VnomadAs said above, higher duty cycle.
How so? The limiting factor here is frequency agility, which is a function of the TR module characteristics, the software architecture and availability of processing power.
And think about the future. What can you do with a radar with physically separated antennas? (especially if you master ttile modules architecture, which Thalès do?)
Well auxiliary antennas like on the PAK FA would allow for a much wider FoV but I don’t see how it would augment the capability of the primary radar (i.e. the forward facing one).
Vnomad
VnomadIt uses interleaving, it is near simultaneous (nanoseconds). The array is not divided and tasked in different modes at the same time, the fast switching is one of the advantages of an AESA set.
I don’t get it. What’s the advantage of a split array? The radar beams aren’t really ‘beams’ anyway – just high frequency pulses. Emitting actual beams would make the emission susceptible to DRFM spoofing. So as long as you can shrink the mode switching time to close to the pulse frequency, it should be nearly indistinguishable from a physically split array. ??
VnomadSurrounded by fellow members of the EU (plus Switzerland & Liechtenstein) – not fellow members of NATO. Austria is not in NATO. Austria’s Drakens spent much of their lives intercepting USAF aircraft taking short-cuts between Germany & Italy, which might tell you something about its past relationship with NATO. There is no provision or precedent within the EU for supplying air cover for other members of the alliance.
I said that Austria was surrounded by NATO states, not a member of NATO (probably should have used better syntax). Austria’s not a member – that’s pretty common knowledge. Hence the comparison to Ireland, also not a NATO state.
Implication being that there was no threat to Austria from its neighbours – all tied together by the EU – and unless NATO started collapsing Austria faced no significant external military threat.
VnomadIreland is rich & non-NATO, but used to be poor by W. European standards, & has always had the luxury of being able to hide behind the UK. The only jet fighters that can intrude are the RAF & from aircraft carriers.
.
.
As is obvious from the above, none of those countries provides a model for Austria, which is rich & not NATO.
Austria’s per capita GDP is comparable to Ireland. Its a landlocked state surrounded by fellow members of the EU (& NATO) aside from Switzerland. And if does wish to maintain fighter jet capability, which appears to be true, the EFs will be retained.
VnomadI think they will retain the T1s for quite some time, however sooner or later they will have to replace. The question is: when do the T1s become too expensive to maintain?
How big is the difference between the T1s and the current Typhoon? Can they run into problems with spares etc? Or is this not an issue? For how long wil the others retain their T1?
Also, you cannot really compare operating costs with lease costs…. Have you ever looked at leasing a car as compared to owning one?
Depends on the vehicle, its mileage, maintenance, usage, depreciation as well as the interest & terms on offer. Lease is better in some cases, not all.
T1 service for Austria is viable for as long as the T1s remain in service with the EF consortium. So… 2025 minimum.
VnomadIf you are interested in please contact me but please don’t negotiate the price as I plan to buy a brand new one full option with the money you will give me.
The Austrians are doing nothing of the sort. They’ll either retain their EFs or divest them and give up fighter jets altogether – like Ireland, Albania, Slovenia & the Baltic states.
Its obvious from the costs. The Eurofighter costs €80 mil/yr which is amounts to just 4.4% of the annual Austrian defence budget. The Czech R. & Hungary are paying ~€80-90 mil/yr for their leased Gripen C/Ds. Used F-16s are unlikely to be cheaper. Add in the fixed costs and any effort to replace the EF remains a futile exercise.
VnomadThey aren’t “trying to reduce their orders”, they simoly stopped ordering eventjose they were supposed to order in the first place.
Come now, lets not exaggerate here.
They were ‘supposed to order’ 620 aircraft while they actually ordered 487 (incl. T1s later sold to Austria), that’s 78.5% of the original target.
Just to put that in context, France planned to order 287 Rafales but will order no more than 225, 78.3% of the original target.
VnomadNo one that operates the Typhoon is “trying” to reduce their orders. Severall years ago, the four original partners have decided to forego tranche T3B, but that was in 2009. The only second hand Phoon offer on the market today, is a handfull (around 12 airframes) of Italian T1´s.
Spanish T1s are available for sale as well. There were marketing them to Peru in 2013 IIRC.
VnomadAgree. This whole story since MMRCA cancellation smells rivalry between Parrikar and Modi.
That’s ridiculous Hallow. Modi & Parrikar are no more rivals than Putin & Shoygu or Trump & Mattis. Parrikar was appointed to his position (from relative obscurity) by Modi and doesn’t pose the remotest threat to the PM. As far as defence procurement is concerned, we on places like Keypub tend to think of these decision as ultra-important, but Modi isn’t expected to nor has any interest in micromanaging ministry matters. Those responsibilities have been delegated for a reason with the PM only specifying general policy (eg. Make-in-India). I think what you’re confused about is his decision to order the Rafales off-the-shelf. He was pitched a deal that he accepted and the MoD obeyed the PMOs directions. Don’t mistake that for some emotional or personal investment on his part in French wares (or Russian/US equipment for that matter).
VnomadDidn’t IN specify they want a twin-engined fighter, so that rules out both F-35 and Gripen Maritime? Did it change again?
No such engine requirement was specified in the RFI.
VnomadThis is a relevant point for the original MMRCA but cannot explain why the IAF seems not to be much interested in the F-35 for the “single-engine” fighter, where LM is offering the F-16 not the F-35.
That was less the IAF and more the MoD with its ‘Make-in-India’ directives for which the ‘free’ F-16 assembly line was a particularly attractive idea. With the defence minister Parrikar gone, and no formal process initiated, it remains to whether the plan will see light of day.
