VnomadI was merely correction your misconception. Also the point is that this is a multi-stage process, where the next stage depends on the previous one. Thus a receipt for delays along the way. Several delays that will add up in the end.
Misconception about what? The strategic partnership model has only one outcome as far as this deal is concerned. Its not holding anything else up.
They have recently evaluated all those airplanes — it makes sense to limit to single-engine since they know the others will not make it. It is your assumption that they have already decided to go for F-16. Perhaps you are right but you have not very strong arguments. There are some arguments for F-16 and some against, just like it is for the Gripen.
How do you know the others won’t make it? How do you know the MiG-35 won’t make it? Or the Rafale? Especially given the commonality argument.
They’ve been excluded from the running. Quite deliberately.
The MMRCA was an “almost done deal”. The final Rafale deal was different of course, but saying they had “zero preparation” is IMHO still not correct. Anyway, I strongly doubt they will be able to do it faster with the single-engine, AFAIK they have very little experience in dealing with both LM and Saab (they have more experience with Boeing and Dassault both excluded from this competition).
MMRCA? Debatable. The latest cost estimates put the price of the deal at nearly $30 bn IIRC.
I wouldn’t say they have ‘little experience’ with Saab; its gotten a few (low value) contracts from India but has engaged in extensive discussions for larger ones (was almost included in a Tejas JV at one point). But yes, in general, its a relative outsider. Partly because Sweden isn’t really a player on the strategic front.
But what on earth makes you think the same applies to Lockheed Martin ($2bn, 12 C-130Js). Keep in mind, Sikorsky is a LM subsidiary (S-70/S-92).
VnomadNo it is not a company. It is a model. You need that model defined before you can choose the company according to the model.
The company i.e. TASL already exists. Its already got tieups with 10-12 foreign OEMs. Its already won the MoD tender to locally build an LTA with the Airbus C-295. And its already building a extensive portion of the Dornier 228, also ordered by the MoD (among other foreign companies).
Point is, there isn’t a lot of choice involved here.
It is single-engine because, as you say, they have realized there is a real difference in price (but also in performance) between single and twin engine. With the knowgledge they have about the aviable machines it makes a alot of sense to short-list the single-engines and not waste any time and energy to pretend to be looking at the twin-engines in the same process. One of the few sensible decisions in this mess.
“Not waste time any time and energy”… precisely.
Even though the ‘fair’ thing would have been to let the other contenders prove their price. Especially Dassault, which is already a contracted supplier. Same for MiG/UAC that also has the advantage of lower input costs.
Even the Gripen has only really been retained because they was no plausible grounds to exclude it at the first stage. Couldn’t really have included ‘non-Swedish’ along with ‘single engine’ in the list of requirements.
Zero prep time!?? After spending several years of evaluating the Rafale, and then spending several years of trying to negotiate a deal? They should have had intimate knowledge about not just the Rafale system (including things like maintanence etc) but also intimate knowledge about the costs of different options, knowledge about the French negotiation team and tactics, etc. etc. etc. In spite of having an “almost done deal” as a starting point; in spite of all that knowledge, and in spite of enormous pressure to finalize the deal ASAP, it still took them 18 months. How long did it take Egypt and that other ME country which name I always forget?
The 36 unit GtG was an entirely different deal from the MMRCA. Different acquisition model (technically). Different offsets model. Different mode of production. Different maintenance model. Different pricing system. Different modification reqs. Different basing model.
Very far from an ‘almost done deal’. The only major get from the previous negotiations was that field/technical evaluation were unnecessary.
And I don’t think take a page from Qatar or Egypt is really the way to go. Sure they got it wrapped up fast but then what they’re getting for their money is anybody’s guess. Sure you could remove the offsets requirement & be ‘flexible’ on price and save yourself a huge chunk of time but it wouldn’t be the ideal way to go.
18 months is a fair timetable to get a $9 bn deal wrapped up, though it was arguably doable in 12 months. And there was the other crucial difference in that it was a deal mandated by the PMO unlike this F-16 contract which appears to be Parrikar’s dish (cooked up with Carter).
VnomadCompletely wrong.
This is a multi-step multi-year process consisting of (at least) the following steps:
1. Strategic Partnership Model must be finalized (within 1 month)
2. Proposal for new single engine fighter program (within 4 months)
3. Selection of Indian company (end of 2017)
What do you suppose the ‘Strategic Partnership Model’ means? (Hint: its got nothing to do with a foreign nation/state/company.)
I’ll save you the trouble. Its a pvt sector company (‘strategic partner’) exclusively designated by the govt to specialize in a particular defence segment.
In some segments, there was a dispute over which companies qualify but not so for the aircraft field, where Tata/TASL is far ahead of the pack. And it already has a tie-up with LM. So the ‘selection of Indian company’ involved practically starts from the finish line.
4. Floating of global tender (Q1 2018)
5. “two or more year process to evaluate technical and financial bids and conduct extensive trials” (Q1 2020)
Only two aircraft are technically compliant and the results from field testing are already available for both.
The ‘global tender’ becomes a factor only if the F-35 enters the fray.
