article on costs

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

RAF gets just 107 jets – and new budget trainwreck looms

By Lewis Page

Posted in Government, 3rd March 2011 11:13 GMT

Analysis Yesterday the UK National Audit Office published a detailed report on the current status of the infamous Eurofighter combat jet – nowadays officially known as Typhoon. We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts and figures. The Eurofighter, almost unbelievably, is turning out to be even worse value for money than we had thought.

Probably the most dismal figure we are given is that the RAF will actually put into service just 107 Typhoons. At the moment it has received 70: the last of the 160 planes ordered by the UK will be delivered in 2015. But, we are told, "by 2019" all the Tranche 1 jets (which were still being delivered to the RAF at the start of 2008) will be "retired" – that is, thrown away. We'll pay for 160 jets (actually we'll pay for 2321), but we'll only ever get a fleet of 107.

This shows the acquisition cost of the Eurofighter/Typhoon in an even worse light than it had previously appeared, when an RAF fleet of 160 had been expected. It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades.

This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters2, almost all of which will be used operationally. And the Raptor has third-generation Stealth: the Eurofighter has no stealth features at all. The Raptor has thrust vectoring for unbeatable manoeuvrability in a dogfight: the Eurofighter doesn't.

The Raptor is a hugely more sophisticated and powerful aircraft, and is actually – astonishingly – somewhat cheaper, despite the fact that it is being made in much smaller numbers than the Eurofighter!

That's a really astonishingly bad bit of value for money on our part.

Unfortunately the problems won't be over when the final RAF Typhoons are delivered. There are major problems with spare parts and support, unsurprisingly as the Eurofighter's manufacturing is distributed across Germany, Spain and Italy as well as the UK. The NAO auditors write:
There are indications of problems with the collaborative contracts for the supply of spares and repair of equipment. There have been shortages of spares and long timescales for equipment repairs on some of these contracts ...

The [2008] spares procurement contract does not include penalties for late delivery ...

To compensate, the Department [the MoD] has had to take parts from some of its Typhoon aircraft to make other aircraft available to fly.

Oh, those troublesome foreigners and their ramshackle collaborative arrangements! Who could possibly have been responsible for such a rubbish setup?
... the Department played a central role in establishing the collaborative management structures that still exist today.

As the biggest buyer, it was actually the good old MoD which had the biggest input into setting up the multinational collaboration system – and it seems to have done its usual brilliant job.

Needless to say, there have been and will continue to be serious consequences resulting from the lack of spares. Our pilots can't get into the air to train:
The Department has consistently failed to meet the specified targets for annual flying hours, despite reducing its targets. Problems with the timely supply of spares and repair of equipment under the collaborative support contracts [which the MoD itself is mainly responsible for] have been a contributing factor to this failure ...
The lack of planes actually fit to fly is serious – the NAO reports that of the 70 Eurofighters the RAF currently possesses, just 42 are actually available to flying squadrons. And the lack of flight hours has meant that some flyboys haven't been able to get into the cockpit at all:
In 2010, the RAF temporarily grounded five pilots.

Basic air-defence skills have been maintained, but there aren't enough pilots ready to fly ground attack missions and there won't be for some time.
The RAF currently has eight pilots who are capable of undertaking ground attack missions on Typhoon ... The Department plans to have sufficient numbers of trained pilots to conduct a small scale ground attack mission by 2014 and aims to deliver sufficient flying hours to train enough pilots to undertake the full range of planned tasks by 2016.

What a joy it is to think that we paid £119m to upgrade the Tranche 1 planes back in 2008 so that they could do ground attack. In 2016 the RAF will finally have the pilots it needs to use this capability: but by then the Tranche 1s will already be being thrown away – all of them will be gone by 2019, remember.

We paid all that money upgrading the Tranche 1s and now we'll dispose of them without ever having pilots trained to use the upgrade! The Eurofighter story really just gets better and better.

Another depressing piece of news is that not all the paucity of flying hours comes from the spares problem largely created by the MoD. Another difficulty has arisen from our cunning British plan to get the Saudis to buy 24 of the RAF's contractually-obligated 184 planes (that's how the government managed to reduce its order to 160 without breaching its deal with industry and the partner nations).

Unfortunately the Saudis are understandably demanding to have pilots trained to fly their new jets, and the MoD – desperate not to be compelled to pay for and then scrapheap Tranche 2 planes as well as Tranche 1s – gaily agreed to sort this out.

Mournfully the NAO notes:
Flying hours diverted to training export customers could keep two RAF pilots fully trained in all roles [both air defence and ground attack] in 2010-11 and four in 2011-12. Similarly, support for export campaigns, such as flying demonstrations, has to be managed by the Programme Board from existing resources, diverting them from the RAF.

Given that we only have eight flyboys capable of flying ground attack at the moment, those are significant numbers (and you have to suspect that the five flyers we grounded last year were bumped from their seats by Saudis). Let's hope that the spares situation can be sorted and we can train more pilots, because the plan is to progressively fit the 107 jets which will remain in service with a fairly comprehensive ground-attack suite including not just smartbombs but the Storm Shadow bunker-busting cruise missile.

