VnomadYour still not getting the point. Western technology availability does not mean China copied India approach of buying hundreds of planes and licensing at the end.
That’s why I said there is decades of time between receipt of engines and operational service of JH-7.
Right. Building an aircraft around a license produced western engine, is an apt example of how license production is bad and how western technology is avoidable.
Read the context what I wrote. The above mentioned countries are source of raw materials for China with much more manpower and develop infrastructure in particular mining fields but for political reason China is going to favor CIS so it expect to reciprocity. Read about this not just technology but execution time line. technology transfer is two way street. and it only happens among equals.
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=27057
Brazil, Australia and India were not viable sources of military equipment technology regardless of the extent of bilateral trade.
‘technology transfer is two way street. and it only happens among equals.’
:rolleyes:
And you forgetting one point for past 10 years Chinese are almost exclusively buying from Salut that is Moscow based with much higher salaries than rybinsk based Saturn. China can afford to buy from more expensive manufacturer.Salut has much robust portfolio thanks Yak-130/L-15 and all Flankers/J-10.
Unfortunately Salut doesn’t decide if the 117 is available for integration on the J-20. China can afford to buy the Borei and Akula class subs as well, doesn’t mean they’re available.
The amount of money available for Russian and China Yak-130/L-15 will be far more than what will be available for future Hawk upgrades. And surely you don’t want your Hawk trainer having worst future than M2K in IAF.
LOL. Its a jet trainer for heaven’s sake! I suppose you want to upgrade it with a GaN AESA. :rolleyes: Aside from a re-engining and minor avionics upgrades, there’s nothing else required.
When you don’t have choice you will buy what is available. Just like US Navy is buying F-18. It is not cheap to develop new trainer by BAE or Boeing. They will have to accept it.
Classic stuff again!! The US Navy doesn’t have the money to develop/build a modern jet trainer and therefore has to settle for an ‘obsolete’ British aircraft?
It all comes under security budget. Which is total $40b.
No it doesn’t come under the defence budget – that is what I’ve been trying to state. If the SANG and expenditure on internal security is accounted for the budget increases by 20-30% (lnk).
There is no evidence there total armed force is 1/10 of India. And that include Army, airforce, navy, airdefence etc. Your still pulling stuff from 2005.
The point being made was that the Saudi Army being substantially smaller than its India counterpart, absorbed a far smaller proportion of the total defence budget, leaving the RSAF with a greater budget for capital expenditure.
But for some reason you obviously feel compelled to drag in the Navy, Coast Guard, National Guard and AD.
Direct imports are always better unless you have certain level of industrial competency of generating yearly volume.
HAL has been license producing Gnats, MiGs, Sukhois, Jaguars, Dorniers, Avros for decades. Its quite obvious that it can build aircraft in whatever volume the IAF and MoD desire, with the only variable being the initial time taken to setup the facility.
Why it got expensive because the industrial competency was not there and yearly volume was also caped by budget constraints. As I said in Defence industry either your full in it or not in it. There is no middle road of half baked budgets and export constraints. Japan simply cannot afford another license or it can develop new fighter. It is pretty much done.
Now the Japanese don’t have ‘industry competency’ for license manufacturing? 😀
Just because the Japanese production was expensive (due to extensive modification and complex production agreements) doesn’t mean all licensed production is overpriced. Plenty of countries including China have license manufactured aircraft successfully.
Complexity of product increases the cost of production facility, subcontractors and skilled training of workers.
Still far cheaper than imports in the Indian context.
F-18 has been in service nearly half a decade ahead of EF service and with much greater volume and yearly budgets. EF will need alteast $50B worth of R&D and testing required before it can have service life of carrier borne aircraft. Some thing was done cheaply in past does not mean it can be done in future. F-18 lineage for carrier goes decades back.
Four sentences of utter irrelevancy. The issue was your claim that naval fighters like the F-18E/F in question are harder to manufacture than the Eurofighter. You’ve responded with a bewildering diatribe about cost, R&D, service period, etc.
Six weeks has already passed. And we haven’t heared about MMRCA decision. They cant be serious.
The result hasn’t been announced in the last six weeks so naturally its all sham and the Indian govt has been toying with all these companies. :rolleyes:
Past and future are different things.
That’s deep. No really.
Just because the Super Hornet and F-22 productions have ended (barely a few days ago), their prodigious delivery rates are irrelevant, in the F-35s context?
This was done with first order. Why again for second order 6 years later.
It wasn’t done for the second, which is why the unit price for the second batch is $5 million lower (its close to the fly-away-cost).
I am waiting for that signature. I bet we will be debating the costs and implementation for long time to come.
Small talk?
Doesn’t change the fact that the EF consortium will comfortably be able to deliver the 18 initial units off the shelf as well as the required number of kits for assembly.
And you know it.
I do. The terms of the RFP were quite clear (a relaxation in development status was only provided for the AESA radar). If EF didn’t meet the relevant requirements, it wouldn’t have been shortlisted.
It completely nullifies all the advantages of license production See Chinese example and Japanese F-2.
None of those oh-so-relevant examples deals with the impact on local economy and the advantages of retaining forex reserves. And the Japanese F-2 isn’t the sole license manufactured aircraft out there. The TAF was very satisfied with TAI produced F-16s, as is the IAF and MoD with HAL produced DARIN Jaguars.
This is only one side of story.
Yes. ‘Poor after sales support’ is customers side of the story. And seeing as he’s one who has to decide whether to opt for licensing over direct imports, its only side that matters.
I have looked at yearly financial statement of Irkut. Its avg comes about $1b per year for past 10 years. It does not say much about MKI licensing success. Mind you these are only Irkut part since they are not selling the whole plane.
Errr… FYI its HAL who’s license producing the aircraft. Maybe just maybe, you should study its financials instead and look at what its executives had to say about the success of the process.
VnomadThere is couple of decades time line between introducing JH-7 bomber and first receiving of engines.
Doesn’t change the fact that western technology was very much an option when it was available, and only sanctions stopped it from being so in the present.
Apparently they learned enough first time that the most numerous Delta canard fighter will be Chinese. and China purchased Austrain composite manufacturer. They also got Airbus assembly line.
You cannot expect business as usual with bankrupt EU. By the time first industrial machines for MMRCA assembling arrives from EU China would have moved far ahead.
The point was that ‘Brazil, Indian and Australia’ were never viable alternatives to tech from ‘US and Europe’. But trust you to completely forget about the context of the debate and run away tooting your ‘glorious progress’ horn.
China also got S-300PMU-2 ahead of every one else. So what makes you think it wont get new engines. China economic importance is increasing relative to rest of the world. And this give it influence.
. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-12/03/content_14206628.htm
You’re drawing a parallel that doesn’t exist. The rationale against exporting the 117 are practical/technical not political.
Yak-130 was not in service so how it beat out.. L-15 is just entering service. I have more confidence in this design concept than couple decades old Hawk.
The F-35 isn’t in service either, but that didn’t stop a dozen customers from ordering it. As for the L-15 LOL, it doesn’t have to be good or bad, you’ll love it regardless. Also, you’re mistaken if you think the Hawk hasn’t been extensively updated (including the airframe) over the years since its inception. The lastest Hawk models have very limited commonality with the earliest ones.