6. Finalization of government-to-government deal (current estimate: 2021).
2021 would be a delayed time-frame for the contract signing though its plausible. Depends entirely on how long the negotiations with the ‘winner’ take; the selection of the winner itself itself is not some arduous process. Not in this case, anyway.
Read (and re-read) the steps above.
What is the probability of this going according to plan, and having the “deal inked” in 2021?
Again, this isn’t a real competition. If we’re talking about the statements made by unnamed MoD officials here’s the one posted earlier –
Dec. 10: The US and India are set to shortly announce a “signature, big-ticket” project that will symbolise the finalisation of India as a “major defence partner”, senior officials involved in the talks have said.
US defence secretary Ashton Carter was in New Delhi this week on a farewell visit and met defence minister Manohar Parrikar for the seventh time in two years.
Officials would not describe the “signature project”. One official simply said “it flies”. – Link
If you’ve got the time, take a longer look at the whole timeline of Indo-US relations. Go through the text of the India amendment of the latest NDAA bill, the signing of which just took place a week ago, coinciding with the announcement of this new single engine contract.
Why is it limited to single engine anyway? Why not invite all and sundry? If the single engine contender is cheaper it’ll win through naturally on life-cycle cost? Why is the Rafale being excluded? Why are the Russians being excluded? And just ‘coincidentally’ LM has a freshly decommissioned production line all ready for transfer having delivered its last aircraft in 2017?
How long did it take to “ink the deal” with Dassault after the decision to do a g2g deal with France?
~18 months. And the MoD had zero warning/prep time for that one, which came almost out of the blue.
Also, for the record, I’m NOT saying that its necessarily a good decision to go down this F-16 route. But that’s way they’re going. I’m actually hoping something nixes the deal or delays it long enough to kill it. Maybe Mattis or Trump. I’m not betting on it though.
VnomadIs that whisfull thinking or do you have tangible proof?
Of what specifically? All the ‘tangible proof’ is available open source and has been posted on the IAF thread in bits and pieces.
VnomadYou have a point there… at the beginning of MMRCA, India who was satisfied with it, was proposed to get the whole assembly chain of Mirage 2k for quite a good price (Dassault was over with it anyway).. by the time they took their decision about it, the chain was long gone and dismantled. If nobody buys any F-16s to keep the line open, what will LM sell in 8-9 years (at best)? By the time they take their decision they may just as well have already a Rafale building facility in India (which is what Dassault invested the offsets of the Rafale deal into) that will be able to churn out whatever number of fighters they need, for the air force or the navy…
This isn’t an MMRCA-style ‘competition’. The RFP is an informal one, not a highly formal one. The ‘winner’ will be decided by a discretionary decision made at the MoD, not determined by a lowest bidder process. The contract will be made through the govt, not solely with the company. The MMRCA had several possible winners, the winner in this one is already all but certain. And the strategic angle is a crucial factor in this one, not just the technical equation as was with the MMRCA.
The ‘decision’, if you can call it that, is to be made this year, not in 8-9 years. The F-16 line has enough orders to run to the end of the year. Even with delays, its completely feasible.
VnomadIndia really need to get onboard with someone. And with the relationship betweem India – US/Pakistan, this will never ever happen on such important next gen fighter program. EVAH!!
I don’t think you’ve been following the US-India/US-Pakistan relationship very closely. A next gen fighter i.e. the F-35 is very much available to India, even if critical elements of ToT aren’t (read: AESA, ESM, EO systems, Fibremat etc).
So India really have no other choice than going Russian here. India have been trying to get onboard for years now. But the PakFa program uptil now has been all done with Russian blod, sweat and ingenuity.
So tell me this, why should Russia just hand parts of it or the whole deal over to India for $ 6-7 Bill..??
In the long term timetable, Russia stand to export for much more than that sum.
In terms of export, the Indian order is probably worth far more than all the rest put together (Algeria, Vietnam, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia etc). In other markets, the PAK FA will be competing with the FC-31, if not the FC-20.
But in general, I agree, paying $5-6 bn upfront for ‘development’ is senseless for what is a license assembly/production deal. It basically amounts to reimbursing Russia for its own R&D expenditure.
Edit:
I mean something is not right here.
Look at UK with the F-35 program. They can do some code rewrite(barely). But that is about it for UK. So why should India even expect to get anything more out of PakFa program..? I mean i guess India could get some industry throwback deals, like producing some airframe parts.. but are they up to it?
The UK builds 10-15% by value of every F-35 produced worldwide. They’ve done very well for themselves.
In India’s case, more than ToT, production work-share commensurate with its financial investment would the natural goal. Remains to be seen what they actually negotiate.
VnomadSo I guess it is going to be the hypthetical F-16 Block 70/72? What are the improvements over the F-16E/F Block 60?
None. Well, maybe some EW improvements. In any case, its probably going to be based on an upgraded Blk 52 rather than the pricey Blk 60.
VnomadHe said next year.
No he didn’t. He left it undefined for some time in the future.
Anw, considering the amount of BS he said over 2 years…
Like what?
The only thing that comes to mind is about the Tejas being as good as the Rafale, which he further clarified was in the CAS & air defence role (factually correct).
