For the IAF to do that in such a public manner makes them look childish and quite pathetic really, and renders any other comments from them to be taken less seriously and with a pile of salt. Whatever issue the IAF have, the should simply make their position clear with the government, and leave it with them to decide if the country can afford the IAF requirements. If they can’t, then the IAF should be made aware their preferred options are not possible, allowing other cheaper alternatives to be proposed. But then I guess this is India, so something that should be straightforward gets complicated by bureaucracy and internal politics.

The IAF did communicate its position to the government internally. That the minutes from the meeting were leaked to the press is not something the service can be held accountable for (likely the work of an individual).

The ludicrous smearing of FGFA is likely an attempt on the part of IAF to dissuade Indian government from backing out of MMRCA on cost escalation grounds. The original article in Indian Business Standard raised this opinion itself, attributed to MoD. Once MMRCA is secure you will see this campaign vanish.

Possibly. Then again, the FGFA order cut from 244 to 144, suggests that the IAF is trying to step back from the program to a less committed position. The FGFA today is a straight-up PAK FA acquisition (with slight customization). But its public position of being committed to the FGFA, effectively ties the hands of the Indian negotiators. Creating some space would give them some badly needed leverage while negotiating with the Russians over cost and technology.

The high wing loading of the F-35 enables excellent stability which is a great virtue of any striker. At the same time, the capabilities for air dominance suffer greatly.

Not any more. Not considering the proliferation of PGMs (employed almost exclusively for strike missions now).

That’s nonsense, in an independent Europe there will be hundreds more orders for Typhoons, replacing the F-35.

No one’s guaranteeing the British govt hundreds of Eurofighter orders.

Again, you analyze any drawback from the perspective of ONE country and ONE manufacturer.

And that is how the UK govt and people look at it. And how the French look at their industry. And the Italians their’s and so on.

In UE, the advantages and disadvantages and supporting local industry and creating jobs should and must be balanced so that EVERYBODY wins, that should be at the core of the decision making process.

The UE doesn’t exist.

The creation of Typhoon and Rafale went how it went (disagreements on it’s production, configuration and role i mean), but that’s history, it will be of course a nonsense and waste to ditch one or the other, you have the Typhoon that will equip the air forces of at least 4 nations, potentially well over 600 to 650 of them, and the Rafale who will equip FAF and cater for carrier based fighter needs, well over 300 and more like 350 of them in total being needed, plus of course the 400-450 Gripen or more for the smaller countries who would be best served by a cheaper platform.

Nobody in Europe is buying any more EFs. The T3Bs been cancelled and T1s are being retired to save money. Same with Rafales – orders cut by 60 units.

There can be increasing integration of contractors and subcontractors, for instance in the UK one can built assemblies for Rafale-M, in addition to Gripen and of course full production of Typhoon.

Wishful thinking. Its prohibitively expensive to set up infrastructure to build just 40-50 aircraft. And the UK isn’t getting any reciprocal orders from France.

I don’t see how that will hurt Typhoon on the export market, the export customer can choose between Typhoon or Rafale for it’s needs just like today and if he needs a carrier fighter, then there is Rafale. How many carrier based Typhoon (or Rafale) are you expecting to be sold anyway? Not many by the looks of it.

An RAF/RN operating the Rafale is bad PR for the Eurofighter.

First, you probably mean the other way around, secondly, that simply is not true. The values and level of civilization will be familiar and known to anyone traveling from UK in at least western Europe, and vice-versa. How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!

No I don’t mean the other way round. I won’t comment on your opinion about the US, save to say, its not shared by the average Brit (or the average European for that matter).

How is better to sacrifice far more than that for a FOREIGN power 5000 miles away, instead of doing only a fraction of same (i never mentioned and will not even support the US model you present, it’s not about creating an european nation, it’s about an independent european ALLIANCE) for our own and our lands, helping our own selves, for our own future?

The NATO was formed when Europe needed alliance. No one (except for a few such as yourself) feel the need for any new alliance. Europe faces no significant military threat, least of all from the US.

Anyway, i know some are very eager to shut this thread because it’s not on their “liking” (i’m even trolled in PM by some losers- pathetic), so aside the above discussion which could be pursued better elsewhere, i’ve compiled a few facts showing just how can be saved on procurement by several countries if we will be independent and ditch that F-35 thing (still cracks, still doesn’t work properly etc.).

