International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 11 Jan 2019 14:42

Two mango questions for brar sahab or anyone else who can answer:

1. I see a graph of unit prices starting from 241Mil USD to the current 89Mil or so. Are the unit prices of each LRIP contracts for F35 in their respective year dollar or all of them are in some constant year dollar term.

2. Do we have any info on PBL contract cost for F35 in public available...? I tried but couldn't find one. I did find one document form 2011 IIRC which defines PBL technical parameters but no cost was mentioned. The LRIP cost definitely doesn't include the airframe MRO cost. But the engine cost in it looks like might include engine spares but difficult for me to conclude whether its full MRO package or merely regular spares to keep up the operational rate and regular base level repair related spare parts only. It definitely too high a unit cost for only the engine.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 11 Jan 2019 14:44

brar_w wrote:Image


The proportion of non-combat aircrafts is staggering.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 11 Jan 2019 18:08

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote:Image


The proportion of non-combat aircrafts is staggering.


Maybe non-combat but they are force multipliers. Within hours they can place forces anywhere on the globe and begin the process of hunting and killing in overwhelming numbers.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2019 20:27

the heavy planes, drones, CSAR do not usually have 18-20 a/c per sqdn unlike a fighter sqdn. but thats true for all, so 312 SQ is impressive.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2019 20:32

hnair wrote:Nobody here gonna complain about the shoddy paneling on that ginormous plane?

Even a kensai like Rutan-sama should not be spared of the :oops: :oops: despite the nose wheels leaving the ground for the first time

Let me start off with a "Looks worse than a Shivalik at noon"


startup mode saar . you glue together open src components for POC and initial customer buy in, then incrementally insert quality into the mix via agile/spiral :twisted:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2019 21:51

JayS wrote:Two mango questions for brar sahab or anyone else who can answer:

1. I see a graph of unit prices starting from 241Mil USD to the current 89Mil or so. Are the unit prices of each LRIP contracts for F35 in their respective year dollar or all of them are in some constant year dollar term.


On the F-35 LRIP/Lot fly-away (URF) prices data, almost always the prices quoted are "Then Year" prices in the years during which the contract was signed. Overall cost of the program is usually reported in 2010 constant year dollars but that is just for forecasting purposes. Each contract is signed separately and announced based on exact current value after it is negotiated.

JayS wrote:2. Do we have any info on PBL contract cost for F35 in public available...? I tried but couldn't find one. I did find one document form 2011 IIRC which defines PBL technical parameters but no cost was mentioned. The LRIP cost definitely doesn't include the airframe MRO cost. But the engine cost in it looks like might include engine spares but difficult for me to conclude whether its full MRO package or merely regular spares to keep up the operational rate and regular base level repair related spare parts only. It definitely too high a unit cost for only the engine.


Currently, there are no full-system wide PBL contracts for the F-35. PBL based contracting has started to occur for many sub-systems, and propulsion components in addition for non aircraft related material but the entire system PBL is still a number of years away (perhaps till the early 2020's). I cannot confirm this but I have come across info in the past that suggests that roughly 60% of the components on the aircraft are supported via PBL at the moment. This may be a little higher for FMS customers and foreign partners who are not bound by US regulations and it does appear that Lockheed may well be offering full PBL's on block-4 aircraft contracts with foreign nations .

Under the model that exists as of now, the annual cost of operating a single F-35 for the USAF, USMC and USN is as follows (based on anywhere from 180 to 300 hours of flying depending upon service and the fixed costs of supporting the deployed locations, organic depot capabilities, manpower, fuel costs etc etc).

F-35A - $7.1 Million
F-35 B - $8.9 Million
F-35C - $7.9 Million

These will be lower for others as US service costs come with a significant global deployments which is a different operating model compared to most operators who will operate from home most of the time.

This is expected to drop significantly as more organic depots are stood up, and the test fleet and some of the initial lot deliveries are brought up to 3F standard. In the future, a system wide PBL is also likely to bring this cost down. USAF's goal for example is bring that $7.1 down closer to the $4 Million or roughly the cost of their F-16 by 2030s as they field a larger fleet and fully build up their desired support, sustainment and organic depot capacity to support the 1000+ aircraft. The reason this is extended to 2030 is because the US Congress is not as generous when it comes to increasing funding levels for base depot repair facilities, sustainment and contracting for parts as it is for new defense equipment (for obvious reasons) something that the last SecDef (Mattis) tried very hard to drive into their thick skulls (readiness being as important as modernization).

The engine unit cost quoted on the F-35 is for the whole propulsion contract divided by the number of engines. It does not separate the engines by model (for example the F-35B propulsion system is considered as one unit including the P&W engine and the RR lift fan and all other components that make up the propulsion system). The Unit cost quoted after the end of final negotiations with Lockheed includes the cost of the engine because those contracts are usually concluded much earlier. The F-35A costs roughly $89 Million Fly-Away with the engine, contractor fees etc. It does not include any MRO or PBL but is just the basic fly-away cost of an aircraft as delivered to the USAF or another CTOL user. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/f-3 ... -an-f-35a/

JayS wrote:The proportion of non-combat aircrafts is staggering.


