KramerYou are missing the point. Yes, SAAB and MIG (and Dassault) really need the contract, but they will survive without it. This is not the make or break for aviation firms that you and other posters are making it out to be.
Gripen can still contend in Brazil and probably has more orders from Thailand up soon.
MIG – They will sell to a host of third world countries
Dassault – I would say Brazil and UAE looking pretty strong
I know that it really pricks your ego considering your nationality but when you talk about “self importance” then you might just want to look at yourself and your types who were trumpeting a 3rd generation design (one that even the nation that made it won’t buy) as being the star at Farnborough after it basically sat on the tarmac.
Anyway, Saab’s own top execs are on record (go read Flight Global) as having stated that either a Brazilian or Indian order was required for Saab to stay in the fighter business for a long time. Without either of these orders, the future of the Gripen NG (or Gripen E/F for the Flygvapnet) does not look too bright since small 12-15 unit orders will barely keep a line running for a couple of years, that too at well below its maximum efficiency. The Flygvapnet’s own order for Gripen E/F doesn’t seem to be very large (8-10 units or so) but they were promising to launch it to help the other export launch nation in resolving teething issues. Eventually they may upgrade all their C/Ds to the E/F standards so that they can be used up to 2030-40 or so, but for Saab to have a healthy order book through this decade, a fairly large sized order is required. They may well be able to find other customers who can buy small to medium sized orders but it won’t be an easy journey without a strong backer. It’s no coincidence that Rafale and Typhoon with their relatively larger home customer base have an easier way forward and a far more secure future even if they’d not found a single export customer. That the Typhoon has already got 2 (the Saudi one especially being large and very lucrative) makes it easier for them.
MiG required this sale almost as badly as Saab as they’re not much in favour in Russia compared to Sukhoi. The RuAF has promised to buy 24-30 MiG-35s, but that was likely premised on an export sale. It’ll be interesting to see if such a MiG-35 purchase does come through or not in reality. MiG will manage to stay in business with the MiG-29K being purchased by Russia as well as the follow-on 29 order that the IN placed. They also have a chance for the IN’s IAC-3 carrier fighter contest. Point being, that they’ll manage to stay afloat with sales to Syria, Myanmar or some other African or Latin American nation, but they will not prosper the way the Sukhoi corp did after it managed to get large Chinese and Indian orders which completely revived and revitalised the Su-27 line.
Kramernow US Aerospace is a company with an enterprise value of 11 million $ with 30 full-time employees. Did anyone think that they were seriously in with a chance in a competition to manufacture hundreds of tankers for the USAF when they have zero experience doing any of this kind of work ? Their whole bid was a joke and the USAF did the right thing by throwing them out and keeping only serious bidders in the competition.
KramerNo. They are not made at HAL. They are an concept designed and manufactured at LM.
not exactly. The original concept was that of LM but HAL has design responsibility as well alongwith a couple of other companies.
Lockheed Martin is responsible for overall system engineering, integration, aircraft modification and project leadership;
HAL for CARTS tank design and probe integration
KramerOf course there is an advantage, and in some cases it’s worth the extra cost.
How much of an advantage? Well I think if you look at it historically you can compare the sales of F-16 to F-15; that will give you an indication… Some countries need the F-15, often in addition to the F-16, whereas most are happy with the F-16 only.
India has ordered some 250 SU-30 — do they need more “heavy” fighters than that?
That depends on what the threat perception is. Countries that can afford to purchase heavy fighters will do so if the threat is considered significant. Not all countries can afford the higher unit costs to acquire, operate and maintain heavy fighters in any meaningful number. The USAF always treated the F-14 and F-15s as their primary air superiority fighters rather than smaller F-16s. The decision to move away from the F-14 by the USN was primarily a monetary decision based on the cost of maintaining that fleet as compared to the smaller but less capable vanilla Hornets.
The biggest problem in guessing what the IAF wants in terms of what weight class of fighter is because its not clear to outsiders like us, based on what the MRCA was originally meant to be- basically a Mirage-2000-5 or F-16 Block 50 class aircraft. But that was in the early 2000s when the IAF was just about getting around to using Su-30MK and K (no Su-30MKI), which were a huge move away from the light and medium class fighters to the true heavy weight class.