It isn’t false. It does not belong to next 50 years. India always buys things at tail end.
It is utter garbage. Its good enough to be ordered by the RAF, two years after the first Indian order, good enough for the US Navy to be accepting T-45 deliveries till the end of 2009, to serve upto 2040, and good enough for Northrop Grumman to enter it into the T-X race. Its only those with agenda like yourself, who’re left insisting that its obsolete.
National guard is not some second rate pay structure.
The SANG is operationally and financially independent of the Saudi defence ministry (and therefore budgeted for separately). Only a genius like you can interpret that to mean that its pay structure is ‘second rate’. :rolleyes:
You simply have no evidence that India armed force is 10 times Saudi. I said at most 4 times and with Saudi pay scales more than 4 times India. Capital expenditure of Saudis are far lower than India.
The Saudi Army still remains about 75,000-100,000 strong (2005). Even assuming its enlarged in the half decade since, its unlikely to be larger than 125,000. A tenth of its Indian counterpart.
Which means unlike the IAF, the RSAF gets a bigger slice of the (in any case larger) Saudi defence budget, for a smaller fleet.
Su-30MKI is failure to extent that instead of investing in newer more capable Striker Su-34 or Fighter Su-35. your stuck with middle ground. Licensing is never a correct approach unless you have your industrial and R&D capacity right.
Congratulations, you’ve again forgotten the context in which this argument was proceeding. The comparison was with direct imports (read: Saudi Arabia) not with the products developed by the domestic industry.
See Japan failures with F-15J/F-2. where is Japanese future fighter?.whats the point of licensing those in past. Japan will have to face the music of wasting money through debt in keeping industrial capacity without creating the product. Same will happen to India.
Who says the existence of a ‘future fighter’ is right measure of a successful policy? The Japanese effort was a failure because their end product was vastly overpriced compared to the aircraft it was derived from.
Dassualt will also need extra money to increase production rate. Once your production falls. It is not easy to train and hire new workers.
Ahh… so now production rate depends on the scale of the production facilities and size of annual order, huh? What happened to the idea about its production being slower than the Eurofighter’s because of high complexity?
Naval figheters are heavy and aerodynamic compromises. I highly doubt India has Boeing level of experience of building thousands of planes a years.
Who said anything about ‘thousands of planes a year’? (No weaseling out of this one). You claimed manufacturing non-naval fighters was ‘far easier’ than naval fighters.
So the Super Hornet is hard to manufacture than the Eurofighter, owing to its naval design? (Can’t wait your hear your BS about this one LOL).
This is not going to happen. It is random date. As I said it be will just hardware not full functionality AESA.
LOL, ‘Random Date’!! I suppose the real date could be 2013 or 2014 then. The IAF is satisfied with EF’s proposed delivery schedule. Perhaps if you offer to buy a few EFs for you personal air force, they’d share that the relevant details about the AESA program with you too.
F-35 production rate is never going to cross 100 planes a year. It did not happened with F-22 during best of times.
The F-22 had an order book that was less than one-tenth that of even a downsized F-35. And yet it was built at a peak rate of 25 aircraft/year. Even the F-18E/F was built at peak rate of almost 50 units/year (58 deliveries in 2008). For the F-35, 150 units/year is a very conservative figure.
That is whole problem. You only count BAE part of contracts as total cost of Hawk.
That’s because there is no ‘BAE part and HAL part’ per se. HAL effectively functions as a subcontractor. BAE’s role is mostly a one time effort enabling HAL to build the aircraft, including transferring the technology, setting up the production line in conjunction with HAL, training the engineering staff and supplying the raw material (either imported or domestically acquired).
EF is reduced to 35 per year. And by the time India orders it. It will be further reduce to 10 aircraft per year. It is in the same boat as Rafale. Judging from M2K. There is little prospects of upgrades. All the cost will be borne out by India.
Really? Because India’s order will be announced before the end of this month and signed before the end of the financial year (Mar 2012). Unless they set their factories on fire, the production isn’t reducing by 10 aircraft.
As far as upgrades go, except for integrating the IAF’s munitions of choice, and progressive software upgrades to the Captor-E (particularly for new EW and comm. modes), there is nothing specific that the IAF is seeking.
It is not obvious. See Japan example of F-15J.(where is Japanese F-15SE?) and India example of Su-30MKI. India has again go to Russia for upgrades.
How does obtaining upgrades from Russia, nullify the economic and financial benefits of retaining the production in-house? Saves forex and facilitates domestic investment.
So whats the point of licensing. Just straight buy Su-35/Su-34.
Maybe because in addition to being more expensive over the long term, the after sales support from Russian has been found wanting.
Licensing means slow upgrades, slow induction, compounding effect of inflation. Waste of industrial technical personal with all negative effects of upto pensions, energy, raw materials etc.
The upgrades are slow compared to what? Induction of the Su-30MKI certainly isn’t slow – it was intended to be 12 units/year and was later stepped up to 16 units/year and is now being further increased to 20 aircraft annually. As far inflation goes, its no higher than imported equivalents. Also the expenditure is the domestic currency instead of valuable foreign exchange. And having domestic personnel build the aircraft, far from being a waste, is one the biggest advantages thanks to lower labor costs.
VnomadChina always had options depending on which side on pond it was on. Look JH-7 and it spey engines.It is still more capable bomber than MIG-27/Jaquar/M2K. Fact of matter is these two countries China/Japan made right decisions most of time despite being in single vendor situation.
Yet more evidence that until sanctions were placed China did rely on the west for technology and its decisions thereafter were influenced by limited degree of choice.
How it is irrelevant information. China has options of buying from Brazil/Australlia/India/Africa etc but for politicial reasons its first choice is CIS. Don’t confuse past with future.
Err.. maybe because it doesn’t have the option of buying from the only other major centres of military R&D – US and Europe.
117 hast not been supplied to anyone else either.
Its not in production yet, but if that thought gives you comfort, so be it.
It is widely exported long time before India ordered.
So what? It beat out the Alpha Jet, MiG-AT and Yak-130 for that contract.
No matter how often you restate the idea that its obsolete or even obsolescent, it’ll still remain blatantly false.
It is not longer competitive unless you don’t have choice. Its history is as old as spey engines powered Phantom.
So apparently Northrop Grumman got suckered huh? :rolleyes:
I am not mixing. 90,000 is too low number to maintain such huge fleet airplanes, tanks, chopper and airdefence missiles like Patriot. Now where it is proved that India personal are 10 times larger. At best 4 times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
LOL.
First off, take another look at your own damn link. You’ve added the number of active troops and total number of troops to get half a million. And even the actual 250,000 number includes in the national guard which like I said before is budgeted independently.
Secondly, the Saudi Army does not operate fixed wing aircraft and (this will probably come as news to you), choppers, tanks and AD units are not manpower intensive (especially compared to infantry formations). Also, even though its sanctioned strength is a tenth of the Indian Army’s, its actual strength may be even lower due to recruitment troubles.
