VnomadCase 2: Alternative
If UK would decide for only 35.000 ton carriers – on one side it would be substantial improvement over 19.000 ton Invincible’s, on the other cost to build and operate them would be greatly reduced. Reduced to a point when both carriers could be operational in a way that there would be one available carrier on all time and if there would be urgent need (Falklands) it should be possible to have both ships deployed at same time.
Cancelling one or both of the QE class carriers is no longer an option. The program has just come too far and far too many resources have been expended on it. A 35,000 ton carrier was feasible ten years ago, or even five years ago, but at this point the only choice to be made is with regard to the aircraft.
Also the costs involved in recruiting and training a RN crew for CATOBAR operations are minuscule relative to the massive capital expenditures incurred in acquiring and operating the carriers and aircraft.
VnomadJust when I thought good sense had finally returned to the British MoD…
The F-35B shouldn’t be touched with a barge-pole. The F-35C orders will comfortably outnumber the F-35Bs. The CTOL variant has better range, higher performance, is cheaper to acquire and operate, is far less likely to run into further technical issues and isn’t going to adversely affect the condition of the flight deck.
It would be incredibly shortsighted of the MoD to opt for the F-35B, just to save on the cost of the EMALS.
VnomadKorean Samsung also built F-16s.
I believe KF-16 deliveries to the ROKAF ended in the mid 2000s.
VnomadVnomad, read a couple of posts higher,
as for escalating costs, we’ll see, but until now, it’s been rather ok in that regard, why would it change?
Lets hope everything remains ok. But there is no real precedent to it strictly speaking – its Rafale’s first export order and the only non-Russian jet set for license production (maybe with the exception of TAI’s F-16s).
As long as the contract states that the financial risk is borne by Dassault & Co (unlike the US or UK where defence companies have been gaming the system), cheerio!
VnomadI think your comprehension skills suck big time.
Oh no! :rolleyes:
There is a British official, not a tiny one, Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, who publicly admits the aid was also to influence the decision on the fighter deal. This is, by definition, bribery. Even though the aid went to NGO’s, there was an underlying will to buy government’s preference on a governmental military purchase.
Next you’ll be telling me the British assisted the Afghans against the Soviets because of their strong commitment to ensuring democracy and liberty overseas. I mean as long as you’re willing to consume the swill peddled in public.
First off, an entire country cannot by definition be bribed (look up the definition in your own post). – ‘influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties’ –
Secondly, to quote the Indian Finance Minister – ‘We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development spending’. It would appear the ‘[Indian] government’s preference’ has a remarkably higher price.
In addition, the Indian Foreign Secretary recommended that DFID aid from Britain be officially refused, a decision that was suspended after an appeal from a UK govt worried about being publicly embarrassed. Anyone familiar with those facts will treat the ‘not so tiny’ British official’s statements with the appropriate degree of skepticism.
Vnomadyou’re right, pretending giving aid while the aim is to buy government’s preference fits also the definition of hypocrisy…
The aim I believe is to create a good image with the Indian public over the long term (there’s still a fair bit of resentment lingering from the days of the Raj). The Indian government on the other hand has made it amply clear that the aid is minuscule in its outreach compared to the massive state and central social programs in operation, and therefore carries no weight as far as currying influence with the govt goes.
one may even wonder if giving taxpayer’s money to help a private company sell its product , by flawing a legal selection process, wouldn’t fit the definition of… how did you call it? ah yeah, illegal subsidy 😀
You’re right there. There’s nothing morally or legally wrong with it – as long as unbudgeted cost escalations in the future (with production carrying on past 2020) are picked up by Rafale International.
Vnomadn Bribery
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill.
Not quite the same thing. DFID funds are primarily disbursed to Non Government Organisations. No government officials were ‘paid off’.
Vnomad>> Mr Cameron says he is absolutely committed to helping with the Eurofighter Typhoon project.
You say too much, but do so little.
Just shut up and pay the bills for:
1. Integrating costs of Meteor BVRAAM, Storm Shadow, Spear, Brimestone, SDB etc. onto the Typhoon ASAP.
Don’t see why any of those are urgently needed.
It would be nice to have the Meteor yes, but aside from the C7 and D AMRAAM variants, the Aim-120C5 still remains the best BVRAAM in service today.
The Storm Shadow is a standoff weapon, that is mostly independent of the launch platform. For the majority of missions the Tornado suffices quite well. In Libya for example, the EF being operational with the Storm Shadow would have made no real difference to the operation. Of course with the Tornado retirement in sight, the integration of the Storm Shadow sometime in the near future is necessary.
The Brimstone is a cost effective solution for missions currently being performed with other munitions. Which is why the French are looking into it as well. There’s no capability shortfall that needs addressing.
The SDB is far from an urgent requirement – the Paveway IV is going to remain the RAF’s staple air-to-ground munition for a long while. Once the F-35C induction nears, the service can look to slowly diversify its stocks. The SDB too will probably be cheaper by then (after adjusting for inflation).
2. Confirmatory developing and procuring productional CAPTOR-E AESA radar for Typhoon ASAP.
Agreed.
3. Procuring Tranche IIIB Typhoons.
Not necessary. If the service is being downsized and the F-35C is inevitable, a smaller EF force isn’t the worst thing that can happen. The T3B can be diverted to Malaysia, Oman, UAE or Saudi Arabia, or the T3A deliveries can be spread out into the future like the French Rafale orders. In 2018, the economic conditions may have improved enough to allow further orders.
4. Confirmatory future upgrading roadmap for Typhoon after 2015.
Well some pointers are out there (Typhoon FCP), but yes a more concrete comprehensive plan would be welcome.