Both the current 312 # and the aspirational 386# are "derived numbers". Same with any shipbuilding numbers that you see the US Navy proposes and refines about once a decade in its fleet architecture study and 30 year shipbuilding plans.

In the US force planning model (COCOM's are force users and services act as force providers), the geographic combatant commands (eg. EUCOM, PACOM, CENTCOM etc) work with the services to establish their current and projected need for different types of capability and these are then analyzed in context of the various war-plan contingencies that the larger defense department has. The number that this analysis spits out is usually much higher so they then usually sit down with the COCOMs and other high level officials outside of the service to identify areas where they are willing to take acceptable risks and through that process adjust their force structure and force levels to be more consistent with projected budgets.

On the USAF side of things, it is usually the CSAR and Tanker fleet size that are often the limiting factor in terms of how many squadrons the USAF can add elsewhere. As is organic depot capability and manpower. ON the US Navy, it is usually the attack submarine force that limits how many surface ships the Navy can keep adding without having a fleet architecture that is out of place and unsustainable in an actual fight.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Jan 2019 01:08, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4138
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Kartik » 12 Jan 2019 00:00

Looks like the Israeli-Croatian deal for 12 used but upgraded F-16 Baraks has fallen through thanks to the US not granting permission for the sale to go through.

Israel fighter jet sale to Croatia falls through after US objections

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 12 Jan 2019 00:08

Kartik wrote:Looks like the Israeli-Croatian deal for 12 used but upgraded F-16 Baraks has fallen through thanks to the US not granting permission for the sale to go through.

Israel fighter jet sale to Croatia falls through after US objections


The reason they attribute to the deal not going through is wrong or at least misleading. As I had highlighted a few weeks ago when we had last discussed this, this would have been cancelled because Israel was non compliant on the TPT clause it is a signatory to as an FMS customer. As the entity in possession of the equipment it wishes to sell it is the responsibility of Israel to be compliant in its deal based on well laid out regulations. Since these were pre 1985 aircraft IIRC there was no reimbursement required to the US so all they needed to do was be compliant with the rules and regulations they are signatory to..Israel failed to be compliant and therefore its application was blocked. It can go back and become compliant and obtain the requisite approvals.

Wednesday's US embassy press release said that according to the rules of so-called Third Party Transfers (TPT) which regulates any re-sale of American-made arms, the military equipment originally purchased by an ally country must be returned to its original state before being transferred to a third country, and that Israel was obliged to communicate this in its negotiations with Croatia.

On Tuesday, Croatia's Defence Ministry said that only the delivery of the type of planes contracted with Israel would be acceptable to Croatia, and that the matter of getting US clearance for the sale was purely the responsibility of Israel. Later on Tuesday, Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic also commented on the issue, and said that unless the contracted aircraft are delivered, the procurement tender would be declared void.

http://hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a3551 ... oatia.html



The modifications Israel has been allowed to perform for itself are not something they can market to others without cutting deals and paying royalties to Lockheed Martin and the US DOD. They could obtain those licences as they have for domestic use for F-16 and F-15 equipment, weapons, mission computers and but that will be costly and would not allow them to competitively bid on some of these projects.They have done so on some components of the f-16 SUFA and F-15's hence are able to market them as a third party supplier as is evident in some of the sub-systems procured by Singapore on its fighters.

Israel contended that it did not modify those aircrafts specifically for the sale but that those aircraft were modified for Israeli use during their operational lives and that for the purpose of the current sale to Croatia they were merely upgrading the existing modified systems. The US position was that those modifications were unlicenced for the purpose of selling to a third party and therefore Israel was in violation with the TPT clauses that it was a signatory too as a recipient of military assistance.

Therefore, for this deal to be give a green light it would have had to be compliant with TPT which would have meant that Israel would have had to remove its Isreal-specific modifications and replace those components with standardized F-16 equipment sourced from either Lockheed or an alternate licenced supplier to the program. Croatia refused to pay this cost and Israel could not afford to do it on its own while also meeting the terms of its bid.

If Israel wants to become a player in the F-16 modification or support market or act as an alternate supplier to the F-16 user community for upgrades or new sales then it must obtain proper licences to do this. Companies that have done this more recently have been Boeing (lead integrator on the QF-16), and BAE systems (they have a proposed F-16 upgrade package that they market). Raytheon too was considering this and was a competitor to Boeing on the QF-16 program. These companies see a market where they could offer better products, services at potentially more competitive prices than the OEM (Lockheed) and are willing to follow proper procedures to provide that competition. They aren't just unilaterally offering to modify aircraft without obtaining the required commercial agreements. Doing so would put them in considerable legal and financial jeopardy as well as incur the wrath of their primary customer (US DOD).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16069
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby NRao » 12 Jan 2019 08:24


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2019 00:35


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jan 2019 00:37

India to deliver 4 more Mi-25 gunships to Afghan Air Force
https://www.khaama.com/india-to-deliver ... rce-03064/

The government of India will deliver four more Mi-25 gunship helicopters to the Afghan Air Force with the delivery of two gunships scheduled for the month of March this year. This comes as the Afghan officials had said earlier that an agreement has been signed between Afghanistan, Belarus, and India for the delivery of the four gunships. “We will receive the first of those two in March hopefully. It’s just a process that’s taking time. The other two should come in June or July. It’s just a matter of preparation. They will arrive soon,” Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan’s National Security Adviser was quoted as saying in an interview by Strategic News International of India. Mr. Mohib arrived in New Delhi last week to meet with his Indian counterpart and other Indian officials.