Saudi also had prety limited money with low price of 1990s. They are not much bigger than IAF.
Carrying on from above, by virtue of having smaller ground forces, the RSAF always had more money for capital expenditure.
The problem is these are all license produced or deeply customized products. None of them will be on time or with required quality.
Yet another baseless statement with a very obvious bias. The Su-30MKI is ‘deeply customized’ so its obviously a failure. The Phalcon is a hybrid system so naturally its a poor quality product. :rolleyes:
US has industrial capacity to make license work.Just like China. See J-11b example.
Keep up the good work. At some point they’ll simply be forced to appoint you forum jester.
It is only BAE part. No one has counted HAL part.
HAL’s ‘part’ as you call it, is to provide labor and facilities (which is may or may not be reimbursed for), neither of which are very capital intensive. Point is the MoD doesn’t issue a separate contract to them.
Production rate is low because products are more complex and expensive. Not because some one made decision for fun.
Dassault had the capacity to up the scale of manufacturing the to meet whatever rate the French MoD wanted to buy the Rafale at. Just as the EF is being produced at the rate that concerned govts. have finalized through NETMA. There’s no question of fun or of complexity being a hurdle.
They are far easier than Naval fighters. As I said India will be not be able to operationalize Multi-role N-LCA in next 10 years.
LOL. So manufacturing non-naval fighters is not just easier but far easier than manufacturing a naval fighter (ooh!).
That explains why the Super Hornet wasn’t shortlisted – its a naval fighter. Must be frightfully hard to build especially compared to the get-it-at-walmart-cannot-fly-from-carriers Eurofighter.
How can they deliver tranche 3 with AESA when AESA specification has not flow yet. Show me that 1400 T/R module EF in test flights. Just look at PAK-FA example it just flown with AESA radar and it will take 3 more years and 10 to 15 pre-production vehicles to reach only in basic air to air function for operations.
How many test EF test vehicles with AESA is going to be built?. If French delivers Rafale AESA in 2013. Give them 3 to 4 years to iron out bugs. At best 2017 with full function.
It took very long time to perfect F-18E multi-role AESA. Maybe a decade of development and testing.
Its a good long four years before it becomes operational and you’re again mistaken if you think the process is linear where the software development begins only after a 1400 T/R prototype has been flight tested. The bottomline is that the IAF is convinced that the delivery schedule is viable.
No one Is sharing this with Korean what makes you think India is exception.
If you’re referring to ToT or production, neither competitor would be participating if it felt that it couldn’t meet India’s terms – steep as they may be.
There was never 250 production in JSF planes unless you want to built 2500 planes in 10 years. Even F-16 has hard time building more than 200 per year.
That was precisely the peak production rate and yes they wanted ‘to build 2500 planes in 10 years’ to completely replace the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 and AV-8B (with only the SH and SE being retained beyond 2025). Even if the F-15s and F-16s go through a lifetime extension, the F-35 production will still cross the 150/year mark that you believe (for so far unspecified reasons) is necessary to be cheaper than the F-22.
That plane is nearly obsolete.
LOL. The BAE Hawk T2 is obsolete compared to what?
They sold first lot at $25m. The second lot of 57 Hawks were sold by BAE/RR at $1.1B. so total $20m per plane. That $5m is HAL contribution per plane.
The first lot including the cost of ToT, licensing, setting up the production line and training HAL’s engineering and support staff. The second lot doesn’t and is commensurately cheaper and close to the flyaway price.
This simplistic ‘BAE contribution is $__ and HAL contribution is $___’ is purely a product of your imagination.
It is not an option. They haven’t completed Saudi contract. And anything will be new built for India. Remember BAE cuts its workforce recently. And RAF EF will be pretty run down.
:rolleyes: The MMRCA proposal and bid was submitted by Eurofighter Gmbh not by the British government or BAE Systems. Collectively it churns out over 50 units annually, now being reduced to 35 aircraft/year. If the IAF/MoD wants 18 aircraft off the shelf by 2014-15 and a dozen kits thereafter, that’s what it will get.
With regard to RAF EF, I made it quite clear that I was talking about leases not purchases. To simplify that – the IAF gets a squadron of EFs transferred, flies them for two or three years (primarily for training and creating a flying manual/syllabus) and then returns them to the RAF (to be retired if necessary). It operated transferred RAF Jaguars and VVS Su-30Ks in the past under a similar agreement.
BAE/RR are pretty open. It is HAL that funny accounting. No one knows what true costs are. As the second lot contracts are worth $20m per plane to BAE/RR.
Its you who thinks the system is funny, because you can’t get a handle on it.
HAL only assemble plane after giving $20m per plane to BAE/RR. We don’t know the final cost of plane but it is surely more than $20m.
Only six aircraft were assembled by HAL. The rest of were manufactured there, with certain components (engine core for example) being imported.
Making license production is not clearly preferable once products are of increasing complexity. You cannot compare Hawk with EF. It is like comparing new S-Class Benz with B-Class.
The economic and technological benefits of license production over direct imports are very obvious to everyone without a blatant bias (read:yourself). And that doesn’t preclude components that cannot be economically produced at HAL (eg. T/R modules for the AESA) from being imported.
VnomadEven if embargo is lifted they are not going to buy EF/Rafale. So it is moot point by saying that if embargo is lifted China will buy MMRCA contenders or put Euro engine into J-10/J-11.
That was not what was being said. It was that Japan had the option of purchasing equipment and technology from the west, including anything and everything from IRST sensors, composites, munitions, and engines to simple design consultancy. Developing everything in-house was inevitable for China given lack of available options outside of Russia.
CIS countries knows that EU is turning into economic corpse. so all new investments and railway infrastructure is geared towards China. It is not without reason Kazakhistan become world largest Uranium miner.
Yet more irrelevant information.
There is no evidence yet that engine supplied to China are of inferior quality/advancement compared to other exportable engines.
China hasn’t been supplied with the 117 or promised it for that matter. We just have to wait it see if the J-20 is powered by the 117 or AL-31/WS-10.
Widely exported does not mean it is more advance and best. It just has long history like F-16.
Of course not. Its widely exported because its obsolete. :rolleyes:
BTW its you who’s going on and on about it being or failing to be the best (without really defining what best implies). My contention was that its a competitive modern lead in fighter trainer – exactly what its meant to be.
Where you get 150,000 number for Saudi men power in military?. Maybe a decade old number. They are more in region of half a million. When you consider all the branches including VIP transport.. And with there avg salaries 3 to 4 times compared to India and all foreign contractors servicing such diverse fleet. There procurement budget will be much smaller than India. They can afford more because they don’t buy stupid license and overpriced low volume home made junk.
LOL. The decade old number is 90,000. Kindly don’t mix in the National Guard which is budgeted under a different head independent of the defence forces. Just like the 1.5 million strong paramilitary and central armed police forces in India. The fact remains, the Indian Army has always been ten times larger than the Saudi Army, and taken a proportionally larger cut of defence budget.
The IAF’s total annual budget is $10 billion today up from about $3 billion a decade back. Unlike the Saudis it had limited money available for capital expenditures through the 90s.
