VnomadIf India breaks out from the deal now… only Russia will actually trust them enough to do any business with them. So what we see is negotiations.
The US has $8 billion of signed defence contracts with India and is poised to receive several more worth $5 billion. Between the Americans and the Russians, India has enough trust for affairs to proceed just fine.
Between the Scorpene deal, the (hideously expensive) Mirage upgrade, assorted equipment from Thales and Sagem, and the $6 billion SR-SAM project, I doubt France will kick up all that big a fuss even if the MMRCA was scrapped.
VnomadInvasion of Taiwan is theoretically possible but very very unlikely. China and Taiwan have established a mutually beneficial equilibrium in their relation that neither wants to disturb.
A more important consideration is North Korea simply because its… lets say unpredictable. If they cross a line, the US and South Korea feel compelled to take military action (and full scale action at that, to preempt collateral damage on the South Korean side), and the PRC decides it cannot countenance the loss of a buffer state, that’s a military situation more likely to spiral out of control.
With regard to an invasion of Taiwan, it has to be primarily seaborne i.e. an amphibious invasion. The world’s largest most sophisticated submarine fleet is still operated by the US Navy which shouldn’t be counted out anymore than naval aviation should.
VnomadJust out of curiosity, what jet trainer will be used to train the USAF’s Gripen pilots?
List of Gripen operators –
Swedish Air Force – Saab 105
South African Air Force – BAE Hawk
Royal Thai Air Force – Alpha Jet + Aero L-39
Czech Air Force – Aero L-39 + Aero L-159
Hungarian Air Force – Aero L-39 (retired?) + BAE Hawk (NATO Flight Training in Canada)
Maybe the USAF could send its pilots to Canada as well.
VnomadBottom line is, it wasn’t a decision driven by austerity (in fact, such decision making would probably have resulted in something closer to what I proposed), but industrial considerations – and I happen to think they were misguided and inefficient considerations. It’s just my opinion of course and of no real world significance, but I think it would have been a more efficient approach.
Well said. While Su-34 and Su-35 are fine aircraft, the Su-30MKI offers the best value for money and by a fair margin too. If bolstering the air force at a time of financial insecurity was a priority for Russia at the time, the Su-30MKI would most probably have been the best option.
With regard to the industrial considerations, how much of an impact on the future (namely the PAKFA and PAKDA programs) would shelving the Su-34 and Su-35 programs have made?
VnomadI’m surprised Israel hasn’t bought into the V-22; it would seem to fit their interventionism and the ‘mystique’ that the IDF likes to cultivate.
Don’t know about the mystique but it sure has bought into the V-22 program.
Pentagon sources say the U.S. has negotiated a deal with the Israelis to sell the first ever V-22 Osprey transports to a foreign country.
The surprise announcement that Israel was acquiring the tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey for its special forces has led other countries to take a second look at buying the aircraft that has greater range and speed than conventional helicopters
“The introduction of the V-22 into the Israeli Air Force will give the Israeli Air Force long-range, high-speed, maritime search-and-rescue capabilities to deal with a number of threats and contingencies,” Hagel said, but the Israelis have already made clear that they have much more in mind for the Ospreys than sea rescues when the aircraft becomes operational with its special forces.
The Osprey would fit into Gantz’ announced design to create a joint special operations force for Israel, similar to the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. The MV-22s, with their in-flight refueling capacities, would be used for long-range commando raids against emerging threats in the region.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/23/israeli-buy-a-boost-for-osprey-production-line/
VnomadWrong:
From this link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indias-fighter-upgrades-mirage-2000s-next-02891/
The link says –
‘which may include airframe refurbishment.’
That’s a major upgrade. Not likely that the vast majority of the many news organisations that reported on the topic overlooked them.
How you guys expect to extend the service life of a plane that has very few flight hours left by 20-25 years without overhauling it is beyond me.
Nic
6000 hours is 40 years of service @ 150 hr/yr. The first Mirage was inducted in 1985 so will reach the end of its service life around 2025. Assuming the condition hasn’t deteriorated too much, it could be flogged a bit more. Then there’s the newer set that was inducted in the early 2000s that should breeze past 2030 comfortably. Between the lot, 2035 for Mirage retirement is technically quite feasible. Though given that it’ll likely be obsolete at that point, I doubt the IAF will want to extract every last hour out of the airframe.
VnomadNo changes of aircraft systems lol full electric system, mizsion system, radar etc. And since when qatr possess -9? I wouldnt trust that source too much. Btw some -5F seeing their lofe expanded vy 2000 hours…
Avionics have been upgraded that’s common knowledge, but there’s been no significant change to the air-frame and ‘major aircraft systems’ (which probably refers to the engine; an upgrade to which was part of the original requirement).
The writer did fumble the QAF’s variant designation. All the same most other sources agree that the upgrades consist of a new avionics, new radar and new munitions.
