VnomadAnyone taking DNA news seriously???? It’s a web tabloid.
Daily News and Analysis (DNA) is an Indian broadsheet launched in 2005 and published in English from Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Pune, Jaipur, Bangalore and Indore in India. It is the first English broadsheet daily in India to introduce an all-colour page format. It targets a young readership and is owned and managed by Diligent Media Corporation.
In October 2011, as per the Media Research Users Council’s Indian Readership Survey (IRS) Round II, DNA’s total readership to be 1,242,000 in Mumbai and an average per-issue readership across its six editions, of 824,000. IRS also ranked DNA as sixth among the top ten English dailies in India. DNA is the second most-read English broadsheet in the city of Mumbai. – Wikipedia
Vnomad…
It has a direct effect on the price of the MRCA deal for India since to pay in $, india has to BUY $ with its own currency.
Inflating dollar prices are certainly done with a fix exchange rate to reflect the aditional cost in Rupee but converted in $ (price with current exchange rate vs price with future exchange rate) > from 12 billion $ to 17 billion $ and perhaps more.
What we learn is that the cost escalation is massively due to a currency issue and to a lesser extent specific demands from the IAF not initally anticipated — Or items that were not part of rafale/Typhoon price formula originaly.
With regard to the part in italics (which I mostly couldn’t comprehend), there are no fixed exchange rates involved.
The global value of the dollar isn’t determined by how much of it the Indian govt is ‘buying’. The bulk of the payments for the deal will be for imported content (both tangible and intangible) and paid for with foreign exchange (mostly dollars).
If the deal was budgeted at $12 billion and is now costing $20 billion, the difference has nothing to do with the value of the rupee. If the original budget was Rs X and the current cost is Rs 2.5X, that difference is impacted by the rupee’s value.
VnomadAs such, there is little consideration for the [non-economic] policy ‘overhang’ that plagued the previous Congress government- and that includes the MMRCA. NaMo is determined to court good relations with India’s neighbours by the ‘make trade, not war’ mantra, (the French are wising up to this by offering �1bn in cheap loans in the MMRCA deal, for infrastructure projects) after all, what signal does the purchase of 126 Rafales (at exorbitant prices) send?
Modi’s emphasis on trade instead of war is notable only because he was being painted as a warmongering nationalist by some before his election. As such no (normal) country in the world wants to go to war. Its too messy, too expensive.
That said, a strong focus on trade does not have to come at the cost of a strong defence. There are valid arguments against the Rafale purchase, mostly to do with cost-benefit equation, but the underlying policy i.e bolstering the IAF, remains unchanged. After all, the US and China are each other’s largest trade partners but that doesn’t change the fact that there is an epic rivalry brewing in the military and strategic sphere.
If Dassault must’ve been a tad alarmed to see the Pakistani PM @ Modi’s inauguration they (and the US) will be positively pulling their hair out at the overtures Modi intends to make to the Chinese. This is the consequence of Obama’s flawed ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy and mismanagement of Putin and Ukraine.
If you’re assuming that this is the birth of some sort of Russia-China-India axis, you’re mistaken. China has done a spectacular job of nation-building over the last three decades. Modi not only admires them for that but would like to learn from it.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that China is single largest military and geopolitical challenge for India and the border disputes with it are nowhere near resolution (nor will they be for the foreseeable future). China for one is not going to scale back its military modernization program based on Modi’s public remarks.
1. One of the most notable points during his election campaign was his visit to ‘Arunachal Pradesh’, territory claimed by China as an extension of Tibet.
Narendra Modi takes on China over its ‘mindset of expansionism’
2. Post election
Eyeing Pakistan and China, India’s Modi bolsters security team
Modi’s foreign policy: Tough on Pakistan, China at arm’s length
Govt plans military training for people on China border (from yesterday)
3. Of all the foreign leaders, Modi’s forged the closest personal relationship with Shinzo Abe of Japan. And this is a relationship that stretches back to when Modi was still a regional leader.
Abe-Modi Bromance Good News for Japanese Companies?
Both were there for each other when others were not.
Mr. Modi went on an official visit to Japan in 2007 during Mr. Abe’s first term in office, at a time when many countries were loath to grant Mr. Modi a visa over concerns surrounding his alleged involvement in communal violence in 2002. Over a 1,000 people died in the riots, most of them Muslim. Some accuse Mr. Modi of not doing enough to stop the violence. A court last year said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr. Modi.