“Held productive meetings in India with my counterpart NSA Ajit Doval and other security officials on regional stability, the democratic progress and ongoing peace efforts in Afghanistan, and bilateral security cooperation,” he had said following his meeting with Ajit Doval, the National Security Advisor of India. India has played a major role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime and has invested over $2 billion in various reconstruction and infrastructure projects. The government of India pledged a fresh aid package of $1 billion to support the reconstruction projects in Afghanistan during a visit by President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani in late 2016. The two countries have also developed a high level of cooperation in terms of military and security during the recent years.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 14 Jan 2019 00:49


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 14 Jan 2019 22:28

South Korea getting ready for their F-35A IOC milestone -

Two stealth jets to arrive in Korea by March


Two F-35A stealth fighter aircraft will be delivered to South Korea from the U.S. by the end of March, a military source said Sunday.

"Two F-35As out of 10, which the Air Force will receive this year, will arrive in South Korea by the end of March. They will be deployed by around April or May," a source familiar with the matter said.

The source said two aircraft will arrive every month and up to 10 stealth fighters will be handed over by the end of the year. The Air Force will possibly complete their deployment during the same time. By the end of 2018, the Air Force had taken over six F-35As for training at Arizona's Luke Air Force Base in the U.S.

The F-35As are expected to play a key role in South Korea's pre-emptive strike system, previously referred to as Kill Chain and currently known as the strategic target strike against North Korean missile provocation.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 14 Jan 2019 22:46

Dassualt to kickstart Rafale F4 standard development.

- 2B development cost.

- F4 std fighter will fly in French AF in 2025 but some capability might be available from 2023.

- Expected to see integration new iterations of weapons MICA NG, SCALP and Nuclear AASM ( looks like it will take over N delivery role from Mirage 2000-N).

- updated Radar and front optronics, improvements in HMS

- Talios multifunction optronic pod ( how its different than the currently available talios in F3R..?)

- enhanced data transfer with better COMMS owing to Sat comm and SDR

- two batches of 28 and 30 fighters to be ordered. 28 qith partial F4 capability starting 2023 and next 30 with full F4 capability for 2027-30.(seems like this is being done tp keep prpduction going on, I guess the first 28 will be upgraded to full F4 status later).

This is reportedly the 5th tranche of production. (F1 > F2 > F3 > F3R > F4)

Will we see Dassault offering F4 standard for MMRCA 2.0..? Perhaps.

PS - Thanks brar sahab for the info. Much appreciated.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 14 Jan 2019 23:00

While the F4 will be quite capable and a vital upgrade to the Rafale, at some point France also has to look at how many aircraft it is buying. After deferring its own aircraft and planned production slots to export customers it hasn't really bought any new aircraft for a number of years now and I don't think it plans to start buying aircraft until export orders are met unless there is a production gap which requires additional orders to prevent delivery rate from slowing down. Even then they have gotten back to a delivery rate of 12 a year which is pretty low by most standards. At the rate they are going they may not get to 200 Rafale's till the late 2020's if not 2030. The exports customers the Rafale has picked up could have been used as an opportunity to increase production substantially and get delivery rates up to reduce unit-cost by bringing in economies of scale, but the lack of a substantial backlog means that Dassault is wary of doing that.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 14 Jan 2019 23:08

@JayS ---> They will likely offer the F4 for MMRCA 2.0. This will give the Rafale the ability to be on par with the F-Solah Block 70/72 and the F-18 Super Hornet Block III. Not that the F3R variant is any slouch, but still.

The only thing not available to India will be the nuclear delivery hard wiring. All Egyptian, Qatari and Indian Rafales come without the ability to carry the ASMP-A nuclear missile. Not going to happen and not that we need it either :)

And the Mirage 2000N has been retired from the French Air Force. Happened recently (like in Nov or Dec 2018 I believe). The Rafale C has taken over that role completely. Only the Mirage 2000C and the Mirage 2000D (strike variant) are left.

The F4 variant will also see an uprated M88 turbofan. Snecma has been pestering Dassault to increase the thrust of the M88, as present Rafale iterations (F3 and F3R) are getting heavier. And Dassault may likely give in this time.

Safran wants to boost M88’s thrust to 20,000 lbs
http://alert5.com/2016/03/17/safran-wan ... 20000-lbs/

Safran’s CEO, Philippe Petitcolin, said he is keen to boost the thrust of the M88 turbofan engine to 20,000 lbs but he added that the idea has not been discussed with Dassault. Explaining his rationale, Petitcolin said the output of the engine had remained unchanged since two decades ago but the Rafale has evolved to become heavier. He did add that his firm is “in discussion with the relevant authorities” on the upgrade.


