VnomadIt’s $1.2bil, not $1bil. That makes $11 billion before factoring in savings on economy of scale..
Okay. Factor in savings and its less than what’s budgeted for the IN’s second line of conventional submarines.
Because India is arming at double the pace of what Pakistan does? Maybe that’s why?
Maybe that’s why what? That’s why PN subs will not participate in the next Indo-Pak war?
Also, seeing as China is arming at quadruple the pace of India, what exactly is the PLAN’s incentive for keeping its subs out of a potential conflict?
VnomadWhat is your point with all this “source, please”? Are you trying to prove that somehow the Mi-28NEs have adhered to a completely different set of requirements compared to AH-64Es?
Apaches have lost in that deal, get over it finally..
I’ll repeat. You said that Iraq released a set of requirements (presumably through an RFP), to which both RH & Boeing put in entries in response, after which the Mi-28 was selected as the winning contender.
I’m making a (very reasonable) request for a source for the issuing of this RFP (or whatever they labeled it as).
Indian economy is not ready to keep pace with the growing tempo of military expenditures.. They have always wanted much but now they’re wanting to get the best, as well.. that cannot be sustainable..
So you’ve analysed India’s growth prospects, resultant defence budgets and slated expenditures over the next 20 years and found gross inconsistencies?
And if so, do share because the chart you posted is meaningless, describing as it does expenditure growth between 2007-2016 (rather than making estimates for 2016-2030), while saying nothing about the available budget at all.
Excellent.. In a country with hundreds of millions folks on the verge of starving you will be policing traffic with $75mil helicopters..
Yes despite the country being on the verge of a famine, I believe the IN will continue to police India’s trade routes plied by civilian shipping that may or not be carrying fuel that may or may not be used to run trucks that may or may not be ferrying food that may or may not be expected to feed hundreds of millions of people.
And in wartime, I would expect it be ‘policing’ civilian shipping heading to the ports of hostile states, with the aim of depriving them of fuel and supplies.
They have approached market with 126 multirole combat aircraft, too.. We all know what has come out of it.. It will happen, again.. And they will be grateful for 30 MH-60S or so..
Sure. Maybe this will be the deal that finally tips the balance, followed by the Indian military modernization effort finally running out of the steam and grinding to a stop.
On the upside, at least you’ve stopped apportioning blame for that to me, as an ‘agent for Lockheed Martin’. I call that progress. 🙂
VnomadFor the export, you gotta expect the unit price exceeding that figure considerably.
Danish Navy – nine MH-60R for $690 million
Australian Air 9000 Phase 8 Program – 24 MH-60R for ~$2.1 billionGiven the fact that India is not even a Class I NATO ally, I’d expect 123+24 Romeos be worth around $13 billion.
Because Class I NATO allies get a special ally rate? With the cost of the 16 S-70s estimated at about $1 billion, 147 would cost about $9 billion before factoring in savings on scale of operation.
That’s utter nonsense from every standpoint I can think of. No one will be sending subs to block India, in the first place. Such massive spending is completely unsubstantiated.
What then is the purpose of the PN’s 11 SSKs – 3 Agostas + 8 Yuans (reportedly budgeted at $5 bn)? And why would PLAN subs refrain from attacking Indian ships/ports in wartime?
VnomadIraqis have published requirements which were answered by Boeing and later the proposed AH-64E deal was dropped in favor of the Mi-28NE.. most likely on terms of money, delivery schedule and geopolitics… Why should I bother proving the deals were comparable if they were responding to the same requirement, in the first place?
The Iraqis issued a global RFP for attack helicopters? Source please.
It’s quite relevant as it’s showing signs of backyard lobbying and corrupt practices.
Except that we aren’t discussing ‘backyard lobbying’ or ‘corrupt practices’. What we were discussing is the likelihood of future orders for the S-70.
Everything.. India is broke enough to reconsider buying hundreds of ASW helos which are nothing but dead weight..
I don’t know what this line even means. Is India on the verge of bankruptcy? Or maybe India will be bankrupt when by the time it gets around to signing the NMRH contract? ASW helos are obsolete or will be obsolete by that time? :confused:
Because such huge ASW fleet doesn’t make any sense, in the first place.. There are not enough subs worldwide to justify that, let alone in China or Pakistan..
Its a multirole type capable of SAR and anti-surface operations including policing civilian traffic. I though that was understood.
The more I read your posts, the more I get persuaded that you’re somehow involved in lobbying/advertising for LockMart.. I might not ever be sure but whatever you write, I will let pass through this filter from now on..