The IAF in those days is quite different from the IAF of today because back then the IAF had bigger budget constraints (both operational and for acquisitions) and a smaller range of fighters to choose from. It operated a huge number of point defence and short range interdiction MiG-21 and MiG-23 class fighters that had no IFR meaning short range and endurance, no meaningful multi-role capability and attrition rates that are way higher than 3rd and 4th generation fighters with their built in fault analysis systems. The Mirages were preferred because they were a known fighter and the IAF wanted offensive strike fighters that could double as good air defence fighters too. But those higher attrition rates meant that you needed a lot of fighters just to be able to field a sizeable number at any given time. Now that attrition rate may be lower, but the IAF has openly stressed that it wants 40-45 squadrons in order to maintain a deterrent posture against possible joint Sino-Pak aggression. So, the China factor is also added now, which makes long legs a very relevant and attractive feature.
Also, over time the MRCA budget has swollen to a level that may allow the IAF to put performance, technology and capability as the prime requirements, rather than just looking at cost and possible numbers it can acquire within a smaller budget. But then again, numerical superiority is a huge advantage as well, so the MRCA cannot be the most expensive fighter out there. So there are contradictory factors that are at work here and the IAF has to decide (and it must have since its evaluation report is to be submitted to the MoD soon) about what particular niche does it want the MRCA to fit in.
Now it’s clear that they love the Su-30MKI, the capability, the operational multi-role flexibility it brings, the variety of payloads it can carry as well as the range and endurance of the platform. But 280 Su-30MKIs (including the additional 42 that were signed for recently) is a lot, nearly 15 squadrons worth. There is talk that even more may be contracted for afterwards which might mean a 300+ Su-30MKI force.
That also means that a huge chunk of the operational budget is going to be used to fly and maintain this heavy fighter. While India spends only a small portion of its GDP on defence, the IAF cannot be sure that its budget will always keep increasing to allow it to operate close to 400-450 heavy to medium-heavy class twin engined fighters. And with the IAF wanting to induct large 5th generation FGFA fighters beginning in 2018 or thereabouts, it becomes clear that the fighter structure is more and more leaning towards medium-heavy fighters. That could possibly leave the IAF with just the about 150 odd Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 as it’s cheap to acquire and operate single engined fighters in 2025 (when the Mirage-2000-5 will likely retire).
So should the MRCA be a fighter that adds to the top-heavy structure or should it be a Gripen NG or F-16IN type fighter that is lighter and cheaper to operate albeit has issues with growth potential due to inherent space constraints and carries smaller payloads as well?
Here again is the dilemma. The IAF has predominantly been a strike oriented force with a bigger emphasis on strike and interdiction fighters than air defence fighters (which has been the PAF’s predominant focus in the past). With MiG-27’s, early model Jaguars and MiG-21M fighters retiring or beginning to retire in this decade, the IAF will lose a large chunk of its ground attack fighters and the MRCA was predominantly meant to address this shortfall of strike fighters. The Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 will replace the MiG-21 Bison, so the light weight category is to some degree covered, but the MRCA has to be a fighter that can carry a meaningful payload over a long distance, deposit it from a safe distance and return safely.
With the recent news about C-130J and P-8Is as well as possible C-17s being supplied to the IAF and IN without important communications equipment due to the non-signing of CISMOA agreement, the IAF would do well to simply eliminate the F-18E/F and F-16IN and concentrate on fighters that will not sold in a compromised or neutered manner. Some other countries will gladly accept such fighters but the IAF shouldn’t have to when it can afford not to. The only fear in this regard is that the current Indian govt. is so hopelessly pro-US that there is no way that they will allow the IAF to remove both US fighters from the list even though privately, all IAF officers express deep concerns over continued US sales and heavily subsidized transfers of fighters and other weaponry to Pakistan, the sanction happy nature of US Congress, as well as the guarantee that there will be insurmountable hurdles to ToT with the export control laws that the US has.
That leaves the European fighters mainly since I believe that the IAF wouldn’t want to end up being nearly all-Russian.
So the choice should ideally be between the Rafale, Typhoon and the Gripen NG (my opinion of course). How they fared in the evaluations, and how they fit into the IAF’s expectations from the MRCA should basically dictate who gets shortlisted and what recommendation the IAF makes.
Some people believe for instance that the IAF has to cater for the threat that the PLAAF poses. For decades, the IAF has neglected its eastern front with most of its air-defence fighters and SAMs located on the western front. Which was fine till the PLAAF operated short-legged J-6, J-7 type fighters and had little advantage in terms of infrastructure in Tibet. But with J-11B and J-10’s proliferating and the advances that China has made in making Tibet accessible to the PLA and PLAAF, the IAF has to be able to tackle these as well as deal with the PAF in a possible future conflict. That requires a Typhoon or Rafale class aircraft which can not only defend airspace but also be able to ingress, carry out strikes while avoiding China’s formidable SAM defences and then egress safely.