The Dassault Rafale
http://www.airvectors.net/avrafa.html

SNECMA is working on an uprated M88-3, which would have 90 kN (9,175 kgp / 20,233 lbf) afterburning thrust. The Rafale will require larger engine intakes for the M88-3, but new intakes can be retrofitted to older aircraft with little difficulty. For the moment, however, there's been no strong user demand for the new engine; the only expected improvement is a modest update to the M88-2 to the "M88-4E" standard, which will improve reliability and serviceability.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 14 Jan 2019 23:35

Rafale test firing of ASMP-A missile.





Missile nucléaire français (ASMP-A)


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2019 00:42

France orders upgraded Rafale warplanes for $2.3 billion
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... alflow+DFN

^^^^ 28 Rafale F4 (not full functionality though) variants being delivered for $2.3 billion. These are new build aircraft and not software/hardware updates on existing aircraft. These 28 new build Rafales work out to $82+ million per aircraft. Another 30 aircraft will be ordered in 2023 and will be at full functionality in the F4 standard. Full functionality will obviously be more expensive.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 00:47

Admiral, I didnt see any mention to Engine uprating in reference to F4. Not even for MLU which is expected to follow F4.

I am bit perplexed on the cost. Seems too low. Its not clear if that includes dev cost of F4. If yes cost of aircraft is too low.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2019 00:56

The devil is in the details. Nobody - other the French Ministry of Defence and Dassault - know what capabilities exist in the half-functional F4 variant. In time, more costs should come out in the open. Perhaps at that time, there will be a better picture. What exactly is coming in those 28 new build Rafale F4s is anyone's guess. And yes, I agree the cost of $82 million per aircraft is quite low.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 00:57

brar_w wrote:While the F4 will be quite capable and a vital upgrade to the Rafale, at some point France also has to look at how many aircraft it is buying. After deferring its own aircraft and planned production slots to export customers it hasn't really bought any new aircraft for a number of years now and I don't think it plans to start buying aircraft until export orders are met unless there is a production gap which requires additional orders to prevent delivery rate from slowing down. Even then they have gotten back to a delivery rate of 12 a year which is pretty low by most standards. At the rate they are going they may not get to 200 Rafale's till the late 2020's if not 2030. The exports customers the Rafale has picked up could have been used as an opportunity to increase production substantially and get delivery rates up to reduce unit-cost by bringing in economies of scale, but the lack of a substantial backlog means that Dassault is wary of doing that.


As per Dassualt website

As of December 31st, 2018, the backlog includes 101 Rafale (73 Export and 28 France)


28 are part of the total 180 ordered out of which 152 are delivered.

They also have upgrade contract for F3 to F3R I think, they delivered 2 upgraded jets to Navy.

Current plan is to restart French deliveries in 2021. By 2022 all export orders should be over assuming no more additions. By 2022 end all backlong wpuld be finished and they will switch to the latest 28 ordered. Then 30 more ordered in 2023 for delivery between 2027 to 2030. The whole emphasize is on continuation of program without any break. Clearly the Franco-German Future Combat aircraft project is not foreseen to be coming anytime sooner than 2030, if at all it comes to reality. Post 2030, MLU will keep Dassualt afloat till the time the French figure out what to be done next. I must say I am mighty impressed by the planning. I wish IAF, together with the rafales also take a leaf or two from the French from their Program management skills. Though this must have put some pressure on the cost, the cost of keeping Dassualt idle and associated erosion of skillset easily would outweigh the additional program cost.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2019 01:45

JayS wrote:
As per Dassualt website

As of December 31st, 2018, the backlog includes 101 Rafale (73 Export and 28 France)


28 are part of the total 180 ordered out of which 152 are delivered.

They also have upgrade contract for F3 to F3R I think, they delivered 2 upgraded jets to Navy.

Current plan is to restart French deliveries in 2021. By 2022 all export orders should be over assuming no more additions. By 2022 end all backlong wpuld be finished and they will switch to the latest 28 ordered. Then 30 more ordered in 2023 for delivery between 2027 to 2030. The whole emphasize is on continuation of program without any break. Clearly the Franco-German Future Combat aircraft project is not foreseen to be coming anytime sooner than 2030, if at all it comes to reality. Post 2030, MLU will keep Dassualt afloat till the time the French figure out what to be done next. I must say I am mighty impressed by the planning. I wish IAF, together with the rafales also take a leaf or two from the French from their Program management skills...


The 4 aircraft received in 2017 and 2018 (combined) were ordered prior to that and as I mentioned most if not all the deliveries over the 4-5 year period between 2018 and 2022 will go to export customers thereby pushing plans to achieve that 180 target for France to the mid 2020's at the earliest. This then leaves them with a follow on order which will come but won't get them to 200 or beyond till well into the late 2020's. The program has been in series production since the late 90's IIRC.

Yes the focus of the program management over the last few years has been to prop up export sales and to ensure Dassault is working on something new for the future upgrade. However, this has happened at the expense of capacity (just 4 aircrafts received by forces in the 2017-2021 timeframe) and production rates which at around 12 aircraft deliveries a year are amongst the slowest of all major western fighter programs perhaps with the exception of the Gripen.

JayS wrote:Though this must have put some pressure on the cost, the cost of keeping Dassualt idle and associated erosion of skillset easily would outweigh the additional program cost.