This is getting weirder and weirder. Was I holding a gun to the Indian Navy’s head when it approached the market for 123 more naval helicopters? Why blame me for orchestrating some grand conspiracy to manufacture a contract out of thin air, on behalf of Lockheed Martin?
How many helicopters it should order OTOH is an academic question. One could also ask why the Turkish Navy requires 31 helos, why Australia requires 36 and why the USN requires well over 450 of them.
VnomadA nice try.. I have provided you with two deals for Iraq which were comparable.. In return, you have raised a theory that the Apache was not more costly and the deal only was much more expensive due to Boeing charging much more for ops in wartime zones.. Good, this is your theory, I respect that but as such it is up to you to prove it.. I will not be looking for evidence because I don’t believe any of that, in the first place.
I have your word that they were comparable and nothing else.
Causing delays in India by asking questions? 🙂 That’s a joke, right?..
For what I have read, NHI have done nothing wrong except raising legitimate doubts regd. claims presented by Sikorsky regd. capabilities of their SH-60. The fact that they are being treated as heretics for that speaks volumes about how “objective” the deal is, in the first place.
How is their being right or wrong relevant? The issue being discussed is NHI’s capacity to effectively wrest further orders from Lockheed Martin (a capacity which, prima facie, appears minimal).
No? So, you’re saying Indian Navy will replace 41 Sea Kings with (let me count that again) 147 Sea Hawks?
Yes it will. What about it do you find surprising enough to overuse emoticons?
The Indian Navy used to have 5 destroyers. Now they’ll have 10 of them. Used to have 9 frigates, now it’ll have upwards of 16. Save for a brief spell used to have only one carrier, now it’ll have two, and eventually three. Factor in an increased tonnage and that’s far more than just a three-fold expansion. Why shouldn’t the aerial wing be proportionately expanded as well?
The Pakistani Navy is going from 5 SSKs to 11 boats. China has a rapidly expanding fleet of 40 modern SSKs and half a dozen SSNs. The undersea threat to IN ops is clearly not stagnant either.
VnomadOf course, for some reason that does not apply to the Mi-28N..
You obviously don’t mind assumptions whenever they fit your bill.. But let me do it your way… Source for that claim?
For what claim? That Iraq is the midst of a civil war? Or that US staff would cost more than Russian staff to retain in such circumstances? Why would you ask me to prove that – seeing as we’re discussing your claim that the RH & Boeing proposals were identical (followed by a generalization of Iraq’s situation to all other countries)?
NHI is predominantly Airbus, not AW..
They still can’t cut AW out of the picture. In addition, the Indian Navy was involved in a bitter dispute with NHI before the competition regarding the validity of Sikorsky’s participation that will have left an impact (and may have even played a role in the S-70’s selection).
A big controversy has hit the acquisition of 16 Multi-Role Helicopters for the Indian Navy, a deal estimated to be worth around $1 billion, with the Indian Navy accusing European vendor NH Industries (NHI) of trying to “mislead” the defence ministry, “twist” the Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQRs), “falsify” the Request for Proposal (RFP) and cause delays with “unreasonable queries/concerns”. Documents accessed by this newspaper show the Navy criticised the European firm after it raised doubts about the helicopter of its American rival Sikorsky. This new US-European battle for an Indian defence deal is leading to a lot of acrimony.
In its final recommendations and in response to NHI’s allegations, the Navy said: “It emerges that NHI is attempting to mislead the higher authorities and cause delays… with unreasonable queries/concerns. The Indian Navy has evaluated the (NHI) NH90 and (Sikorsky) S70B helicopters, and considers both platforms meet the NSQRs specified in… the RFP.” On NHI’s queries on the Sikorsky helicopter’s “sensor functions” and “fitment of both external and internal fuel tanks”, the Navy said: “It is clearly evident that NHI have twisted the NSQR, thereby falsifying the Request for Proposal on the MRH with an aim to misleading the higher authorities MoD”. NHI had raised doubts on several other features. It said: “(The NSQR) requires no failure of single system should lead to a catastrophic failure. NHI would like to understand how this is demonstrated since the S70B does not have dual redundancy built in to all aircraft flight control systems.”
What was the total number of Sea Kings procured by Indian Navy? 15As + 20Bs + 6Cs?
Maybe. Doesn’t make a difference with respect to how many S-70s are required.
VnomadI have.. The Iraqi figures are directly comparable..
No, it doesn’t because it is the same country, the same requirement and at the same time..
This is an assumption. The only possible reason to charge an eye-popping $200 mil/unit for the AH-64E (a figure completely out of sync with all its other sales) is the cost of OEM support required (since the flyaway cost of the aircraft doesn’t vary). Both because of limitations of the operator’s in-house capabilities as well as the working conditions for the OEM’s staff (everything costs more in a warzone). Its quite likely that Boeing’s premiums in that respect are much higher than RH’s.