Some others believe that a Gripen NG or F-16IN with their lower up-front and lifecycle costs will be ideal to allow the IAF to buy more, the theory being that sheer numbers of technologically advanced fighters would allow the IAF to better take on both the PLAAF and PAF as compared to smaller numbers of even higher performance and technologically advanced fighters.
Hopefully we’ll soon see what the IAF’s opinion is in this case.
KramerLets not forget the USAF flew a KC-135 to Chakala in order for PAF to have a lookround,additionally last year and very recently at Nellis, PAF has been doing alot of sorties practicing refuelling using Boom method.
Might be pointing to a potential Boom tanker buy.
isn’t that a logistical headache simply to refuel the F-16 fleet ? They could instead buy the new CFT mounted probes and have them installed on their fleet..only interesting part is that they’re made at HAL (LM and HAL were jointly displaying this at Farnborough), although I suppose that if PAF wants them, LM could manufacture them at their FW plant itself.
KramerIt does seem to be a very logical decision based on finances, and especially if the new carriers can handle them.
However, it may mark the beggining of the end for the RAF/RN operating world beating equipment.
Operating a Super Hornet wouldn’t mark the end of the RN operating world beating equipment in any sense..How is it any worse than handing over their own naval version Sea Harrier FA2s and having to share Harrier GR9s with the RAF ? Unless you consider GR9s to be world beating naval fighters.
At least with the Super Hornet they’ll have their own dedicated carrier version and it’ll be more than capable of protecting the fleet with both BVR?WVR weapons and a state of the art AESA. And the Super Hornet’s mud-moving capabilities are well known as well with another plus being that it is very reliable. add a few Growlers and the RN will actually be very happy with these Super Hornets.
KramerI prefer the F-16A/B camouflage of the PAF to the new F-16 C/D Block 52’s camouflage scheme thanks to the different gray colour of the radome..the new F-16 C/Ds with radomes that match the light gray don’t look quite as good as these older F-16A/Bs.
Kramerpicture of the first C-130J for the IAF at LM’s Marietta facility in Georgia.
This is from the article on this link
who would’ve thought as far back as a decade ago that the IAF would operate a C-130 variant and the PAF would operate an Il-78 Midas ?
KramerEurojet were asked to design an engine with substantial growth potential.
“The EuroJet consortium were required to build an engine (often referred to as EJ2x0) which had at least a 20% growth potential.”
Source: http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
I have to ask what contribution GTRE could make to further developing the Eurojet engine. I don’t think their knowledge and expertise can be compared to Eurojet’s knowledge and expertise, so what use would GTRE be to any kind of joint development venture?
its the other way around- India may be tempted if Eurojet offers to involve GTRE as a partner in the further development of the Ej200. Right now the only engine house that GTRE is partnering with or hopes to partner for the Kaveri is Snecma..if GTRE can gain workshare on a further development of the Ej200 to be used on the last batches of Tejas Mk2 and possibly even the twin engined AMCA, it opens up a huge potential order for Eurojet and GTRE.
KramerHAL and BAe Systems may market the Hawk globally.
By Anantha Krishnan M.
Bengaluru
BAE Systems and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) are exploring the possibility of marketing the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) globally in the next couple of years.Andrew Gallagher, BAE Systems India managing director and chief executive officer, told AVIATION WEEK that the aircraft has the potential to be marketed to more countries because of its brand value as a “very successful trainer.”
“We are looking forward to beginning a global relationship with HAL, and Hawk aircraft is the beginning. We are in talks with HAL and will soon have shortly the business and marketing plans in place,” Gallagher said. “We are keen to build a relationship with HAL around Hawk, as we need to take the platform to a more global market. The Hawk enables an air force or navy to provide front-line pilots for even the most modern fighter aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon or Sukhoi SU-30.”
BAE Systems will also look to HAL to support more than 900 Hawks that are already operational globally. Asked about the spares issue that has delayed the manufacturing of Hawks under license at HAL, Gallagher said all the differences have been ironed out.Concerning the Bangalore-based joint venture company BAE-HAL Software Ltd., Gallagher said the two companies are working more closely to boost the JV.
“The reality is that we haven’t found the right opportunity and we are looking to enhance the same,” he added. Though HAL claims it as a profit-making JV, it has yet to make an impact in the aerospace sector. Established in 1993, the JV provides information technology products and services to aerospace, defense, transport and engineering industries.
BAE Systems says it is committed to the development of long-term, sustainable domestic business in India, not just in manufacturing but also in design, development, systems integration, testing and support.