On his second visit in 2012, Mr. Modi made a point of visiting ex-prime minister Mr. Abe, who had barely lasted a year in office and resigned after a corruption scandal and dismal election results.
Big in Japan: Why Abe is Rooting for a Modi Win
Narendra Modi one of three people whom Japanese PM follows on Twitter
Modi’s equation with Shinzo Abe will make Mission Japan a success
Maintaining good relations with everyone is certainly a priority for him, but I don’t see Modi snubbing Abe with an unexpected tilt towards China.
So yes, the Modi government will become more decisive, efficient and transparent in their decision making, the French may be the first to witness the dynamism of this vibrant, new government……..when it cancels MMRCA altogether or re-tenders it.
If the MMRCA contract will be cancelled, it’ll likely be on the merits of the case (and there is certainly a strong case for it).
VnomadWell that’s the benefit of having multiple sources to choose from, isn’t it? A plethora of options can hardly be construed as a negative. In any case, if a truncated buy is approved this year, execution of that contract would likely conclude by 2022, with a decision on extending production due some 18 months prior.
Depends on the conditions of the truncated deal. If the 62 aircraft (80 minus 18) are being delivered by HAL, then delivery will begin around 2019 and will be nowhere near complete by 2022.
IAF at that point should have very good information on the cost and availability of both FGFA and Tejas Mk. 2 (and a more realistic handle on AMCA) with which to make their decision. Indeed, pressure from those platforms could well contain the price escalation that Dassault would otherwise be tempted towards for any follow-on contract.
The Rafale will inevitably cost far far more than the Tejas and be outperformed by the PAK FA. Its simply a bad idea to be inducting it it past 2022 (if not earlier) when China would have switched over to the J-20 and J-31 and its adversaries in the Pacific would be operating F-35s in strength (with domestic stealth aircraft in an advanced state of development).
As for whether production would be extended … well, the proposal doesn’t make much sense otherwise: India would likely be paying ~85% of the full contract price for only two-thirds the number of aircraft*. It’s obviously a political figleaf to generate the required figure.
There is no political opposition to the deal (unlike Canada or earlier Brazil & Australia). The govt’s problem with it is purely financial. So far its only examining the downsizing proposal and they’ll likely find out its a bad idea that’ll simply hike the price for already unaffordable deal.
But if such a figleaf (i.e truncated initial buy) is what it takes to get MMRCA approved this year, then it is an easy decision for everyone to make. It is far better than compromising on ToT, or — horror of horrors — going back to the drawing board.
ToT is likely the most ruinous part of the deal. There’s (i) no way to assess the extent to which its being assimilated, (ii) the entities involved in fighter jet development (DRDO/ADA) are not involved in the Rafale production, (iii) adds to the MMRCA’s already high cost and if that didn’t already nix it, (iv) it comes too late to assist the Tejas program with the AMCA too far off.
Claims of is helping the industry evolve tend to be amorphous in content, and ultimately its only direct funding for domestic programs that has ever really borne fruit (and which will likely receive increased funding in the event of an MMRCA cancellation).
VnomadThat’s wrong. With only two wet points under the wings, the F22 has no room for other heavy external payload and is limited to its small internal bays. Same rationale is valid with the FGFA vs MRCA. Or could you figure out where to fit 12 or 6 LGB as well as enough fuel and a LDP ?
The PAK FA has six external hardpoints. So that’s six missiles carried internally plus six air-to-ground munitions on two bomb racks, two fuel tanks (though internal fuel will probably be sufficient as in the MKI’s case) and two hardpoints free for pods or SRAAMs.
This makes the F22 and FGFA some excellent niche aircraft for Air dominance but with very limited strike capabilities (short range, small payload).
Short range, lol.
4.5 gen electronic will not compensate for an arcraft with niche capabilities. Second, the FGFA has still a very very long way to go before just hoping to catch up.
Supercruise. Low RCS airframe. Sensor fusion. 360 sensor coverage. Large AESA with 270 degree FoR. Even if the level of sophistication isn’t at par with the F-35, the ‘niche role’ argument is just silly.
valid point, but the brute power is at the detriment of fuel fraction and external payload & operational flexibility. You cannot win everywhere.