None of this is an issue with an operator like the IAF.
I don’t know that.. Don’t various squadrons of the same govt body share the stock of spares?
Spares and other consumables yes. The handful of spare engines OTOH would be stored at the squadron’s premises (just three per squadron) and kept with it on operational deployments/exercises.
Certainly possible but I am not sure if they will be overhauled in India, at all.
Its bound to be eventually, unless the NH90 scores a huge upset win. (Unlikely in light of AgustaWestland’s corruption-related woes, frayed diplomatic relations with Italy and the S-70’s in-service status at that point.)
That’s OK.. I could easily understand 24 units… But 123? :confused:
Take a look at the requirements for already sanctioned ships (keep in mind, all Seakings are slated for retirement) –
2 x [3 x P-15 + 3 x P-15A + 3 x P-15B + 3 x P-17 + 7 x P-17A] = 38 units
1 x [6 x Talwar + 4 x P-28 + 6 x P-28A] = 16 units (+ possible 6 x Talwar II)
10 x Vikramaditya + 10 x Vikrant = 20 units
That’s 80 aircraft required onboard. Add in shore-based units and those assigned to follow-on classes and 123 is a fairly reasonable number (one would expect it grow further still).
VnomadFrom memory the statements at the time was 60 billion SEK to operate & upgrade 60 Gripen C/D for 20 years and 30 billion more to do same with new Gripen E’s. Flyaway cost of the Gripen E in this case would imply 500 million SEK a pop.
The US extreme volatility of central bank rates do toss the US PESO on a roller-coaster so looking a common exchange rate corridor the cost for Gripen E would be 59 to 78 mUSD.
With the F-35A at $80-85 flyaway.. I think Finland will probably roll the dice on that (even with the Gripen E at the lower end of the spectrum).
VnomadIt is you who has no evidence.. Asking nonsensical questions for which you, too, have no answers is hardly a way to win an argument..
Seeing as the original claim wrt to Mi-28’s hugely lower cost was yours, its incumbent upon you to support that with evidence. And thus far you haven’t.
Algeria is not paying for 36, but for 42 Mi-28NE and most likely below $3bn, we don’t know exact figures.
Foxtrott Chinook is a ~$60mil class vehicle, that makes Indian Apaches hitting $100mil mark..
A $60 mil CH-47F would put the AH-64E at $95 mil which isn’t a great deal more than the $70 mil that you estimated for the Algerian sale. Particularly given the scale of the accompanying weapons complement (812 AGM-114L + 542 AGM-114R + 245 Stinger).
That is as far as one can go because comparing figures for India and Algeria leads us nowhere, obviously..
Same applies to Iraq.
I have severe doubts that Indian Army and Navy are exchanging assets, let alone doing any commonality exercises.
I equally doubt the Mi-17 (of varied specs) and Mi-25/35 squadrons maintain a common pool of engines, in practice. More likely each squadron would have its installed units plus its own stock of an adequate number of spares (6 spares for 22 units in the Apache’s case).
Now the engines may be overhauled at the same facility, but then that would also apply to the T700s (as indeed it does for the RD-33s operated by the IAF & IN).
What exactly is “essential” on that? I am slowly getting impression that for you the only essential purchases are those involving US-made hardware. Rafale is BS, FGFA is BS but hey, we urgently need F-35s and 123+24 ASW helos.. For what, for God’s sake?
An sub hunting helicopter is essential for a ASW frigate/destroyer. That should be a rather obvious fact (that has nothing to do with where the equipment originates), especially since the primary threat to the IN comes from PN/PLAN submarines rather than surface units.
Why do you think the P-15A (Kolkata), P-17 (Shivalik) as well as the incoming P-15B & P-17A classes, have hangar facilities for two Seakings/S-70s? (In contrast to the Type 45, Type 52D, Horizon & Atago classes.)
VnomadLifecycle cost of $180 mil including acquisition, spares, training, fuel, upgrades and weapons for 8,000 hours of operation. :p
VnomadYes, this is exactly what I am assuming, given the fact that both offers were running in a parallel manner. Unless the Iraqis suddenly completely changed the requirements, the deals can be considered pretty much comparable. Or do you have a better base for comparison?
Not having a better base for comparison is no reason to start making assumptions without evidence. What does Boeing charge for field support in the second most violent country in the world? What does RH charge? Why would you assume this same ratio applies to everyone else?
You might have missed the Apache’s price for Iraq..