It would certainly be embarrassing to pay billions for these upgrades and then not have any airmen ready to make use of them – and this is the more so as there will only be a brief window of time where the upgrades will be really necessary.

No, we're not making this up. The NAO says:
Newer Typhoon aircraft will have progressively enhanced multi-role capability by 2018. By this time Typhoon is likely to be the aircraft of choice for both ground attack and air defence.

Not for long, though:
The Department plans to move, by 2021, to a fast jet fleet comprising two aircraft types: Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter.

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is specifically designed with ground attack in mind, and unlike the Eurofighter/Typhoon it is a stealth aircraft – fourth-generation stealth, in fact. As soon as the RAF (and the Navy) get the F-35, the Typhoon will certainly no longer be the aircraft of choice for ground attack – and quite likely not for air-to-air combat either, at least in some circumstances.

You really have to question why we're bothering to turn our Eurofighters into bombers at all, to be blunt. The truth of the matter is that we have to buy the bloody things anyway, and even after throwing more than fifty of them away while still brand new we'll be keeping more than a hundred - far too many for the job of protecting UK airspace, the only thing they're really much good for. So we'll throw good money after bad trying to make them useful.

Unfortunately this means that we'll need to support them and keep them flying into the future – all the way to 2030 on current plans. In general, a military aircraft typically costs two or three times in support over its lifetime what it cost to acquire: that would be a horrifying £46bn at minimum in the case of Eurofighter, enough to replace Trident twice over. Allowing for the fact that we will scrap 53 planes of 160 early, we'd still be looking at £30bn or more.

Amazingly, however, the MoD tells the NAO that it expects to pay no more than £13.1bn to keep its fleet flying until the end of its life. As the auditors dryly note, "Living within the support cost budget will be challenging". They point up some problems in particular:
The Department is confident that it can deliver the full range of support for the reduced number of aircraft within the originally approved figure of £13.1 billion.

Risks remain ... prices on Typhoon contracts are negotiated with United Kingdom industry on a non-competitive basis under longstanding agreements which enable industry to recover agreed overhead costs. The Strategic Defence and Security Review accelerated the retirement of Harrier to April 2011 and committed to reduce the Tornado fleet by half by 2015 with consequent reductions on work placed with industry. Unless industry is incentivised to restructure to manage this reduced workflow there is a risk that, under the existing arrangements, the costs of under-utilised industry assets will be re-charged to the Department on its remaining contracts – notably Typhoon ...

The collaborative arrangements present serious challenges if the Department is to upgrade and support the aircraft quickly and cost-effectively ...

And indeed the MoD, referring to its pie-in-the-sky £13.1bn estimate of Typhoon support costs, admits in a very small footnote:
[Estimates of support] costs exclude ... the impact of Strategic Defence and Security Review decisions and the impact of changes to industry overheads.

Or, put more plainly, the £13.1bn support costs figure is rubbish: but nobody at the MoD cares as this will only become apparent some years down the road and thus it will be Somebody Else's Problem. The "conspiracy of optimism" is plainly still alive and well at MoD Main Building.

When the cost overruns begin, even though everyone in the MoD who cares must be well aware or at the very least suspect that they're going to happen, nobody will get in trouble for concocting these fictitious budget plans – because nobody is responsible for them. Yes, you read that right. As the NAO puts it:
A key issue is that there is no individual who is accountable and clearly in charge of the whole project.

So there you have it. For more than 20 years the Eurofighter has paralysed the British armed forces, draining budgets, taking resources away from more useful things, costing more than Trident or a fleet of space shuttles twice the size of NASA's. Its long, drawn-out, agonising procurement process is finally drawing to a close; we finally have decentish non-stealth fighters protecting the UK after the many years in which the dismal Tornado F3 was our only defence (funnily enough we scrapped large numbers of those almost unused, too).

But now we will spend billions more to make the Typhoon into a deep-strike bomber, a role it will be able to carry out usefully for about three years. The odds are good that the Typhoon will never drop a bomb in combat. But it has, nonetheless, already deposited a massive obvious timebomb in the Defence budget – one which will go off at some point down the road whenever anyone at the MoD finally plucks up the courage to admit that the support costs figure has been deliberately lowballed.

It would be lovely to think that we can all forget about the Eurofighter now, that its malign effects on the whole UK defence establishment – indeed, the whole UK government, when you reflect on the history of the Saudi buy and associated events – are finally diminishing.

But it's not true. This albatross will be around our necks for many years yet. ®
Bootnotes

1That was the original order when the project kicked off, and the price has not gone down – just the numbers of jets.

2Development and procurement cost of the Raptor for 183 useable jets is stated at approximately $62bn by the US air force, putting each jet at $339m.