What you have is 150 Su-30MKI. The rest are unupgraded M2K/MIG-29. M2K upgrade will be slow to induct. They have 180 F-150 . 24 EF, 130 Tornados and 5 AWACS with extra EF-3 for electronic with A330MRT on order. They already have BAE Hawk and Pilatus PC9. Which India can now afford it.
Look India is completely following Saudi Airforce example of heavy twin engine fighter like Su-30 (F-15) and Euro canards like EF/Rafale (EF). With BAE Hawk & Pilatus PC9 trainer to A330MRT following it.
None of that changes the fact that the aircraft and equipment that’s been contracted for so far (incl. 270 Su-30MKIs and 5 Phalcons, upgraded fighters and a still substantial fleet of Jaguars, Mig-27s and Bisons), makes better value for money than the Saudi fleet.
The trouble is you can’t make up your mind what part of the IAF/Indian MoD you have an issue with. You know that a substantial part of the IAF’s fleet is license produced, and leaving you looking around for reasons why license manufacturing is a bad idea. I have little doubt that you think US using license produced PC-9 and BAE Hawks is smart, while India doing the same amounts to employing junk.
I suggest you try to keep your prejudices in check, or at least disguise them suitably.
It is BAE contract. HAL will pay by itself for its own labor and ingredients.
The BAE contract IS for license production at HAL. It is contractually obligated to provide the requisite raw materials and engineering support to HAL (though it may or may not reimburse HAL for labor).
Rafale is surely complex It is Naval fighter and it has electronic scanning radar and it has 5 wet stations on such small airframe. There is no way EF can achive this capability without increasing its weight towards 15tons.
Again, yet again you consistently scurry away on a tangent.
To remind you for the umpteenth time now – we were talking about the production rate and your nonsensical assertion that the Rafale production line has a smaller output because it is more complex than the EF. An assertion that completely disregards the fact that it was the French MoD’s decision (based on budgetary restrictions) to phase deliveries over a relative large period of time, NOT Dassault’sshortcoming in producing a supposedly over-complex Rafale..
It takes huge investment & technical ability to create light weight multirole naval fighter with electronic scanning radar from start. Without those things Rafale will be just like M2K price and production rates.
And you can create a production line for non-naval aircraft like the EF and F-15E, with chump change. :rolleyes:
They are not at same development level. India chose ignore development levels in its procurement decisions.
The EF proposed to the IAF is a Tranche 3 variant with an AESA radar. Its quite evident that they are at the same level.
Take potshots by all means, but at least try to make them appear moderately intelligent.
Cost of Rafale is not that much more to France than EF is too UK. Most of Rafale costs are obsorbed into domestic economy.
‘That much more’ huh? After that vehement insistence on it being an out and out cheaper option thanks to its single source origin. Also, where are the costs incurred by the UK absorbed if not into its domestic economy?
EF with 1400 T/R AESA hasn’t flown yet. They just give 2015 date into future
The CAESAR went into flight testing back in 2007. The R&D effort has been building on that over the last half decade. Also the MMRCA trials did require the competitors to reliably demonstrate (including an assessment of prototypes) the ability to deliver an AESA on schedule. The EF did so, to the IAF’s satisfaction (unlike Saab).
F-35 is not going to be cheaper than F-22 unless more than 150 a year are produced.
And you came up with this figure of 150, how? Not that its an issue given that production is intended to be ramped up to a peak of over 250 units annually.
Ok 60 deliveries after 8 years. So how long it will take for MMRCA?.
The Hawk production line is running just about a year behind schedule.
How long will it take the MMRCA for what? First deliveries – 2014-15. Kit built units 2016. If the force needs to be augmented earlier, leasing EF T1s from the RAF is an option – it was done with the Jaguar and the Su-30MKI.
This is only BAE/RR cost. Not HAL. HAL has to put its labor hr per year in building them.
LOL. You’re telling me that a BAE produced Hawk being 33% more expensive than a HAL produced unit is a result of unaccounted labor expenses? Even assuming that’s true, would that labor be worth a whopping $6 million+ per aircraft.
Its still an excellent outcome nevertheless, as long as that money is being spent in-house instead of on exports.
As I said $25m is avg price of Hawk. It is pretty low end compared to EF.
And if HAL can deliver that Hawk for $20 million, its a bargain. The same goes for EF – every bit of the aircraft manufactured in-house is money reinvested into the domestic economy, making licensed production clearly preferable to direct imports.
VnomadChina isnt interested in bailout EU. Arms embargo lifting is more related to buying whole manufacturing plants & R&D not end product.
Nevertheless its very much interested in getting that pesky embargo lifted, even though it claims the reason is political instead of practical.
China will get the engines just like it got engines for L-15/J-10/JF-17/H-6/J-11. If not 117 something like AL-31FM3 or indigenous. Even if China economic buble burst it will have more impact on Australlia/Brazil/EU/US not on CIS countries.
The point had nothing to do with an economic crash. It was that China’s propensity for ‘indigenizing’ imported IP protected technology will probably hamper a Russian sale of the 117.
And no that doesn’t mean that I’m implying that the J-20 wouldn’t fly. Just that it’ll have to settle for the next best alternative rather than a true fifth generation engine.
There is certainly upgrades but nowwhere near flying charaterstics of newer trainers.
And yet its the most widely exported AJT in the world, and a leading option for the USAF’s T-X program.
It is not expensive products. it has become expensive now due purchase by dysfunctional customers. Look at Kingdom of Saudi its defence budget of $40b is nearly identical to India but the quantity of modern heavy fighters like Tornado/F-15/EF is nearly twice as large as India. Not to mention BAE Hawk/Airrefuellers/AWACS along with all expensive subcontractors it could afford decades ahead of India. India don’t have less money it is the approach of license building everything that make things expensive and slow to induct.
That’s first order uninformed garbage that you just posted.
What’s the RSAF’s budget vis-a-vis the IAF’s? India allocated 51% of its 2011-12 defence budget towards supporting a 1.2 million+ strong army (even more if pensions are factored in). Those proportions were far starker a decade back. What do you think is the corresponding figure for the 150,000 strong Saudi Army? Bottom line is that the RSAF always had more money to spend on imports.
Coming to the air forces, you’re probably the only one on the forum who thinks the Saudis are set to have a stronger fighter fleet than India’s. An whatever quantitative advantage it has in refueling aircraft is more than offset by its vastly inferior airlift capability.
Its BAE related contracts in India. Nowwhere it is mention they are sharing revenue with HAL. Why your mixing two companies.
The contract that BAE was awarded explicitly says that the aircraft will be manufactured (not kit assembled) at HAL. The fact that revenue will be shared with HAL is implicit.
You cannot produce Naval fighter with more advance electronic radar at same cost & speed as simple airdefence fighter. Let see how long it takes to put N-LCA on actual carrier operations after 10 year experience with LCA.
Again you wander off on a tangent. We were talking about the rate of production not cost and not development time.
Here’s your case – Rafale is complex = slow production
Here’s my case – ^^ yet more horse****
Even if the Rafale had a MSA and orders for only C variants, the production rate would still be the same.