Who do you think I was referring to by ‘Arab country in the midst of a civil war’?
There’s Iraq. And there’s everyone else. In terms of military proficiency, does Iraq have more in common with India, than do Poland, Indonesia & South Korea, all AH-64E operators.
This “22 helos instead of ~40 for the same price” referred to India, not Iraq (I assume?). With Algeria paying $3bn for 36 Mi-28NEs, as per your estimate, and India paying $3bn for 37 helicopters (22 AH-64E + 15 CH-47F), your argument about hugely lopsided prices doesn’t hold water (even if the support packages were skewed).
I wouldn’t hold my breath here yet, especially with that follow-on order.. It’s India..
Hold your breadth or don’t. The initial order is fairly close to being sealed. So the logistical commonality with the Apaches is assured.
As for the follow-on order, it will happen. May be delayed, hell.. will be delayed. But (unlike the MMRCA, MTA and whatnot) its an essential purchase.
123 Blackhawks? We’re talking ~$6 bn here.. Don’t be silly..
Much smarter to send out destroyers and frigates (worth far more than $6 bn) to hunt enemy submarines, without any integral helo support? In any event, this isn’t relevant to the RuAF.
VnomadI would hate to compare figures from different deals as they vary way too much.. But I can include the comparison of figures for Iraq.. 24x AH-64E for $4.8bil vs. 30x Mi-28NE for ~$2.0bil. That is some difference, IMHO.
You’re assuming without evidence the conditions of both the above were identical.
There is also the Algerian figure – $3.7bil for 42x Mi-28NE with 6x Mi-26T2 and 39x Mi-171Sh upgrade.. Hard to substract the Havoc figures from there but I think the Halos together with the rework of Hips could cost around $700mil in total..
That would put the unit cost of the Mi-28 at over $70 mil, despite the economies of a larger order. Doesn’t help make the case for it being hugely cheaper than the AH-64. Not unless you’re determined to use an Arab country in the midst of a civil war as ideal datum for cost, instead of South Korea, India, Poland or Indonesia i.e. countries with professional militaries that don’t require extensive hand-holding by the OEM.
Agreed.. but India doesn’t operate any S-70, right? 😎
India does not operate any AH-64E right now either. Your point? The initial S-70 contract (for 24 aircraft) is expected to be signed this year. Its been in the works for years. And it’ll eventually be co-produced by TASL (which is already a major subcontractor on the S-92) for the the 123 aircraft follow-on deal (unless there is some huge meltdown in Boeing-MoD relations).
VnomadChoosing a design based on individual characteristics, which you then may never put to use and ending up with 22 helos instead of ~40 for the same price may be a questionable choice by itself.
Source? Using the Korean sale as a benchmark that would put the Mi-28N at ~$25 mil/unit. Sounds unlikely given that the Mi-17 would run a new operator that much, despite being a far simpler aircraft produced at a vastly larger scale.
(The South Koreans ordered 36 AH-64Es through the FMS route at $45 mil apiece.)
Especially if you already own full stocks of engines and drivetrain spares for your Mi-171s or Mi-35s.
I don’t think it was a factor, but for the record, the same will also apply to Apache via S-70B.
VnomadFor 36 airframes that works out at around 220 million Euros per airframe? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to buy F-35s – how much did the USAF pay for its F-22s?
Remove the 50% offsets and you fall to 150 mil / Plane. With support, weapons & infrastructure it’s not nearly as expensive anymore.
South Korea: $7bn for 40 F-35As. Plus 50% offsets. Minus weapons & long term support.
Would put it broadly in the same ballpark (after the subsequent drops in the F-35’s price).
VnomadOf course it has changed… there are no clause to force HAL as a manufacturer anymore. knowing that the budget increase was due to HAL costs.
I imagine it will be cheaper if the aircraft stops at Reliance for a nice coat of grey paint and ‘Made-in-India’ stenciling before delivery it to the IAF.
the other thing that changed also is now that the 36 Rafale deal is / will be signed, anything else than Rafale will be handicapped by the fix cost of another logistic chain.
Constrained by the fixed cost of a fresh logistical chain. Dassault on the other hand will be constrained by the cost of building a brand new production line in India… assuming they build it. And that’s assuming there is huge new contract in the works.
Then there are the aircraft that wouldn’t face logistical hurdles and are already being built (or scheduled to be built) domestically – Tejas, Su-30MKI & PAK FA.
I guess a big part of the Indian deal will be paid with UK taxpayer money anyway, so who cares.
Weird sort of ideas one hears on Keypub nowadays. Or maybe I just don’t get sophisticated humour.
Sign In