Alternatively, you could order more aircraft or signal to Dassault that you will retain delivery rates amidst export successes so that your industry can produce the aircraft at a decent pace and your air-force and navy modernization does not move to the right because of export commitments; sort of like the executive decision/intervention in the US from Mattis when it came to the 110 block III Super Hornet order to keep a second supplier of Naval fast jets viable into next decade while also allowing the US Navy to modernize faster by increasing the pace at which it retires its older and worn out aircraft. France has a fairly large (top 10) defense budget and has committed to increase spending but that increase is stretched out well into the 2020's so they are forced to make this choice.

JayS wrote:Clearly the Franco-German Future Combat aircraft project is not foreseen to be coming anytime sooner than 2030


Their current plan is to slowly inch towards their goal of 200-220 modern fighters by late 2020's or 2030. The FCAS is expected to begin replacing the Rafale in France and Typhoon in Germany starting 2040 or in the second half of the 30's at the earliest assuming there are no major pitfalls in the partnership, workshare or funding.

The aim is to produce a replacement for the Rafale and Eurofighter in French and German service, from the 2040s onwards.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... an-fighter


The two companies agreed in principle in April to work together on an ambitious Franco-German program to design a new warplane, but are anxious to get some early funding so they can start work on new technologies required for the multi-billion project - with a goal of fielding a new aircraft around 2040. - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1NL25E


Rakesh wrote: I agree the cost of $82 million per aircraft is quite low.


I don't think that it is. I would have expected a primary user fly-away cost in that range (80-90 Million) given that they already have the infrastructure in place for bed down so are paying very close to just the recurring cost. The latest US Navy Super Hornet Multi-Year-Procurement for 72 aircraft to be procured over the next 3 years comes to around $60 Million for Boeing's contract and probably another 12-15 Million for GE's contract which basically amounts to the same thing when you consider its higher production rate. That is a good ballpark for fly-way cost for a twin engined western medium multi-role fighter..
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Jan 2019 04:15, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jan 2019 04:06

Rafale “F4” standard launched
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/gr ... -launched/

Eric Trappier, Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation, received the F4-standard development contract for the Rafale combat aircraft today during the visit of the Dassault Aviation Mérignac plant by Florence Parly, French Minister of the Armed Forces. The F4 standard is part of the ongoing process to continuously improve the Rafale in line with technological progress and operating experience feedback. The F4 standard marks a new step coming in the wake of the standards F1 (specific to the first aircraft of the French Navy), F2 (air-to-ground and air-to-air capabilities), F3 and F3R (extended versatility).

In our role as industrial architect, we will be responsible for implementing innovative connectivity solutions to optimize the effectiveness of our aircraft in networked combat (new satellite and intra-patrol links, communication server, software defined radio). New functions will also be developed to improve the aircraft’s capabilities (upgrades to the radar sensors and front sector optronics, helmet-mounted display capabilities), and new weapons will be integrated (Mica NG air-to-air missile and 1,000-kg AASM Air-to-Ground Modular Weapon).

Lastly, with regard to availability, we are working under a through-life support contract which will become more “top-down” under the authority of the aircraft manufacturer. F4 will include a new Prognosis and Diagnostic Aid System introducing predictive maintenance capabilities. Other maintenance optimization features are scheduled, particularly with solutions based on Big Data and artificial intelligence. Lastly, the Rafale will be equipped with a new engine control unit.

“The F4 standard guarantees that Rafale will remain at world-class level so that our combat air forces can carry out all their missions with optimum efficiency, whether in coalition operations or completely independently, as required by the French nuclear deterrent, stated Eric Trappier. This new standard also guarantees that Rafale will remain a credible reference on the export market. Lastly, it confirms the continuous improvement approach and helps develop the manufacturers’ skills.” Validation of the F4 standard is planned for 2024, with some functions becoming available as of 2022. Dassault Aviation and the 500 French firms associated with the Rafale program thank the Ministry of the Armed Forces, the Defense procurement agency (DGA), the French Air Force and the French Navy for their confidence.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3213
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby chola » 15 Jan 2019 13:35

The Turkish aviation industry is going from strength to strength.

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2019/01/14/turkish-firm-to-sell-drones-to-ukraine-in-69-million-deal/

Turkish firm to sell drones to Ukraine in $69 million deal

By: Burak Ege Bekdil   17 hours ago

ANKARA, Turkey — Baykar Makina, a privately owned Turkish drone maker, has won a contract to sell six Bayraktar TB2 UAVs to Ukraine, Turkish and Ukrainian officials have announced.

The $69 million contract for the sale was signed between Baykar Makina and Ukrspetsproekt, Ukraine’s state-run armament agency.


JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 15:17

brar_w wrote:
Rakesh wrote: I agree the cost of $82 million per aircraft is quite low.


I don't think that it is. I would have expected a primary user fly-away cost in that range (80-90 Million) given that they already have the infrastructure in place for bed down so are paying very close to just the recurring cost. The latest US Navy Super Hornet Multi-Year-Procurement for 72 aircraft to be procured over the next 3 years comes to around $60 Million for Boeing's contract and probably another 12-15 Million for GE's contract which basically amounts to the same thing when you consider its higher production rate. That is a good ballpark for fly-way cost for a twin engined western medium multi-role fighter..