EF cannot have Rafale costs & weight once it reaches the same capability-development level.
The variants on offer to the IAF are, broadly speaking, at the same development level.
those subcontractors have profits in mind to develop high advance components which require fixed investments over period. They are not going to give u free license. You dont combine so many big names for small production either.
It has to do economic reality that France cannot afford go it alone and export markets has dried up. It does not mean going alone is not a preferable choice.
Classic stuff. 😀
Single nation development and production is cheaper and preferable, except for that pesky factor called ‘economic reality’.
Beautiful just beautiful. 😀
The amount of money spent on JSF program already approaches F-22 program without any operational fighter and cost has only one way to go.
Just the F-35’s existing export commitments already outstrip the F-22’s entire production order, not to mention the US military’s mammoth requirements. No matter which way you spin it’ll always be far far cheaper than the F-22’s $350 million+ acquisition cost.
Slightly more expensive? You haven’t answered the question how many BAE Hawk are in operations. I have no doubt that HAL made Hawk will be way more expensive as BAE made Hawk. Low production rate spread over many years. (the compounding effect of inflation).
About 60 delivered to the IAF – 24 off-the-shelf, 6 from kits (3 each SKD CKD) and 30 from the raw material phase, with first batch deliveries concluding next year.
Regarding cost, the follow on order for 57 units in 2010 (all HAL built, no ToT or setup capital) was placed at $1.1 billion @ $19 million/unit.
Compare that with British MoD’s order for the Hawk 128 – £450 million for 28 units @ $25 mil/unit at 2011 x-rates and $ 29 mil/unit at 2006 x-rates.
VnomadNo restriction on technology does not mean that US firms are willing to provide what Japan want. Japan itself developed significant critical parts. They started with F-15J for modern fighter and end up with F-2.
No restrictions means it wasn’t stonewalled by sanctions. And China has repeated tried to get them lifted, as recently as a few weeks ago where it was tabled as a quid pro quo for investing a bail out fund for the Europeans.
what ever engine powers J-20 means Chinese are satisfied with it. They arent stupid to start some thing big without doing all the analysis. It isnt MIG-21
I’m interested in seeing if China will attempt develop to develop a next gen engine, persist with the AL-31 or try to acquire the 117 from Russia. And of course, in knowing how amenable Russia will be in the latter proposal.
Yep it is 1970s tech interms of design, engine tech, materials. just putting LCD screens does not make it 1990s. All i know is the follow up contract in 2010 have significant British monetary content. so it means the first one is not at satisfactory speed done domestically.
Its a modern jet trainer and it does exactly what its supposed to do by today’s standards. An aircraft doesn’t have to be the F-22 to be modern.
And lest you think the differences are confined to ‘just LCD screens’, in addition to being larger and heavier, its equipped with FLIR, laser range finder, HOTAS, OBOGS, CMDS and TERPROM. Which makes it as contemporary as it needs to be. Oh and you’re wrong about the engine tech being 70s grade too, unless you think the Mk871 and Mk151 are at par.
so licensing is cost are so cheap that every one can afford it. Licensing may well be 50% of contract value incase low value product like Hawk trainer.
HAL production cost are not factored into contract. Read that BAE release.
and its BAE that is distributing further the contracts for supply of subsytems
The Hawk isn’t a low value product and its absurd to think the licensing cost for it can be 50%.
And yes HAL’s production cost is factored in. Do you honestly think the Indian government issued a second contract to the HAL to manufacture what it had already paid BAE to do. Also only the first six aircraft were built from kits, the rest are to built from the raw material stage at HAL.
Of course BAE will contract out its requirements – its the primary contractor. If the cheapest source of aircraft grade aluminium is the Indian Hindalco that’s where it’ll be ordered from, even if the money will be dispensed by BAE. Though its obvious that HAL will be consulted.
Naval multirole aircraft are heavier and need acceptance trials much more than regular airdefence fighters. It is very difficult to achieve that weight reduction. trying to make EF a Naval fighter and its weight will ballon towards F-18E.
Electronic scanning radars are expensive. you cannot compare it to slot array.
And pray how does the weight of the aircraft (never mind the fact that the EF is heavier than the Rafale M) or the presence of an ESA, prevent a production line from being extended ? (In case you’ve forgotten, you assertion was that this is what caused the Rafale production to run slower than the EF’s.) :rolleyes:
Rafale is not expensive than EF despite Rafale being Naval, Multirole (It actuall lifts more with bigger fuel tanks) and electronic scanning radar. You cannot prove it otherwise.
I don’t have to. The fact that the EF’s fly away cost was determined to be within 5% of the Rafale’s speaks volumes. Take a look at the EF’s program cost from the NAO report (deduct the proceeds from Al Yamamah sale) and compare it to Rafale’s program cost.
It does not necessary end up like that. Single customer have more focused priorities and single assembly line and design team reduce cost.
That’s usually trumpeted by higher production quotas for subcontractors and a shared development cost (even if it is higher).
If you recall France was very much a part of the original Future European Fighter Aircraft program and only opted out when denied design leadership and a preferential workshare. The Dassault Neuron project too has half dozen countries involved.
If Dassault VP Eric Trappier is to be believed, even Dassault has concluded that the next aircraft it develops will have be pan-European. Ironic considered that it of all parties should be most appreciate of the merits of a single nation program.
F-35 lots are already approaching F-22. F-22 never passed 30 aircraft per year.
Again you wander off on a tangent. :rolleyes: We were talking about the cost of the F-35 vis a vis the F-22, not its production rate. Its widely and rightly accepted that the F-35 will be cheaper than the F-22, especially once inflation is factored in.
560 confirmed order are spread over alot more firms than 180 confirmed orders of Rafale. I have not doubt EF price will keep increasing once it gets AESA.
Three as many firms? Unlikely. In any case, number of firms is irrelevant as Indian will source its supplies through a single window – NETMA.
There is practicall no chance of EF built in India being cheaper than what is built in EU countries.
Thank you for repeating what I said. :rolleyes:
Point that was originally made was that despite it being slightly more expensive (that too in the initial stages of domestic production), the difference (vis a vis direct imports) is more than made up by forex savings and industrial investment.
VnomadI was taking look at the Eurofighter’s program cost so far –
Tranche 1 EUR 7 billion – 148 aircraft
Tranche 2 EUR 13 billion- 236 aircraft
Tranche 3 EUR 9 billion – 112 aircraft
Approx total EUR 30 billion – 500 aircraft
That’s about EUR 60 million/unit (obviously unadjusted for inflation). Are those figures accurate? What’s missing? Development and/or support costs?
VnomadBoth Japan & China faced single vendor situation for there arm industry for whatever historical reason but they made best use of it. You see Melco Radar , complete avionics suite, MHI composite wing and Japanese missiles on F-2 from the start and maximum freedom with F-15J.
China went one step ahead and built J-10/J-11B/J-15.
Japan had no restrictions on it as far as technology went. That they didn’t pursue a domestic fighter as persistently was a question of priorities. They got the fleet they required albeit a somewhat higher cost than initially envisioned.