There is some kind of reasoning behind it; the reason why they don’t get more Rafale is because it’s too expensive. The reason why they consider F-16 and Gripen is because they need something that is less expensive than the Rafale, and at the same time can be assembled in India, with some ToT. This is what is callled “politics” (and yes the result is often not very good for the IAF/IN).
As far as the Navy is concerned, the F-16 isn’t an option while the Sea Gripen is still entirely a paper project. Which leaves it down to the Rafale M and F-35B/C. Short of going with more MiG-29Ks, there are no cheap options available to it. Besides, given that for air cover/fleet defence the entire battle group relies on the carrier’s air complement, which is limited in numbers by deck space, a ‘budget solution’ may actually be a liability for the service.
VnomadDon’t you find it strange that the IAF has never expressed formal interest in the F-35, the by far most advanced and most capable multi-role fighter on the planet? I believe they have not expressed formal interest because they know the politicians will stop such a deal…
You’re looking at this with the benefit of hindsight at a time when the F-35A has achieved IOC, ironed out most development problems and is racking up outstanding performances in training exercises.
Now think back a few years ago. The IAF was due to induct the Rafale as its MMRCA with progressively moving to full indigenization. The PAK FA was supposed to enter service by 2016 with the ‘jointly developed’ two-seat FGFA variant expected to be available by 2020. Meanwhile the F-35 program was late, overbudget, rife with bugs, with unit price hovering around the $200 mil mark. Also, Indo-US relations, while on the upswing, weren’t nearly as robust as they are today (mention the F-16 for India then and people would have rolled their eyes).
I would think that the technology in the F-16 is actually quite different from what is in the F-35? — I may be wrong of course…
That’s the point. Nothing prevents LM from transferring technology that’s employed on the F-16 as part of a F-35 offsets deal. The objective for India would be to adapt it to its domestic programs (like the Tejas Mk2, for example).
I am not sure if assembly is no deal for a country like India
If tech transfer is no big deal, and if assembly is no big deal, why on earth is the IAF not pushing for the F-35A?
Why is the MoD/IAF considering the F-16 or Gripen instead of ordering more Rafale, Tejas & Su-30s fighters? Why is the Gripen M & SH in contention for the naval order? The MoD operates in weird, mysterious and quite often idiotic ways. That being said, the F-35 is quite close to maturity today, the FGFA is still years away, and the PLA has just started inducting S-400s (among many other area denial systems), so lets see what happens.
VnomadThe political barrier was in my post above: India wants local assembly and also expects some ToT. Sure, they can get that with e.g. the F-16. But not with the F-35. Of course LM want to sell the F-35 to India. However they can only do this if India is willing to accept US “rules” on the sales of F-35 to a “not-so-close” ally; no assembly and definitely no ToT.
You’re mixing up two very different things – ToT & indigenization.
Technology is technology – whether its packaged through the F-16, SH or F-35, its content does not necessarily change. France for example offered engine tech to India to help revive the Kaveri program but that doesn’t mean it came in the form of M88 blueprints. Similarly, South Korea to help spur its F-X3 program requested 25 specific technologies as part of the F-35 offsets (of which 21 were sanctioned, 4 refused) but that tech again wasn’t specific to the F-35. Point being, if ToT is available through the F-16 & SH, its available through the F-35.
Assembly in contrast is no big deal. LM already has two assembly lines overseas – a third will not materially change the status quo – and would still remain within the bounds of the joint statement signed in Dec 16 that designated India as a Major Defense Partner to “facilitate defense trade and technology sharing with India to a level at par with that of the United States’ closest allies and partners” (sic).
There are a lot of political developments over the last few years that have generally gone under radar. The is one of them. The bigger hurdle to such a sale is actually the Trump administration and the political symbolism of any apparent ‘off-shoring’ of work (which doesn’t actually apply in this case here but there’s a strong constituency for alternative facts nowadays).
VnomadFrom severall defense press organisations, and severall analysts including Richard Aboulafia.
I don’t recall anything specific in the press. Perhaps you could share. Richard Aboulafia is really an analyst rather than a primary source.
I have severall identical quotes for Brasil, and when the FAB asked specificaly for the F-35A in the FX-2, LM answer was a warmed over F-16. I suspect the same is happening here.
Highly doubtfull. The reason why almost certainly the F-35A was not offered to the IAF twice in a row was because the State Dpt looked at the MRCA and this new “Made in India” and what was asked in terms of technological transfer was entirely out of order.
The IAF has never expressed any formal interest in the F-35 to date. Tech transfer comes under the purview of the DoD, the State Dept only looks at the political implications of any dealing, and in general the SD’s position has never been a barrier to military deals with India.
Eh, F-35A presentations by LM have been done to everybody and its dog, including the Brasilians, the Saudis, the UAE, and so on.
That’s incorrect. Lockheed Martin is formally barred from marketing the F-35 in any form to Middle Eastern customers (barring Israel obviously). Any presentation requires DoD approval and that’s not in coming.
Brazil & India are different cases, in that the US is forming long term strategic partnership with India, driven by geopolitical developments in Asia. Including, but not limited to, military sales, intensive joint exercises and intelligence sharing. Which is also why there is a dedicated India cell at the DoD and why the US Congress passed the US-India Defense Cooperation Act through the NDAA 2017 bill. Brazil meanwhile, a benign power in a generally peaceful region of the world, is only peripherally involved in the power politics in Asia.
But, well, soon enough we´ll know wich of us is correct, if indeed LM officially offers Dave, then you are correct, if not, dont make a mistake, i am correct and it was indeed blocked at the Congress/State Dpt.
If LM doesn’t respond its probably not been cleared by the US DoD to make an offer in line with the customer’s request. The State Dept as I said only makes a political analysis while the Congress’ role begins only after it receives a DSCA notice.
Cheers.
Sign In