I expected the contract to include F4 development cost too. Does it or doesn't it..? $2.3B for 28 aircrafts is in the ballpark of 2014 bare aircraft acquisition cost. I am trying to figure out how the development cost of upgrades is taken care of.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 15 Jan 2019 15:47

so by hook or crook the french govt is extending +ve support to their aircraft, weapons and space complexes with well timed orders and research grants. no wonder they are able to maintain a nose-to-tail independent ecosystem parallel to the khan dominated rest-of-nato and in most cases equally good, albeit pricier...but without the political strings of khan.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 16:01

Singha wrote:so by hook or crook the french govt is extending +ve support to their aircraft, weapons and space complexes with well timed orders and research grants. no wonder they are able to maintain a nose-to-tail independent ecosystem parallel to the khan dominated rest-of-nato and in most cases equally good, albeit pricier...but without the political strings of khan.

Its rather impressive achievement. Just put that against one of our programs.

Just take Rafale. It was inducted as F1 std in Navy with bare A2A capability. No A2G capability. This is because the deployment could not have waited till Rafale would have had everything. Those F1 standard planes were upgrades to F3 later which was a rather elaborate and deep upgrade. This shows the immaturity of the F1 standard.

Then came F2 which had A2G role included, to a limited extent only, not the ultimate intended level. This was achieved only in F3 which has all the bells and whistles including N delivery. Then incremental upgrades to F3R and F4. upgrades from F2 to F3 and F3 to F3R are relatively easier and are being done. Even the F4 is split in two batches of 28 and 30 so the production could continue between 2023 and 2027 in case no additional export orders are achieved. First batch will have only partial capability. I suppose entire fleet will then be upgraded to F4 standard (some 240 are planned as of today). Meanwhile MLU package will kick off on development side and bring the entire fleet again as close to 5th Gen technology as possible. While the fleet is being upgraded, Dassualt would be working on the Future Combat Aircraft.

All other OEMs Safron, Thales el al are in sync with the plan and are releasing incremental upgrades to their respective products.

Now compare that with LCA program management.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2019 16:09

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote:

I don't think that it is. I would have expected a primary user fly-away cost in that range (80-90 Million) given that they already have the infrastructure in place for bed down so are paying very close to just the recurring cost. The latest US Navy Super Hornet Multi-Year-Procurement for 72 aircraft to be procured over the next 3 years comes to around $60 Million for Boeing's contract and probably another 12-15 Million for GE's contract which basically amounts to the same thing when you consider its higher production rate. That is a good ballpark for fly-way cost for a twin engined western medium multi-role fighter..


I expected the contract to include F4 development cost too. Does it or doesn't it..? $2.3B for 28 aircrafts is in the ballpark of 2014 bare aircraft acquisition cost. I am trying to figure out how the development cost of upgrades is taken care of.


I have not come across the details on what the contract includes and doesn't. I have also not come across anything that suggests that this is a one and done contract and not just current payment to Dassault to get the new variant going since deliveries aren't for some time still.

Singha wrote:so by hook or crook the french govt is extending +ve support to their aircraft, weapons and space complexes with well timed orders and research grants


This independence has come at a cost in terms of their capability and capacity and the inability to pursue cutting edge equipment. For example, no 5th generation aircraft, lack of spending on UAV/UCAV's, and very expensive weapons/munitions which will lead to a smaller inventory (though a shrinking fighter capability may offset that) and having to move a lot of things in terms of modernization and capacity to the right. This has an affect in the export market as well hence the complete absence of Rafale sale to a western/European nation. It is a double edged sword but yes they have very done well with maintaining strategic independence on many systems but even they, after the Rafale experience, probably realize that they will have to pick and choose and if you look at their ongoing deal with Germany it seems they are willing to have Germany lead the ground combat system side of things in return for Dassault leading the FCAS effort.

The amount of money that has been spent on the Rafale program as a whole, relative to France's defense budget is the "cost" of this independence. As a result of all this, they would only manage to field something like 200-220 aircraft between their Navy and Air-Force over a 30 year production period (2000 to 2030).
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Jan 2019 16:22, edited 3 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 16:17

brar_w wrote:
JayS wrote:
I expected the contract to include F4 development cost too. Does it or doesn't it..? $2.3B for 28 aircrafts is in the ballpark of 2014 bare aircraft acquisition cost. I am trying to figure out how the development cost of upgrades is taken care of.


I have not come across the details on what the contract includes and doesn't. I have also not come across anything that suggests that this is a one and done contract and not just current payment to Dassault to get the new variant going since deliveries aren't for some time still.