Vnomadthanks, where would you put the Flanker availability issues?former or latter?
The primary issue with the Flanker was an outstanding dispute regarding the setup of a local MRO facility that clogged up the maintenance chain with unserviceable aircraft. It faced some reliability issues with the aircraft (particularly engine failures) but none as severe as those faced by the MiG-29K.
Vnomad“Single-Engined”? That means just F-16 and Gripen.
So I guess Gripen?
F-16. The whole business is tailor-made for the F-16 and driven by political/strategic considerations.
The ‘competition’ aspect is pretty superficial. LM has this in the bag, more or less.
‘Signature’ US defence project in works
SUJAN DUTTA
New Delhi, Dec. 10: The US and India are set to shortly announce a “signature, big-ticket” project that will symbolise the finalisation of India as a “major defence partner”, senior officials involved in the talks have said.
US defence secretary Ashton Carter was in New Delhi this week on a farewell visit and met defence minister Manohar Parrikar for the seventh time in two years.
Officials would not describe the “signature project”. One official simply said “it flies”.
VnomadThings are little more complex. Parrikar said there would be two competitions. One for a second production chain aside Tejas Mark IA (RFP for subcomponents were recently officially released) and later one production chain for a dual engine. Gonna be a nice zoo if things work like that. However, Modi will decide in the end and Parrikar assertions have recently been hmm… Shown wrong?
When is ‘later’? Because the F-16 line will be transferred to India over several years, in stages. Dovetailing with the setup of a local ‘dual engine’ FGFA/PAKFA production line.
Modi hasn’t said anything on the matter. Futile to expect him to intercede.
VnomadWell, theoretically they could still make a switch to the Rafale! Of course not quite in the same league as the F-35, and I guess it would require a) a major political re-alignment and b) a small rebuild of the “floating devices”, but OToH the Rafale can carry more and further than the B and its tiny stomach. And even without “VLO” it is still very dangerous opponent, and will remain so for at least the next 30 years (assuming the opponent does not have US made gear).
Its not a small rebuild. That’s why the govt had to reverse itself after opting for the F-35C. The costs associated with a Emcat ECO were very steep and this is when the vessel was still in construction.
And in any event, with a combat radius of 800 km on internal fuel the F-35B is hardly short-legged. Operating from a ski-jump it’ll probably match or out-range its peers once its cleared with drop tanks (blk 4).
Vnomadindia recently stated they were looking for a new naval fighter,
whats the likelihood brazil & india will team up on naval gripen, should gripen be selected ?
Negligible. The IN is looking for something larger and available in the 2020 time-frame (in time for the new Vikrant carrier).
VnomadGripen?
Falcon?
and dark horse candidates, Rafale and Super Bugwhat are your thoughts.
No dark horse candidates. The Defence Minister was quite explicit in calling for a single-engined fighter, with the selection to be followed by a govt-to-govt deal (read: FMS). Its pretty much a cinch for the F-16. It’ll be out of production by the end of this year and the LM will be able to shift the existing production infrastructure starting with the assembly line to India.
The only possible spanner is Trump. If it looks like ‘outsourcing’ to the hoi polloi, his administration might block the deal resulting in LM having to write the thing off and call an end to the F-16 era.
VnomadYes, I am making an argument here.. I have explained the price difference to you..
– the deal is $75 mil a piece, but India will be left with a huge amount of left-over titanium and other raw materials which they can resell or recycle.. (or dump)
Except that having a heap of waste titanium is a pretty normal state of affairs for any such production for aviation products anywhere in the world. And the huge amount isn’t really a huge amount (in monetary terms).
Its the process of machining titanium that is an energy intensive and expensive venture. The metal itself isn’t that expensive (and what’s left over is probably sold off as scrap).
That’s the problem.. you don’t have any details on that, but you’re still playing smarta$$.. These cost do represent the price to build a complete aircraft, incl. propulsion.. In the case of Su-30SM or Su-30MKI even the cost of foreign equipment like Thales/Samtel displays, Thales or El-Op HUD, etc.
The press releases from the Russian MoD/OEM do not say what’s included and what’s not. Engines for one were contracted separately by India (follow-on).
UMPO to Start Shipping Engines to India
In the largest single contract with an international customer since the demise of the Soviet Union
The 10-year contract with India to ship AL-31FP engines was signed in October 2012. The first batch of ten engine sets will be shipped before the end of 1Q 2013.
India acquired the right (the option) to buy additionally these 920 AL-31FP engine sets in stages back in 2000, under the terms of a general contract for setting up production of Sukhoi Su-30MKI jets and AL-31FP engines under license.
The Ufa Engine Engineering Company OJSC is a major Russian manufacturer of aircraft engines, and part of the United Engine Engineering Corporation (a specialized subsidiary managing engine-making assets 100%-owned by Oboronprom). The company generated RUB 20,562 million in 2011 sales. The company is primarily involved in manufacture, servicing, and repairs of aircraft jet engines and gas pumps, manufacture and repairs of helicopter components and assemblies.
What is and isn’t included in the domestic contracts for the OEM still remains an unknown factor.
Sign In