No one is breaking relations with China for making things more than original license. Infact more projects are offered to China for there excellent work both from West & Russia.
It would appear the sarcasm in that comment escaped you entirely. Point is the existence of trade doesn’t imply that resentment was absent. I’ll reserve my judgement until I see what engine powers the J-20.
That stage hasnt been reached. Infact the Hawk ordered in 2010 still has more than 80% british content based on Value. so it is reasonable to assume that current Hawk is just assembling with minimal local input. Infact you havent given any link of how many Hawks are actuall delivered after 8 years.
This thing is very poorly implemented for essentially 1970s technology.
So you don’t know how many are being manufactured annually, you don’t know to what degree its sourced domestically (aside from total guesses), you think the Hawk 132 is 70s technology and yet as per your ‘anal’ysis’ the project has been poorly implemented.
Did I miss anything?
There is no question of reverse engineering. It is 100% license with all associated training and technology.
I take you’re not familiar with the concept of sarcasm at all.
I know 30% value goes back but that 30% would include licensing cost. or you put zero value on Documentation, training, transfer of know how?
Do you honestly think licensing cost approaches anywhere near 30% of unit value? Besides, like I said before, HAL’s production costs are factored into the contract value.
Yup that is true. for the same reason A400 a military product will be as expensive as A350 (despite it being larger and more advanced) because Military products are in low volume and more customized. so you dont need widely dispersed firms and large subcontractors.
I have no doubt Rafale will be cheaper for France than EF for UK.
And how does that relate to your ludicrous idea of the production rate being a function of the aircraft’s complexity? What gave you the idea that the Rafale’s naval variant and electronically scanned radar led to it having a lower production rate?
It had little to do with the composition of the aircraft and everything to with budgetary priorities. France simply opted for a lower annual outlay in lieu of better value for money. Once critical mass is obtained, scaling up production is simply a matter of having an adequately large production/assembly line and sufficient lead in time for subcontractors.
Also, do you have anything that actually supports your theory about the Rafale costing France less than the corresponding cost of the EF to the UK, aside from your finely honed intuition?
Manufacturing efficiency may or may not offset the disadvantage having of a smaller build order and a single customer to foot the development bill. Its far from a given.
for same reason JSF is going to end up cost more than F-22 despite much higher rate of production per year.
We’ll see what the F-35 costs when it enters full rate production, adjust it for inflation and then compare it to the F-22. Making those claims now just results in hot air.
Military products are built best built under single firm and this approach is not going to work for India.as the volume are not the there from the start.
Volumes not there for what? 126 to 200 units are set to be manufactured for an aircraft that has either 560 confirmed orders (with more likely) or for one with 180 confirmed orders (with another 100 or so intended).
Maybe an Indian produced MRCA will initially cost more than a European one. So what? As long as the technology is assimilated, the money disbursed in whatever proportion to Indian suppliers, and 50% of the contract value is reinvested in the country, its a net win.
VnomadIf they get full ToT as both vendors agreed, then they can make their MLU themselves so that shouldn’t be an issue at all. BTW they could have gone for the israeli upgrade for the Mirage 2000 if they wanted.
Nic
Where possible yes, but for something like an engine upgrade or replacing GaAs AESAs with a GaN set, they’ll probably have to involve European firms and air forces/governments.
Israeli companies had never performed an upgrade on the Mirage 2000 before, and a risk averse Indian MoD as usual preferred to go to the OEM for support.
That said, if the MRCA swings towards the EF, it may still have some consolation value for Dassault. One of the MoD’s priorities seems to be ensuring that a losing contender doesn’t trip up process with a legal challenge, which is bound to be long and very frustrating given the effort expended in evaluations so far.
Dassault, Boeing (C-17), Lockheed Martin(C-130J), BAE (Hawk) and UAC (PAKFA), have all received lucrative Indian defence contracts. Even Saab has received several minor ones.
VnomadThat seem to be the case. Look at Japan F-15/F-2 example. Japan was land of rising sun in 1970s/80s. It gave them leverage of maximum modification. but Japan stalled and China moved on to full independence on license projects.
Facing a single vendor situation on one end and an arms embargo on the other, I don’t see how it had much choice in the matter.
Looks to me satisfied with large customer as they are trying to offer more projects not to mention keep supplying to current products.
As opposed to? Breaking off diplomatic relations?
There is no evidence of that. There is follow up deal in 2010 for 57. BAE will get $800m and RR will get $312m.
It means that for each Hawk built there is $20m worth of British monetary value and that is for future delivery. so i highly doubt current Hawk has anything more than $5m worth of Indian content.
HAL is building the aircraft from the raw material stage which is what it had set out to do. And yes, plenty of critical components are imported.
What did you expect? Reverse engineering of the aircraft?
Also, you’re confusing the contract value with profit. For one, 30% of its value is dedicated as direct offsets. Also, it accounts for HAL’s operations including labor, materials and parts sourced from domestically, setting an independent supply chain which will end up serving other present and future programs as well.
UK is assembling more EF. It doesnot have same level of domestic content. thats why it cost so much UK to buy EF despite much higher production rate.
EF does not has Naval version or electronic scanning radar. All these things contribute to slower production.
More advance electronic & multi-role version slows down considerably final assembly. Compare Su-34 to Su-30 production rate.
Su-30 production rate shows that India has gain confidence after 12 years so it would be better to continue this path and not deal with firms that dont own all IPs across complex supply chain in Europe/US.
Are you sober?
Vnomadwhy would Russians be involved. r they involved in J-11B project?. India is not small country in terms of manpower and certain level of money that you have to compare with tiny countries who only afford small modifications and buying in small quantities so OEM is more strict with them.
very is leverage of large quantities?.
So OEMs are ‘strict’ with small customers and ‘lenient’ with large customers?
China has successfully used that leverage in past.
I take it the Russians were satisfied with the results of ‘leveraging’ as well. Good business all around?
There has to be clear end result of license manufacturing as it is very costly exercise interms of licensing fees, manpower training and slow induction.
8 years has passed since BAE Hwak trainer signed. How many trainers per year India is able to produce now and what is domestic content.
HAL is producing about 12-14 Hawk trainers annually, all built from the raw material phase not from kits. The first order of 66 aircraft will be completed by mid-2012.
so what make you thing that EF that is 10 times more complex with suppliers across EU/US will be faster than that.
😮 The rate of production is proportional to complexity? As of now the UK builds twice as many EFs annually as France does Rafales. Can we infer from that the Rafale is twice as complex as the EF?
And what does that say for the Su-30MKI which has a production rate that’s almost twice as high as the Hawk’s. Tsk tsk.
VnomadWhat’s the prevailing opinion on the film ‘Les Chevaliers du ciel’?
Ludicrous script but what magnificent cinematography.
VnomadIs it confirmed that he’s been misquoted? (Shout out to French members)
A lot of sources seem to reporting the same. Reuters, Associated Press and at least one AFP article.
Production on France’s Rafale fighter jets could be stopped, defense minister says
By Associated Press,
PARIS — Production on France’s Rafale fighter jet could be stopped if foreign buyers don’t materialize, the country’s defense minister warned Wednesday.