Neither have I. Initial reports suggested 2B euro dev cost. They did not mention aircraft deliveries. Later reports had more details and they suggest 2B euro for 28 aircrafts. Some reports I checked on internet suggested F3R program cost was 1B. Now I wonder what all was included in that one too.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 15 Jan 2019 16:24

its always cheap and easy being a vassal of the khan and doing small scale stuff with "permission" like italy,uk,japan,korea
strategic independence and avoiding the temptation of easy sugar on the table takes the mindset of a yogi.
france are with khan in pretty much every misadventure of the last 3 decades but still spend money to keep their own kit including costly kit like bespoke SLBMs (UK just buys tridents)

pretty admirable. being the first republic, they take the "republic" in it seriously.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2019 16:33

Singha wrote:its always cheap and easy being a vassal of the khan and doing small scale stuff with "permission" like italy,uk,japan,korea
strategic independence and avoiding the temptation of easy sugar on the table takes the mindset of a yogi.


This is a strawman argument. There could have many other ways to develop high end, highly capable military weapon systems that are/were not reliant or dependent on the US MIC. A European 5th generation aircraft for example, a European MALE or HALE UCAV that would have been operational in the 2000's instead of the 2020's. A European AEW aircraft operational by the late 1990's/2000's..same with a European MPA etc etc. These are just some examples form the top of my head. Plenty of ways to have cooperated and developed highly capable systems that through jointness could have resulted in EOQ's and lower acquisition cost. By going your seperate way you incur a much higher cost which inadvertently means cuts elsewhere.

I am not saying one strategy is better than the other - just putting some context to this that the cost of this strategic independence is ultimately going to be a $60-70+ Billion program spend (Rafale) with about 200 modern fighters to show for it by the end of the 2020's. That's nearly 70% as much spend on what the US paid for the truncated F-22 capability but the US has a much higher CAPEX budget. It has meant that there has been some cost paid elsewhere..one of them is obviously capacity the other being capability elsewhere like UAV/UCAV's etc. There are always two sides to an argument. It is good for France overall to cooperate with Germany on the FCAS and to try to find as many other European partners as possible to share the cost and to provide volume for economic production. Forming partnerships though has not traditionally been a European problem..keeping them has so hopefully they would work better towards that this time around.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65271
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 15 Jan 2019 17:07

factional fights in europe is mainly the reasult of the anglo-scandinavian and PIIGS block going for the easy sugar either because they cannot do anything on their own, or they cannot afford to (UK), while the franco-german block and sometimes italy is willing to pay a bit more to develop own systems. for a long time germany was in hibernation unwilling to spend much on defence.

the usual ego clash is between UK and France as seen in past projects.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2019 17:31

Singha wrote:while the franco-german block and sometimes italy is willing to pay a bit more to develop own systems.


There have been "blocks" in Europe that have gone out and partnered to develop capability. The Typhoon despite of France walking out has still managed to produce upwards of 500 aircraft and is still in production, and the Tornado that it follows managed to produce close to a 1000 aircraft as well. It has only been the absence of certain high end capability (like NO 5th gen fighter or UAV or MPA etc.) that western European nations have had to partner with the US because in the absence of a unified effort to direct collective R&D funds on a program NONE could have developed this capability on their own. Plus most of them have an old and strong bilateral relationship with the US as well. Furthermore the National Security and Defense partnership with the US has resulted in many instances where European firms have been able to integrate with the US nationals security industrial base and acquire strategic defense capabilities in the US. For example, BAE systems being approved to acquire strategically critical Electronic Warfare/Electronic Attack businesses from Lockheed Martin or other vital ground based businesses from United technologies among others. Rolls Royce buying Allison is another example. Same for Italian firms like Fincantieri which now owns and operates a US shipyard and supplies ships to US Navy, or SAAB which now owns a key player in the US radar supplier base or NAMMO which now is part of the SRM supplier base in the US. So the defense cooperation has been a two way street.

I believe some European partners are trying to revive a partnership on a European MPA though it seems France wants to go it alone. Others could simply not wait for a collective European effort to come up and have had no other option but to buy the P-8 to replace their aging capability. France seems to have backed a European MALE even though the project is about 15 years behind in terms of when they should have looked to field this capability vs when they end up doing. We will have to wait and see if they can broaden the FCAS partnership and then keep it alive as the important and meaty details of the development and workshare are worked upon because this will end up being a $100-$200 Billion project so it would have a lot of impact on the overall capabilities of the respective air-forces if they are yet again forced to invest alone.

for a long time germany was in hibernation unwilling to spend much on defence.


You mean that the Germans are out of this hibernation? The UK and France still top the western european NATO states when it comes to spending. Assuming political consensus on National Security funding levels, Germany may catch up to them by 2030.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Jan 2019 18:35, edited 4 times in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 17:45

I suppose the very strategy that allows France to be independent and have capabilities across the spectrum also hampers their way to get integrated in all European programs. Because it invariably means letting go significant work share to other nations and French companies cannot always have enough to keep them afloat out of such programs even though as a Nation France perhaps would end up spending the same more or less.

There is still quite a bit of co-operation among all the European companies through various EU programs. Though now a days the funding slowing down to rather small numbers. But I expect we will see resurgence of European co-operation for next gen military ware. No single country seems to have wherewithal now to go solo anymore.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23048
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Austin » 15 Jan 2019 18:24

Singha wrote:its always cheap and easy being a vassal of the khan and doing small scale stuff with "permission" like italy,uk,japan,korea
strategic independence and avoiding the temptation of easy sugar on the table takes the mindset of a yogi.
france are with khan in pretty much every misadventure of the last 3 decades but still spend money to keep their own kit including costly kit like bespoke SLBMs (UK just buys tridents)

pretty admirable. being the first republic, they take the "republic" in it seriously.