“The company firmly supports India’s objective of procuring 70% of defense equipment domestically,” a BAE Systems official says. “The further development of its longstanding relationship with HAL, and the establishment of Defense Land Systems India, are examples of the company’s determination to take active steps to demonstrate its support for India’s defense services.”
KramerBAe’s statement on the recently concluded deal for 57 additional Hawks for the IAF and IN. Seems like they cost about £10 million each or thereabouts..is that cheaper than the price of a BAe Warton built Hawk ?
BAE Systems has secured a new order, worth over BAE Systems has secured a new order, worth over £500 million, with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), to supply products and services to enable a further 57 Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) aircraft to be built under licence in India for the Indian Air Force (40 aircraft) and Indian Navy (17 aircraft). The final terms and conditions for the contract were signed by Guy Griffiths, Group Managing Director International, BAE Systems, in the presence of British Prime Minister, David Cameron on his visit to India and BAE Systems’ Chairman Dick Olver.
The aircraft will be manufactured under licence at HAL’s facilities in Bangalore and BAE Systems will provide specialist engineering services, the raw materials and equipment necessary for airframe production and the support package for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy end users.
Commenting on the news BAE Systems India Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Gallagher said, “HAL is the premier aerospace company in India and BAE Systems is proud to be able to build on its long-standing relationship with HAL to deliver a further batch of this excellent aircraft to increase the Indian Air Force’s fast jet training capacity and establish a similar fast jet training solution for the Indian Navy. The Hawk AJT fast jet training solution enables an Air Force or Navy to provide front line pilots for even the most modern fighter aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon or Sukhoi Su-30.”
Guy Griffiths, added, “This new order continues and strengthens the long standing relationship between BAE Systems and HAL. It highlights the importance of BAE Systems’ strategic development of India as a home market, and the benefit of solid Government support.”
KramerVideo of IAF Hawks in flight.
KramerMy opinion is that France and Dassault understood that they could not be competitive enough in terms of offset/ToT and political leverage compared to Boeing, EADS and BAE.
EADS can offer some work-share in Airbus, drones, missiles etc…same for Boeing and BAE. With some frustrations on the latest franco/indian deals it is not good.
In the end I think they anticipated that it would be a lot of effort wasted for a very little if not 0 chance to win.
That being said I believe that the rafale (along with the SH) would have made the most sense on a pure operational point of view in the IAF. A pity !So I see the rafale out and for the others I am betting on the F16 (because of Pakistan) and then either the mig35 or the NG but more probably the Mig35. I see the SH and Typhoon at the next evaluation stage for sure. Perhaps the Gripen NG will be in the winner short list for its aggressive lobbying but I really don’t see it winning.
On top of offset issues versus heavy weights, Boeing/US could just say at the last moment to SAAB : we are not selling you the F414 anymore…Given the money at stake I would not be surprised.
yes from the very start there was a certain whineyness to the French campagin which was very jarring..Edelsteinne was complaining that twin engine heavy and medium weights were pitched against single engined medium weights in the Indian campaign but kept his mouth shut about the Brazilian competition where all the same contenders (except Su-35) were present and the Gripen NG made the final cut alongwith the much heavier Rafale and Super Hornet.
My guess is that France and Dassault, from the SoKo experience knew that they would be out-muscled by the US and had thrown in the towel much earlier.
But the Rafale itself would’ve had no issues during the evaluations and the offset offers and commercial bids haven’t been opened as yet, so my guess is that the Rafale should make the cut..the F-16IN and the MiG-35 are the ones that I believe will be culled during the shortlist.
KramerI think that Typhoon chances are improving. They can further leverage by ;-
Reducing costs 🙂
Offering technology/engine for EJ200 for LCA, Kaveri engine and AMCA engine
Offering AESA for LCA
Offering assistance for LCA, AMCA, AURA-UCAV
they are already doing a few of the above in the form of an engine as well as an AESA for the Tejas Mk2.
Eurojet Consortium is definitely the more expensive one amongst F-414 and Ej200, but the likely gains are that the Ej200 has a possible upgrade path where GTRE can be involved as well..
EADS and Elta are the only 2 that are now in contention for being development partners for LRDE for the AESA radar.
KramerSorry I think I misunderstood your comment, I thought you meant that there was emphasis on A2A in the requirements for the MMRCA.
AFAIK, the emphasis has been on performance. Now, whether that means A2A or not is debatable. But in general, a fighter with a good kinematic performance can still be a good striker, whereas the opposite is not possible..
Sign In