Gerard Longuet maintained that the Rafale — which has long failed to win any contracts abroad and is currently used solely by the French armed forces — is an “excellent plane.” However, he acknowledged the Rafale is handicapped by its price, which is higher than its U.S. rival.
No more Rafale fighter jets if no foreign orders: France
By Agence France-Presse, Updated: 12/7/2011
French plane manufacturer Dassault will halt production of its Rafale fighter jet if it remains unable to sell any abroad, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said on Wednesday.
“If Dassault doesn’t sell any Rafales abroad, the production line… will be stopped” once France has received the 180 aircraft it has ordered, Longuet said, adding that maintenance arrangements would continue for completed aircraft.
Longuet said that French Rafale orders alone would keep the production line going until 2018 “at least”.
Then “it will be over for the manufacturer, not for the user,” he said.
French Rafale production to end if no exports-min
Dassault Aviation will end production of its Rafale combat fighter jet if France does not land any export orders, the country’s defence minister said.
Construction would not stop until Dassault has completed an order from the French army for 180 planes, Gerard Longuet said. The last delivery is expected in 2021.
Reuters
Longuet Says Rafale Production Will Stop If No Export Orders
(Source: France Info radio; posted Dec. 7, 2011)
(Issued in French only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet announced Dec. 7 that production of the Dassault Rafale combat aircraft will be stopped if the aircraft does not sell abroad. Answering a question during the “Questions Info” radio program, he said the decision would be made once the French armed forces had received the 180 Rafales they have on order.
The Minister of Defence has thus unsheathed the sword of Damocles, and is now holding it over the Rafale’s cockpit, said one observer as Longuet warned that “if Dassault does not sell any Rafales overseas, then the production line will be closed.”
The minister said any decision to stop production would not be taken until 2018 at the earliest, once the French armed forces have received all of their own aircraft, and this “leaves Dassault with a considerable margin” to win export orders.
Vnomadthat’s what I’ve been saying since day 1
before you get confused again, I’m talking about UAVs here, not UCAVsdon’t need a radar you mean
to answer your question:
a) F 35 Distributed Aperture System EO DAS
at 2:22 and again at 3:38 the F-35 fires a missiles at a enemy that’s behind it. so unless the F-35 has a radar in its tail (like the T-50), it’s firing missiles without the use of radar
b) Wikipedia
“AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft’s radar, although it could come from an infrared search and tracking system (IRST), from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.”
you were saying?
I repeat, the UCAV in question has neither a radar nor an EOTS, and is useless without a supporting AEW&C.
Also none of this third party targeting is news to anyone on the forum.
this was discussed a few posts back; the generally accepted idea is that
– UAV: prop aircraft
– UCAV: jet engine, stealth, state of the art autonomous capabilitiesbut as I posted in that discussion, the BAe Mantis and I would agree IAI Eitan could be considered UCAVs because they do have state of the art autonomous capabilities (like detecting and targetting enemies by itself), but because they still lack a jet engine or stealth, they’re still generally classed as UAVs
Huh? Who says a jet engine is necessary for a UAV to be classed as a UCAV?
That’s like saying only jet powered units can be called fighter aircraft. Its not complicated – a UAV that can be employed in a combat role (as opposed to reconnaissance) is a UCAV.
As far as ‘generally accepted‘ goes, sources don’t come anymore general than this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_air_vehicle
See if you can spot the Predator and Reaper in there.
I’m assuming you’re talking about “$1 million UCAVs” which pretty much everyone else on the net, in the services and in the industry referes to as UAVs
– without state of the art autonomous capabilities, yes
– with state of the art autonomous capabilities, still yes, because it lacks the ability to detect on its own
So no autonomous capabilities.
– if it has something like radar, EOTS or Elint sensors it might be able to detect the T-50 or the T-50’s radar. combined with state of the art autonomous capabilities that would allow it to shoot missiles at the T-50 without human intervention, assuming it’s in range, than no, it doesn’t need an AWACS or even a human controller to be effective
The MQ-9 Reaper costs over $30 million (excluding ground support) today.
Factor in EOTS, a multi-mode radar and EW sensors and tell me how much it will cost. More or less than a second hand F-16?
I missed Gadhafi flying around in a sports prop aircraft, looking around with binoculars and yelling orders at his pilots through a walki-talki, but yes an AEW&C aircraft would help against UAVs. and UCAVs (= stealth and jet engine). and F-16s. and F-15s. and F-35s. and F-22s
The Libyan air defences were decimated by Tornados, Rafales, EFs and Tomahawks, not by Reapers or Predators.
the F-35 will be better at avoiding that tactic ofcourse. that’s why it costs 15000% as much as the UAV I’m suggesting
but if it fails to avoid the missiles, than you just lost $150 million, were a bait UAV would cost $500.000, or a air-to-air UAV would cost $1 million
If your AWACS fails to avoid the F-35’s missiles, you just lost a $500 million aircraft and thereafter all of UAV/UCAVs.
you could argue that the T-35 can exchange losses against the T-50, but the whole argument behind 5th generation fighters is that you avoid said losses (and they’ll be great, if only because the T-50 clearly outclasses the F-35 in air combat), because these go down very hard with the public opinion
UAVs the other hand are completely expendable to the public opinion
Given that details of their respectively RCSs and EW/ESM systems is still sketchy, its far from certain that the PAKFA will outclass the F-35.
The trouble with UCAVs is that you need to put a valuable AEW&C aircraft in harm’s way to get off even an unsuccessful shot at a PAKFA. And even a decoy/target drone isn’t cheap, let alone a variant capable of air to air combat.
that was the general tactic of most manned missions over Lybia; the difference is that they need to go home after a few hours, while UAVs and UCAVs can stay on mission for days, greatly reducing the number of aircraft needed to execute such a mission
The mission being close air support and/or reconnaissance over sanitized air space. Which is fine when you’re USAF bombing the Libya. The same doesn’t apply against say China or between any two adversaries that have technological parity or near parity.
F-22 Raptors Fly Again, But Breathing Problem Still Not SolvedI suggest you call the USAF and tell them that, they’ll be most grateful
I suppose the same should apply to the F-16, Harrier, MiG-29 etc all which have been grounded at various periods within the last decade. None of whom are really operational.
an F-15E crashed in the early days of the Lybia air war. engine failure, or perhaps someone prayed very hard to lady luck. anyway, it’s a 40 year old design, worth $50 million by my guess, and the pilots were saved, so it wasn’t a big deal
but what if 10 years from now this is an F-22 or an F-35? the world’s most advanced aircraft in enemy hands, the pilot possibly dead or tortured
you might say that this doesn’t happen to modern aircraft, but the F-22 has crashed several times in just a few years, and the F-35 isn’t anywhere near combat ready, so I’m not sure that’s a risk the USAF will be willing to take
Sure if you’re thumping your neighborhood tinpot dictator. When you’re in a real war on the other hand, every high tech piece of equipment or technology will be brought into play and these ‘can’t risk it’ ideas will go right out of the window.
you mean UAVs with weapons, yes those do exist
a stealthy jet engine UAV with weapons, commonly known as a UCAV, doesn’t exist
Nowhere does it say that a UCAV has to be stealthy or jet engined.
a working F-22 or F-35 or T-50 or J-20 doesn’t exist. the only one not still in testing is the F-22, and it was grounded for most of the last year, has never been in combat and they still haven’t fixed the problem. so flying, sort of, working, maybe
The F-22 got its IOC in 2005, and FOC in 2007. Just because its grounded for a fault doesn’t mean it has ceased to exist.
that’s an estimate of mine, based on Wikipedia
Wikipedia sets the cost at about $4.5 million
but that includes satellite grade sensors and communication systems, worth millions by themselvesthe Predator frame, which I’m talking about, consists of a snow mobile engine worth $28.315. that leaves $78.000 for wings, wheels, the main body and some very basic computers and control systems. seems reasonably
if you have data on the matter that says differently I’ll be most eager to read it, I’m very interested in the matter
What!!