Clearly you’re not getting the point. There is no ‘us’. You may wish you spoke on behalf of the European people, but the cold hard reality is that Europe isn’t united. And there are no barbarians on the horizon that would cause them to set aside their national interests or identities and put up a united front.

Italy has plans to buy 75-90 F-35A/B. As i mentioned elsewhere i don’t see why they will need VTOLs as that role will be taken by full carrier airwings on the 4 big UE carriers or more, so replacing the order with 75-90 Typhoons in addition to those already in service will not only generate savings in aquisition and operation (there is no way Typhoon is more expensive to buy and operate than F-35, i’d say it will be less, maybe 3/4 overall, maybe even less), but also by operating a single type, with all the advantages of such.

And I’m sure the Italians will tell you that they have no intention of giving up fixed wing carrier aviation, regardless of what the UK or France are operating.

Netherlands plans 37 F-35 to replace 74 F-16MLU. With the very same money, they can either get say 65-70 Gripen-NGs, or they can the same number (37) but with a whooping LESS THAN HALF aquisition and operating price!
Denmark plans 30 F-35, getting say 36 Gripens again costs HALF to buy and to operate.
Norway wants 52 F-35, again they can get either say 90-100 (!) Gripens for the same money, or 52 saving more than HALF the costs. etc. etc.

All three can replace the Gripens with AJTs and save billions more. Or retire their air forces and keep all their money.

So, there are potential tens of billions in savings across the board. That money could for instance be directed to the special mission platforms that we lack, or just outright saved, while at the same time it creates and maintains tens of thousands of local jobs, and maintains local know-how, more than any of this F-35 “cooperation” will ever do, no way the $30 billion vehiculated is realistic, they’re never going to build 3000 of those.

2450 for the US. Easily 550+ plus for others. Even if the US cuts back orders to 2000, the total production will still cross 3000. With the UK building at least 10% of each (the official figure is 15%), the revenue is $30 billion+.

Not to mention of course the inestimable value of independence.

NSA scandals, Julian Assange aside, no one’s particularly concerned about the US at the moment. However, EU regulations, debt, unemployment and bailouts in the Eurozone, immigration are clear and present concerns. And there’s a vocal and growing section of people who want independence from Brussels as well.

Thanks for your pertinent reply Swerve. I can think of several alternatives to your conundrum, for instance why can’t the Rafale-M be used on QE as STOBAR? If it will need more power to efficiently operate that way, then the 9 ton M-88 engine is already in existence. More power is always good anyway. I see no problem for Rafale-M to be fitted with those engine, yes it will cost some money, but put in balance even so it will end cheaper than an F-35B. And even if it will actually be slightly over F-35 (extremely unlikely, just saying) the advantages of full control over it (no CISMOA and other crap there) and again the benefit of billions invested in local jobs outweigh any disadvantages (like an increase in cost of the ship to fit it with arresting gear). One can hope the EMCAT would be ready for Prince of Wales if the interest and the investment is there, if not she can be used as a STOBAR too.

The UK has a non-refundable $4 billion+ invested in the JCA project while reaping revenues of at least $30 billion over next two decades. Switching to Rafale will not only require the integration of catapults and be a blow to the Eurofighter’s standing in the export market, but also lead to a net loss of thousands of jobs.

First of all you speak for yourself, not for the UK people. Go and ask on the street how much they like working with, or rather, FOR a foreign power, ask them if they really want to go to war for them and bring misery and death to MILLIONS, to be spied by them, hell to be threatened to be thrown in one of THEIR jails, and their own politicians who they elected to serve THEM, they abandon THEM for the interests of this foreign country (isn’t that called treason?), even if they never set foot in thatr country and never broke any laws, ever! Like i said to the above poster, if one has such a big hard-on for the US, with all due respect, but the airport is that way. Leave the rest of us be.

The opinion of ‘the UK people’ can be seen here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2013

The British people don’t want to see their country playing a perpetual second fiddle to the US, but that doesn’t imply that they wanted to be governed from Brussels either. They’re unlikely to ahead with the a withdrawal from the EU, but public opinion is certainly trending that way.

And while the UK might be among the most Eurosceptic of the EU members, the sentiment isn’t restricted to Britain. Its peaking in Greece and Spain, and on the rise in Italy and Germany. Denmark and Sweden have kept one foot out of the door and Norway has held firm on maintaining its status as a non-member.