3To be fair, the MoD now plans to transfer some of the equipment onto newer jets: but £85m was spent fitting it to the Tranche 1s, and presumably a similar amount will go on transferring it to the later aircraft. The decision to put ground attack kit on Tranche 1 at all remains almost unbelievable, given that most of the planes will go out of service never having been flown by a pilot capable of flying ground attack missions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... page1.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2011 16:11

These reports about the EF, good info, but seem to be making only the Brits unhappy. Why is Spain not unhappy? She has a real crappy economy, which can ill afford the EF. Italy is not far behind.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Apr 2011 17:41

makes for very scary reading . Spain and Italy operate like pakistan - low key, not harbouring any long range high tempo ops ambition , happy to get rent from US bases and tag along for the scraps from every frathouse bash. ignore them - using them as a model would be a disaster for IAF. its quite telling neither has contributed EF even in token AD role - spain has sent F16, italy has used tornado. who knows what their uptime and pilot availability are - probably a lot worse than RAF.

at this rate even the F-solah-block52 is starting to look good - reasonable price , many users like pak,greece,turkey,israel; cheaper munitions; already developed avionics; good workhorse; proven supply chain.....

even the F-15 silent eagle....or the singaporean F-15SG....

the Gripen also seems to have a securer future as Sweden is not going JSF and its already omnirole by default.

time for me to change camp to F-solah bander-e-sufa-mki and Gripen-NG

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2011 18:10

In the scheme of things, the MMRCA is very important, but not a home run (or is it a sixer?).

THE game plan has to be to contain China. No two ways about that. It is NOT about keeping Russia or France or EU or the US happy, that just cannot be a consideration - specially BASED on what we know to be reality today (Japan's situation and Libyan fiasco). Honestly I just cannot see, outside of the US, any nation facing up to China. IMHO, India better prepare to go it alone if such a need arises.

With that in mind, I suggest that AMCA be made the crown jewel. FGFA come in a distant second (I do not want Russia to even THINK about hijacking that project). MMRCA comes right behind that.

AMCA (along with investments in IN and IA) should make Pakistan lose hope on all fronts. And, make China rethink her policies in the IOR.

IMHO India needs to gear up for such a scenario - today she is not ready for such leadership. (MMRCA and the likes are mere enablers/supporters of strategic policies. Simple as that. IF there was no need for a strategic policy, no need for a MMRCA.)

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 18 Apr 2011 01:35

No, MRCA is more than just a pawn in the strategic game. It is the source of technology to prevent AMCA from failing.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 18 Apr 2011 02:16

The Typhoon facts are coming to light because of the NAO's no-holds barred audit. The Rafale probably has an more murky picture WRT to costs and supply chain. It's just that the French press toe the Government line.

All of this leaves what? Gripen (clashes with Tejas Mk2), MiG which really does not exist and the F-16, F/A 18. That's even before you factor in the strategic angle (e.g. attrition replacements in any shoot out with PRC).

I'm betting on Boeing. But hey! who knows?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Apr 2011 02:30

Even the AMCA is "just a pawn".

However, I would think that the AMCA would draw more from the FGFA effort than the MMRCA. The only thing I can see that the MMRCA brings to the AMCA is supply chain. My feel is that the AMCA has technologically shifted over the past few years. The MMRCA contribution has therefore relatively declined. Technologically the MMRCA has remained somewhat constant, while the AMCA has moved further up the tech ladder.

astal · Post by **astal** » 18 Apr 2011 02:38

// Please ignore if you think this thread is for serious discussion only.

May I propose another suggestion from an uninformed by well meaning jingo.
IAF should go for the following.

Option 1
1) Buy 80 more MKI's at about $ 70 Million dollars each.
Spend 1 Billion on upgrading these to Growlerseque SEAD capabilities.
There is no need to build additional supporting infrastructure for these birds.

2) Buy 80 gripen at about $ 50 Million dollars each .
(No TOT just a quick purchase off the shelf)

Total Cost 5600 + 1000 + 4000 = 11.6 Billion dollars.

Option 2.
1) Buy 80 FA-18-Growlers for SEAD $ 80 Million dollars each.

2) Buy 80 gripen at about $ 50 Million dollars each .

Total Cost 6400 + 1000 + 4000 = 11.4 Billion dollars.

These will enable induction of 40+ aircraft a year to meet falling numbers, allow IAF to make the Tejas-MK2 or MK-3 better than the gripen, and have engine commonality and perhaps even buy AESA radar for both Gripen and LCA MK2 from Sweden.

While we are at it, to seal the deal, I would ask GE for complete TOT of engines as the number of F-414s ordered by India will be about 100+140=240 in the first case and 200+100+140=440 in the second case. This alone will cost from 2.4 Billion to 4.4 Billion dollars, enough for GE to fund an alternate engine for the FA-35 they are so keen on building.

// End of uninformed post

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 18 Apr 2011 03:00

astal wrote: // End of uninformed post

Astal, I think that this thread is a good reflection of the complicated task that the GOI and the IAF have ahead of them.......