The fuel fraction is perfectly adequate, the compromise will be in operating cost. Which given its advantages over the Rafale, is worth the difference.
VnomadThat’s a flawed logic: to pay in $ India has to BUY $ with cheap rupees…
When your curency is going down your imports will be significantly more expensive which is the case in India.
That was a statement of fact. The dollar (or Euro) value of the deal isn’t significantly impacted by rupee’s strength; its might fall slightly due to the cheaper value of the India-based component. No flawed logic involved.
Also the currency isn’t going down, its been stable for a while. However, its worth less than it was half a decade ago, so yes imports are more expensive. So what?
As for the 18 flyaway rafales and everything that will be sourced in France the costs are in € but converted in $ bought with cheap Rupee : double kiss cool effect.
Cheap rupee leads to a ‘double kiss cool effect’?
India Central Bank should set higher interest rates and suddenly those deals will be less costly.
So the Central Bank’s interest rate should be determined by the Rafale import instead of balancing growth and inflation?
VnomadVN – I believe that the EOTS is MWIR – since LWIR is obsolete in pod terms as a standalone because its resolution inherently sucks donkey ****s, as anyone pretending to have an informed opinion on this matter should know.
?? I just said that the EOTS, operating in the MWIR spectrum, could deliver higher resolution but with a smaller max range. If it were LWIR, range would have been higher. But is the current max range less than the average IRST? I’d like to see the data first.
Also, at an average weapon system unit cost of $100m, your revenue figure would seem to indicate 5500 deliveries by 2034. GLWT.
Its doesn’t say 15% of only the weapon system cost. According to the FT article, the F-35 will result in revenues of £2 billion for BAE by 2017. That would translate to £40 billion or $70 billion over 20 years. Assuming the production rate goes up post 2017, $80 billion is fair.
VnomadVN – I believe that the EOTS is MWIR – since LWIR is obsolete in pod terms as a standalone because its resolution inherently sucks donkey ****s, as anyone pretending to have an informed opinion on this matter should know.
?? I just said that the EOTS, operating in the MWIR spectrum, could deliver higher resolution but with a smaller max range. If it were LWIR, range would have been higher. But is the current max range less than the average IRST? I’d like to see the data first.
Also, at an average weapon system unit cost of $100m, your revenue figure would seem to indicate 5500 deliveries by 2034. GLWT.
It doesn’t say 15% of only the weapon system cost. According to the FT article, the F-35 will result in revenues of £2 billion for BAE by 2017. That would translate to £40 billion or $70 billion over 20 years. Assuming the production rate goes up post 2017, $80 billion is fair.
VnomadThe FGFA is not an MRCA replacement. It is a big aircraft, it is fast, feature some stealth feature but has one drawback : it is a highly specialized Air Dominance aircraft with limited multirole capabilities due to its limited payload and (external) fuel. An F22 cannot replace effectively an F15E for instance.
Its payload is not limited in the least. Nowhere does it say that it should employ only an internal payload. If the F-22 upgrades had gone as planned, it would have been as effective as the F-15E.
Then it remains to be demonstrated if the FGFA would have true 5th gen electronics like the F35 or even some 4.5 gen aircrafts.
It is not enough to look like a 5th gen jet from outside to pretend being a 5th gen jet. I have my doubt to see the FGFA anywhere close to the F35 in terms of avionics before a very very very long time.
Even if it has 4.5 gen electronics, that’s good enough. The comparison with the F-35 is valid but can be discussed elsewhere. Both aircraft are preferable for the IAF’s roles.
And I have my doubt seing the FGFA reaching avionics sophistication of a gripen NG, rafale or SH international before a very very long time. Not a very credible alternative without evidences.
Even if its not as ‘sophisticated’, its got a wider range of sensor and more brute power to compensate, aside from its significantly lower RCS.
VnomadObviously both Dassault and the IAF would prefer the full 126, but the numbers will likely be made up in time with the kinds of follow-on orders that are common in Indian procurement.
In the 2020s with the PLAAF inducting J-20s and J-31s (perhaps even the PAF), would the IAF want more Rafales as opposed to more FGFAs (the latter may even be cheaper) ?
VnomadStill feel “its a matter of the funds being provided and they will be procured”!?
The outlay at current prices on 80 aircraft would be similar to what was originally budgeted for 126 aircraft. May be somewhat more.