I can never for the life of me understand this group of peoples who are are so loathful and arrogant toward their very own neighbours, with who we have so much in common and are exploding in anger whenever someone mentions about working together, striving for a better, independent Europe, a better life for all, yet they are so enthusiastic in support of a foreign, violent, hegemonic power 5000 miles away, whole only interest is to keep us under their boot, and who culturally is light years away different from us. Either they’re nuts, or i am.

For the record, culturally the UK has more in common with the US (and other parts of the Anglosphere) than it does with countries in mainland Europe.

What you’re suggesting goes far beyond just EU membership or participation in the Eurozone. Creating a common foreign and military policy would require true European integration or a United States of Europe. And a United States of Europe cannot come around without its members ceding a far greater degree of sovereignty to Brussels than do at present.

What you seem unaware of, or unwilling to accept is that the European identity has remained a weak concept for its citizens. Unlike the United States of Europe, the United States of America actually has a strong national identity. Its citizens may be Californian or Texan, but first and foremost they identify as Americans. There’s no substantial dispute between Georgia and Oregon on US foreign policy (though even they do quibble over taxation and federal budget sharing).

Its naive to expect people in Europe belonging to nation-states with centuries-old histories, to sacrifice their sovereignty and national identity, and start identifying as ‘European’ instead. Its all well and good to say that they can be both, but if you want to create a counterpart (or counterweight) to the USA, that is what it’ll take.

You may believe the other side is ‘nuts’ but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re in a minority. Unfortunately, anti-Americanism isn’t quite the unifying factor that you might have hoped it would be. The actual state of the European project can be summed up by the turnout in the European parliamentary elections which have gone down every cycle, from 63% in the 1979 to 43% in 2009, with the figure expected to fall below 40% come May this year.

Errrr….. Let me understand this first. This whole thing is about SAAB not having provided some four-five extra HMDs?
Just out of curiosity, a deal between Sweden’s FMV and SAAB to equip 100 Swedish Gripens with the Cobra HMD was worth SEK 345 million ($54 million).
A deduction: five extra HMDs cost some $2.7 million. That is 0.04% of the whole deal.

Is THAT what you’re arguing about, Vnomad?

I mentioned HMDS (and radar & engines) as an example of something included in one deal and not in another. There are plenty of other factors that make two offers to two different customers hard to compare, not the least of which are offsets, warranties and profit margins. Adding offsets to the C-17 sale to India for example, raised the cost by 7-8%. And offset requirement was just 30% of contract value (compared to 110% for Gripen’s Hungarian contract). So how do we adjust offset value against the $200M F-35 cost to Norway? Or add it to to the Gripen offer?

It included HMDs, press ctrl + f and look for “helmet mounted display system” in the document. The Gripen TCO will be lower than for Gripen C and because of the cheaper engine and better manufacturing process a lot of costs in production have been slashed as well.

I told vnomad about the helmet mounted displays and radars – 85 sets of both in the offer, enough for all aircraft – apparently it didn’t register.

Spare HMDS and radars. I haven’t seen the data on failure rates for either, but you’ll find them included in DSCA releases for US FMS contracts.

Speaking of LDPs, doesnt the Netherlands already have those?

And yes, the RNethAF has a good supply of LDPs. Rafael LITENING.

Litening AT (third gen) supplied by Northrop Grumman. Netherlands may not need to buy new ones (upgrade costs to G4/SE standard will be extra though) but if we’re examining SAAB’s offer with a generic customer in mind, one that does not operate the Litening LDP (such as Norway or Belgium), we’ll still have to include the cost of an LDP.

I have already answered that question. The package offer by SAAB is more or less comparable to the package offered by LM. You have not provided anything to debunk this claim.. It might not include exact number of spare engines or radar or lubricants but it is directly equivalent to the offer for the F-35.

You haven’t provided any sources to support your claim of the SAAB offer being ‘more or less comparable’ to the F-35 package and therefore being ‘directly equivalent’.

SAAB’s far pricier quote for the Netherlands did not include spare engines, radars, HMDs or LDPs. No reason to suppose the offer to Norway included any of that. In addition, it didn’t include the costs of setting up offset agreements that would have factored into Norway’s F-35 order. We don’t know how inflation factors into it – what would be the markup on the Gripen for a deliveries spaced out past 2020. (F-35 costs are falling, Gripen costs are likely rising). Until we’ve seen the breakdown of the Norwegian contract, fact is we can’t compare those costs directly to the Gripen quote.