While under scrutiny at one time, engine upgrade of the Snecma M53 turbofan of these aircraft is not included in the modernisation programme, and only improvements in avionics, helmet-mounted sight displays, electronic warfare equipment, tactical data link terminals and mission computers will make it a capable multirole fighter. Improvement in the IAF Mirages weapon systems will also see the integration of MBDA’s Mica IR heat-seeking infrared and Mica RF air-to-air missiles. (link)
The firms will equip the fighters with new avionics, radars, electronic warfare suites, glass cockpits and helmet-mounted displays. IAF expects the upgrade programme — India’s costliest — to extend the life of the multi-role fighters by 20 years. (link)
The deal, which has remained in its final stages for over a year without being cleared, will fit 51 IAF Mirages with new avionics, the Thales RDY-2 multimode radar and RF/IR MICA air-to-air missiles. (link)
VnomadEither believe me or use google to check it out, but from what I remember on top of my head:
Indian Mig 29s had a service life of 2500 hours which was exctended by 1000 hours by the upgrade.
The Mirage 2000 had a service life of 6000-7500 hours and the IAF upgrade ADDED another 6000 hours IIRC.So in airframe cost/flying hour I don’t think the IAF Mirage 2000 cost is that horrendous. Quite the opposite.
Nic
Agreed on the first part. The Mirage 2000 upgrade on the other hand on basis of most available information includes an avionics upgrade to keep it relevant till 2030, but does not involve any refurbishment of the airframe.
The proposal is to upgrade all 51 aircraft to extend their operational life and update their capability. The ‘cardinal points’ of the proposal include: no airframe modifications, no changes to major aircraft systems, no modification to equipment bays, limited cockpit modifications, minimum retrofit line modification facilities/activities, and, most significantly, it does not cover the cost of supply of weapons. (Link).
VnomadSo, what is the blocking point about those Indian Rafale discussions then ?
1. Terms of the RFP need to be adhered to, to the letter, or the principle of open competition becomes void.
2. As a result of the economic crunch the govt resources are rather constrained at the moment. Also due to the currency fall, signing of the contract in the current environment will result in fair amount of hurt, even if its only over the short term. I doubt the govt is eager for a quick end to the negotiations.
VnomadWhen the defining features of the next gen., later named 5th gen. was drawn up,
one of the defining features, in fact KPP, was that it was going to be cheaper to operate than previous generations
:confused:
The ATF competition was intended to deliver a fighter cheaper than the F-15? First I’m hearing of it.
VnomadAnd what about the ToT, which is certainly THE main point of MMRCA ?
On the contrary, it was never the main point. The original requirement for a modern (non-Russian) multirole fighter aircraft was drafted with view towards acquiring more Mirage 2000s, which with time and indecision snowballed into something else.
In any case, the utility of ToT continues to fall with the looming shadow of the PAK-FA. Five year ago it would have been quite valuable. But now by the time the technology is absorbed the Tejas Mk2 will be in production and the N-Tejas close to it. Just as importantly the PAK-FA will be in production. If the AMCA project still requires outside assistance, there’s always the option of consultancy (maybe even bringing in Dassault).
VnomadDunno. But that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that F-35 was meant to be as cheap to buy and operate an an F-16. Lots of countries planned around that and got burned and now can’t afford enough jets, even if they sacrifice other capabilities (e.g. Dutch).
The real hit has been from the global recession. The F-35’s cost escalation is not remarkable relative most other defence programs.
$100 million in 2020 computes to an inflation rate of 6.5% from a base of $60 million in 2012. Hardly earth shattering especially considering that defence inflation is believed to run about 3% higher than the overall figure.
VnomadAnd adjust for inflation – have we had 100% inflation since sales to Oman, Pakistan and Iraq?
If you go back read it again, you’ll realise the reference was to an aircraft delivered in 2020.
VnomadOf course if you can afford it, you maintain a balanced force. That means some combat aircraft.
And NATO air policing requirement means you either buy minimal supersonics, or you subcontract the air policing function out.
Hence Denmark with it’s reduced fleet requirement of 18-24 fighters.
Balanced force to what end? The Europeans (particularly small countries like Netherlands and Denmark) have ZERO threats to their defence. For air policing even the Gripen is overkill – Hawk/M-346 is more than sufficient. For a good deal, they could perhaps buy into the USAF’s new trainer program. Its natural for a country with no intention of going to war to reject the F-35.
On the other hand, if they do want to truly pull their weight in a larger scale conflict, say 20 years in future operating within a US-led coalition, 35 F-35s are preferable to 50 Gripens, whether its in the Middle East, home to about 800 F-16s, 80 Mirage 2000s, 250 F-15s and 100-200 Eurofighter/Rafales, or in Asia populated by huge numbers of all manner of aircraft.
VnomadGripen is at least 4 times more cost effective by any metric in operations over Libya/Afghanistan/[insert next objective],
while 6 F-35 extra flown by Danish pilots will provide infinitely small support over North Korea/China compared to the brute force of USAF,
flown by skilled experienced pilots, as opposed to the barely licensed danish pilots due to excessive training costs.
This is where NATO as a whole can save money, -by allocating appropriate resources at appropriate circumstances.
True enough. Then again, attack helicopters and drones are probably even more cost effective than the Gripen.
Sign In