VnomadThe price escalation since the down-select is on account of the significant devaluation of the rupee over the period.
$12 billion to $20 billion is very much a dollar figure. In rupee terms the escalation would probably be about 250%.
VnomadVN – You might want to check your facts. AFAIK EOTS is midwave IR only while the latest pods are HD-daylight fused with HD-IR.
And ordinarily that would imply better resolution but smaller ranges. Now is the range in question smaller than LWIR based IRSTs? Without data, can’t say for sure, can we?
Also, I rather doubt that multiple companies – including Lockheed Martin – would be producing IRST if the same results could be generated by an IRST mode in a targeting pod.
That’s assuming the EOTS is a replica of Sniper XR. It certainly doesn’t look anything alike and I assume it can’t be ported onto older aircraft in its current form.
Also, someone might ask what the FT didn’t, which is how much of BAE’s F-35 stake is UK-domiciled.
Lets go with a low figure, lets say only half. 7.5% instead of 15%. That’s still what.. about $40 billion over the next 20 years.
Vnomad#There was some debate not too long back about the industrial benefits to the UK via the F-35. On the same topic –
F-35 stake promises big returns for BAE
When Queen Elizabeth II arrives at Rosyth dockyard just outside Edinburgh at the end of this week to name the first of two aircraft carriers being built by a BAE Systems-led consortium, the Royal Navy’s new flagship and the British head of state are sure to hog the limelight.
However, for the UK-based defence contractor, the “money shot” will come in the form of a fly-past to mark the occasion if, as expected, it includes the first public appearance outside of the US of the new F-35 joint strike fighter that will eventually fly off the deck of the carrier.
Given the scale of the carriers with their combined price tag of £6.2bn, it might seem that the largest warships ever built for the British navy would represent the bigger return for BAE in financial terms. But it is the 15 per cent stake the UK defence contractor holds in the F-35 project, which is led by Lockheed Martin of the US, that is the prize.
Anticipated sales of the new stealth jet are expected to exceed 3,000 aircraft, given the commitments from the US and 11 of its allies. Those projections make it the world’s biggest ever defence procurement programme, with the US alone slated to spend $400bn on buying almost 2,500 jets.
“The scale, scope and complexity of the F-35 programme is beyond that of any other programme on the planet,” says Stuart Forsyth, BAE’s F-35 development director.
The F-35 was designed as an international project involving defence contractors and suppliers from nine countries. The UK is the second-biggest industrial partner to the US in part because it agreed to pay $2bn towards the development costs. This allowed BAE to secure much more than just a stake in the relatively small number of jets the UK is planning to buy.
The UK-based defence contractor is making the aft fuselage and tail for every F-35 at its Samlesbury factory in northwest England. The parts are then shipped to the main final assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas. BAE is also supplying other key components of the aircraft through its US division.
Although BAE does not break out the exact value of individual programmes, analysts expect the contractor’s small stake in the F-35 to deliver both revenues and profits that should exceed those of its biggest defence contract to date: the Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet, in which it is one of the lead industrial partners.
“People might think that the Typhoon would be a larger programme because it is the only [complete] combat aircraft that BAE builds,” says Nick Cunningham, an aerospace and defence analyst at Agency Partners in London. “But it is the sheer volume of F-35 that makes the difference. So even if BAE only has a small part of each aircraft, the aggregate value [of the contract] will be bigger.”
Mr Cunningham estimates that by 2017 the F-35 will be worth about £2bn in annual revenues, equivalent to 10 per cent of group sales. He forecasts the company should make margins of 11 per cent margin on the work, accounting for just under 10 per cent of the estimated £2.2bn of group operating profits in the same year.
Financial Times
VnomadVN – I was not talking about IRST and if you knew anything about anything you would know that. But you clearly do not.
The EOTS combines IRST, FLIR and CCD-TV. So competing aircraft must offer multi-spectral capability in their FLIR and CCD-TV sensors?
And aside from stealing Watterson’s art, can you provide evidence beyond a dumbass emoticon as to the capabilities of F-35 sensors?
Nope, just another dumbass emoticon 😀
Honestly though, can you not think of any sensor on the F-35 that’s better than the competition? The 1650 T/R AESA designed from inception for EA? The EW suite derived from the F-22’s ALR-94? The EODAS mated to the VSI HMDS? Sensor fusion involving three times more code than the F-22 did?
Sign In