The wikipedia link says its between $4.5 million and $10 million. And if you examine it closely you’ll realise it says financial year 1997.
Today it will be between $10 million and $20 million (assuming defence inflation outpaces normal inflation by about 3%).
So one wonders how you managed to cut that cost to $100,000. That’s 0.5-1% of its original value.
Also, how do you intend to steer the thing without a sat link? Will the AEW&C shepherd it through every phase of its flight? If you intend to do it from the ground, how do you propose to get past LOS limitations?
that’s certainly an option, the F-22 would be great in this role, using the UAV wave as bait and its speed, stealth and technology to hunt
but then you’re again sending in and thus risking an aircraft worth hundreds of millions when the UAVs can do the same job, not as well, but still effectively and much more efficiently
When you’re risking a far more expensive and less survivable AEW&C aircraft, you may as well use a fighter aircraft (doesn’t even have to be stealthy) as a missile platform instead of a very limited UCAV (which isn’t cheap either).
Vnomadyou said “An RQ-7 type aircraft won’t be able to mimic a F-35” and then asked “why follow that up with another group of UAVs instead of regular fighters?”
answer = because “An RQ-7 type aircraft won’t be able to mimic a F-35” but an average sized UAV can mimic another average sized UAV
Since neither of them are a real threat to the PAKFA, it can afford to hold its shots.
ah yes, you’re referring to the common misconception that you need a radar to fire an AMRAAM
Common misconception? Where? I’m sure practically everyone on the Mil Aviation forum is aware of the utility of EO and datalinks.
the F-35 can fire an AMRAAM at a target by using target data received from
a) its own radar
b) its own optical sensors
c) another F-35’s radar
d) another F-35’s optical sensors
The UCAV has neither a radar nor any EO sensors. Inclusion of either would put it at odds with the cheap expendable idea being touted.
So your aircraft combat value depends solely on tracking data being available via a datalink.
you see, you do not need a radar or even sensors on the aircraft launching the AMRAAM. you don’t even need an aircraft as AMRAAMs are often used in SAM systems
:rolleyes:
What gave you the idea that the SL-AMRAAM or analogous systems don’t employ a radar?
what you need to fire an AMRAAM are
a) an AMRAAM
b) launch rails
c) target location
And finding out the ‘target location’ (especially that of a stealth fighter) is a mere detail huh?
again, you’re mistaking UAVs for UCAVs. there’s no such thing as a Reaper UCAV
Now you’re simply quibbling over semantics. And yes the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper are both unmanned combat air vehicles, as is the IAI Eitan.
and again, you’re mistaken. a $1 million Reaper, equiped with AMRAAMs, using AWACS guidance and UAV bait aircraft, would
Good. Atleast now we’ve mutually determined that a UCAV is useless at air combat without an AEW&C aircraft.
a) outshoot any older fighter jets that don’t have long range weapons, just like any advanced fighter jet would
Unless the older fighter jets are backed by an AEW&C aircraft of their own.
b) get into a shooting match with anything more advanced. sure, a T-50 could use its speed to fire missiles at maximum range and run before you can return fire, but that tactic would work just as well against an F-35 (whose stealth is apparantly useless against the T-50’s radars)
Who says that tactic would necessarily work against the F-35? The F-35 may still be able to outrun or outmaneuver the missile before it goes active. It could try to ‘spoil’ the PAK-FA’s shot by shooting in turn (forcing the PAK-FA to take evasive action). It could employ its AESA to try an jam or otherwise disrupt the missile’s seeker.
All a drone pilot can really do is loiter and hope to get lucky.
the difference with a drone wave of death is that they can take the hits, and just keep on going to their target, where the accompanying bombers can then attack ground targets (like parked T-50’s)
And the PAKFAs can keep doling out hits or can directly threaten supporting enemy aircraft. It needs just one successful missile hit on the AEW&C to neutralize the entire fleet of UAVs and UCAVs. Or even if it can threaten it and thereby drive it off, problem is solved.
You’re banking on the idea that not only will drones be ultra cheap, you’ll be able to field more of them than the opposition can AAMs. Both of which are far from given. You’re going to need to field at least 6 times as many UAVs as the opposition can field fighters and that’s just to survive. Even very basic versions are simply unaffordable for small air forces looking for unconventional solutions.
Besides even if you can strip away enemy air defences with target drones, UCAVs are still useless, when you can simply send in heavy bombers unopposed.
you mean like they did with the F-22? :rolleyes:
None of them have fallen out of the sky for no reason. Every problem is fixable. Aircraft aren’t going to tumble out simply because of lady luck or the force of prayer.
The attrition rate due to mishaps for most modern airforces is usually less than 1.5 per 10,000 hours. Not something that makes a discernible difference in wartime.
technically there’s no such thing as a UCAV. or a working 5th generation fighter :p
I said that not because its not under development but because the stated intention i.e. shooting down a fifth generation aircraft is at odds with the ultra cheap notion you’re pushing.
And both UCAVs and working 5th generation aircraft are very much in existence.
now a stripped down Predator UAV costs about $100.000 and can launch Stingers at ’70s era aircraft. while not the most effective one, it’s certainly cheap and certainly capable of air combat
A Predator for $100,000!! Where are you getting these utterly outlandish figures from? Forget the Predator, you couldn’t get a Stinger for $100K today. :rolleyes:
good question, at what range can an AWACS or an AESA detect a T-50? I hope really far, because if it gets within missile range of an AWACS or an F-35, I wouldn’t give either much of a fighting chance against a salvo of missiles
Like the Phoenix, the K-100 isn’t designed to take down a fast and maneuverable fighter aircraft. On the other hand, slow cargo or passenger aircraft or types based on that platform are ideal targets.
as for the UAV swarm loosing AWACS guidance, any nearby manned aircraft with the right software could take over control, and use its sensors to guide UAV launched missiles (the F-35 actually being very good in this role with its strong communication and sensor abilities and stealth)
And why not simply use these aircraft (that apparently can match an AEW&C aircraft’s radar range) to fire those missiles in the first place? They were susceptible to the enemy before and they are susceptible to it now.
Sign In