Pretty much on the point , If US pressurizes France will drop the ball look at the Mistral deal with Russia or French Total pulling out from France under pressure from US or Airbus pulling out multibillion dollar signed deal with Iran neither of this is military in nature except for sanction pressure

Most of the heavy loading is done by US , French combat operation means nothing more than flying a Rafale and dropping few cruise missile in coordination with US , They cant do any thing independently today

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7125
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby brar_w » 15 Jan 2019 18:46

JayS wrote:I suppose the very strategy that allows France to be independent and have capabilities across the spectrum also hampers their way to get integrated in all European programs. Because it invariably means letting go significant work share to other nations and French companies cannot always have enough to keep them afloat out of such programs even though as a Nation France perhaps would end up spending the same more or less.


The realization that they cannot go it alone and do everything themselves, while also fielding the sort of capability required in the quantity required, is slowly creeping in hence the push to enroll as many nations as possible into the FCAS effort. Others in Europe came to this realization earlier so have reconfigured their industrial base so that it can better integrate with the broader European ecosystem so that you have a smaller independent footprint but whatever you do have is more healthier at the same investment level while also providing the quantity needed. The US came to this realization as well and this formed the basis of Bill Perry's "Last Supper" following the cold war. Re-configuring your national security industrial base to better align with your spending levels and balanced with your warfighting need (quantity of military equipment) is actually quite common.

Had a compromise been reached and a joint european 4.5 or 5th generation fighter agreed upon back in the 1980s/early 90's the money saved could have allowed for larger quantity to be acquired, more funds for strategic airlift, tanker, and munition reserves. As I said there are consequences to the overall force levels that must be faced when chasing that sort of independence and in doing so it may in fact make you more dependent in many ways which sort of defeats the purpose.

The only way to do both would be to spend much higher on defense but there is no political consensus to do this so the end result will likely be a different looking industrial base that is more integrated with the broader european design and industrial base which naturally requires letting go of some independent capability though quite a bit will be definitely retained. France can't afford to develop a Next Generation fighter independently since the cost and risk will be very very high given that it never chose to invest in a 5th generation fighter or a stealthy bomber/UCAV in the 2000's so will be taking a pretty big leap from a Rafale to a 6th generation fighter. This probably explains why 2040 is more of a realistic transition point. 2-3 different Next Generation fighter programs in Europe will not be sustainable and going down the path of the Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen again will be a very very big mistake.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2019 22:46

Brar, Admiral, we have a official statement saying there are no new orders of Rafale. The whole 2B euro are for development program alone.

https://twitter.com/FranceinIndia/statu ... 63072?s=19

Of coarse this should not stop the cabal from making new claims of Rafale scam. Too bad official clarification before majority even got to pick up on the confusion :lol: :lol:

BTW I was looking for answers in Dassualt Aviation annual reports. French govt gives out separate contracts for bare aircraft, development program, upgrading of old aircrafts, and MRO. Of coarse weapons are bought separatelynfrom respective OEMs. The Indian contract is exactly on the same line - 4 separate components of Bare a/c, Weapons, dev cost and PBL.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jan 2019 04:31

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote:I don't think that it is. I would have expected a primary user fly-away cost in that range (80-90 Million) given that they already have the infrastructure in place for bed down so are paying very close to just the recurring cost. The latest US Navy Super Hornet Multi-Year-Procurement for 72 aircraft to be procured over the next 3 years comes to around $60 Million for Boeing's contract and probably another 12-15 Million for GE's contract which basically amounts to the same thing when you consider its higher production rate. That is a good ballpark for fly-way cost for a twin engined western medium multi-role fighter..


I expected the contract to include F4 development cost too. Does it or doesn't it..? $2.3B for 28 aircrafts is in the ballpark of 2014 bare aircraft acquisition cost. I am trying to figure out how the development cost of upgrades is taken care of.

So the $2.3 billion appears not to be the acquisition cost of the 28 new build Rafales but rather the development cost of the F4 standard. See below. Thoughts?

Image

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7001
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jan 2019 04:41

Qatari Air Force Rafales in the background of yesterday's Rafale F4 ceremony at the Dassault factory....

Image

Image

Image

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion - Jan 2018

Postby JayS » 16 Jan 2019 18:26

Rakesh wrote:So the $2.3 billion appears not to be the acquisition cost of the 28 new build Rafales but rather the development cost of the F4 standard. See below. Thoughts?


Admiral, see my first post on this matter, I had posted 2B as dev cost only. One reporter mis-interpreted or misreported and that caused so much pain. I was skimming through the DA's Annual reports and had confirmed that, along with the fact that DA's official presser have no mention what so ever about 28 planes (see my post above yours). But before I posted my findings, we got official word from French Amb in India replying Congi mouthpiece who went to town with the mis-interpreted report. What an embarrassment these idiots cause to India. Thoo.

Today still some idiots running stories on the incorrect info. :rotfl:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, kittigadu, Prashanth_R, sudeepj and 70 guests