VnomadIt’s written once that the EF was designed as a pure A2A cold war interceptor and the multirole capabilities were added afterward.
It doesn’t say it was designed as a ‘pure interceptor’. It said it was ‘mainly for use as an air to air fighter’. The distinction is small but important.
The Mirage 2000C and F-15 were primarily interceptors as well. Yet the F-15E and Mirage 2000-5 despite retaining the same design, are somehow immune to this ‘Cold War interceptor’ label.
That said, the EF consortium was rather lax in its attitude towards exports. Had it been more proactive, it’d have moved up the upgrade schedule and pursued an aggressive exports policy rather than fumbling when the recession arrived.
VnomadThere was no case brought to the WTO here as this is out of its scope. And even more EADS did not made any claims in the US when the rules changed to fit the boeing option.
If a European government’s underwriting of costs in a competition is acceptable, why shouldn’t the US govt. change the rules as well, to fit the domestically developed Boeing option?
The controversy was purely political an intern to the US which is a different thing. South republican states supported airbus due to the new assembly line while north democrat states supported boeing.
You mean criticism regarding the decision was purely internal to the US and the Europe was ambiguous in its response to an arguably unfair decision process?
VnomadIt is clear that the rafale is cheaper and by a good margin. No need to argue about that. Look at rafale offer in India and switzerland. It was significantly cheaper. It is also cheaper to run as indian stated themselves.
As long as one specifies that its cheaper for export customers. The British govt. on the other hand arguably got a more economical ride vis a vis the French state as far as the programs that emerged out of the FEFA go. Even though the domestic media hounding would suggest otherwise.
VnomadCan you please enlighten us and explain how a subsidy can be illegal in the defense sector.
I can’t say how EU regulations govern them, but as far as the Indian contract is concerned, the only factor is distribution of risk.
If the Indian RFP states that the winning contractor picks up any escalation in unit price couple of years down the road, then there’s nothing for the customer to be concerned about. But, if the cost escalations in the future are even partially offset to the customer, then obscurity in current costing becomes a matter of concern.
The defense sector is one of the few domains where WTO trade rules do not apply (as well as EU competition rule). As per WTO/GATT agreement:
Okaay…. why the big controversy over the USAF’s refueler contract then?
VnomadYou are right to a certain extent:
The cost to the British government for the 160 aircraft they will receive is between 18.2 to 20.2 billion GBP.
That’s the cost to the British MoD rather than the govt. The receipts from the Saudi sale were probably accredited to the exchequer. But yes, no loss to the taxpayer.
VnomadI think there is a possibility that the Tejas mk2 will either be too much delayed, or perhaps even fail to meet the requirements that IAF and the Navy asks.
Its not going to be failure for the same reason that the F-35 is not going to be a failure – the respective services are already committed to acquiring it.
The Tejas Mk1 already has 40 confirmed orders and while orders for the Mk2 aren’t set in stone their size can be gauged by the fact that India has already placed 99 F414IN engines on order.
At this point the only question is how long will it be before the Mk2/NT enters service. The Indian Navy has two carriers entering service by 2017, and with 40 MiG-29K and 10-15 Harriers, has enough aircraft to equip the two with a moderate complement.
The Naval Tejas isn’t absolutely necessary but being domestically produced and fairly cheap, it can bolster numbers while allowing the IN to possibly retain a few units at naval air bases. Two seat variants will be cost-effective in the LIFT role.
My understanding is that the IAF plan was that the Rafale would be the Medium fighter, the SU-30mki the Heavy fighter, and the Tejas mk2 the Light fighter. If the Tejas does not work out, what is plan B for the light fighter? Gripen NG seems to be perfectly positioned.
The financial advantage of having a fleet of light fighters will probably be undone by the logistical issues involved in introduced yet another aircraft type into an already diverse fleet mix.
The Nay could of course still go for the Rafale instead of Naval Tejas, however, again the Naval NG would be the perfect substitute for a failed Naval Tejas, also in terms of size and capabilities. Slotting some of the avionics developed for the Tejas mk2 into Gripen NG could perhaps be one option, thereby creating a hybrid Gripen/Tejas with substantial Indian contents.
The Rafale-M is of course an option but if the IN decides to go down that route they’ll have to forget about a fifth generation acquisition a decade down the line. France doesn’t have any plans to develop/purchase a stealth fighter in the foreseeable future and the French Navy is therefore content with the Rafale till 2035. The threats facing the Indian Navy are considerably starker and I doubt that it’ll be amenable to a compromise.
VnomadThe swiss pilots are among the best A2A pilots in the world as they train dayly and almost exclusively for air defense and interception against the best EU Air Forces (France, Germany, Italy).
Besides they operate a very modern hornet equiped with AIM-120 B/C7 + HMD and aim-9x.
They are no amateurs, and they know how to evaluate A2A capabilities of a modern fighter
And whether you like it or not, they ranked the Rafale above the Tiffy in A2A, both in offensive and deffensive role. And they must had very good reason for that. Just accept it.
Huh? I don’t recall saying anything about the proficiency of Swiss pilots.
The whole point of my post was that the IAF and SAF have differing objectives, differing operational restrictions, differing doctrines and therefore can value an aircraft’s merits differently. The Swiss Air Force chose the F-18 in the 90s, while the Turkish Air Force (for example) opted for the F-16. Does that imply the TAF evaluation wasn’t as professional as the SAF’s? Does it imply that the F-18 is better than the F-16?
All it really means is that the F-18 was best suited to meet Swiss requirements. Like the F-18, the Rafale was designed for carrier operations excelling in the high AoA low speed regime, the SAF’s enthusiasm for it may well exceed the IAF’s.
Sign In
