VnomadI see what your saying, the foreign sales are not firmed orders yet only the ones from Brazil and Brazil was responsible for the delay in testing because of lack of funds. This seems to be a good plane but unless it gets some decent sized firm orders fairly soon it likely wont achieve the critical mass on the production side needed to compete on price with C130J.
In addition, the C-130J also has the first movers advantage. Its already buttoned up most of the market –
Asia-Pacific: Australia, South Korea, India
Middle East: Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Qatar
Europe: Denmark, Italy, Norway, U.K.
Others: Canada, India
Then there the Eastern European states that’ll prefer to buy American such as Poland and Romania.
Add in the operators committed to the A400M: Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Turkey & Malaysia.
The inescapable fact is that there are very few big spenders left with China, Russia and Japan preferring to buy domestic. Forget 60, given the lack of pressing military threats and the state of the Brazilian economy (and the long ardous rebuilding process that is sure to follow), the program will be hard pressed to touch 45 units IMO.
VnomadWheeler: so what? Most F-35 reports from early stages of the project were wrong so many times (performance, timelines, cost..), why can’t be POGO?
Picard: again, so what? Is it forbidden to like Rafale when you do the reporting on the F-35? Does all F-35 reporting have to be done by F-35 fans?
Hartung: so, he did criticize LM for corruption before, in what way does this disqualify him?
None of the four have engaged in any reporting whatsoever. No facts pertaining to the South Korean contract have been ‘revealed’. All they say is – “we think the F-35 is a bad plane, so we suspect the involvement of political pressure”.
That’s an opinion. Actually its less than an opinion since it doesn’t build upon any facts. Its just plain speculation that has no citation/reference value at all.
Vnomad^^^ That really proves the point that Testing is to be conducted in most cases in India and only in some rare cases they may be conducted in vendor premises abroad.
The DPP doesn’t mention ‘rare cases’ anywhere. That’s all you.
All big ticket item purchase would 100 % end up running its trials in India for sure. Its likely the small item and at MOD discretion it would be conducted abroad.
The DPP doesn’t mention ‘small item’ anywhere. That’s also all you.
Good Luck with any fighter purchase or major purchase not getting trialed in India 😀
Done.
Indian Navy buys 8 Boeing P8-I for $2.1+ billion – January 2009
The article proves what my original post said – local testing is NOT mandatory and the service can, with the permission of the MoD, carry out field trials at the vendor’s premises. This may be required in cases where there are issues relating to “export restrictions, security related issues, availability of testing infrastructure/platforms“, which is certainly applicable here.
You really think the PAK FA is coming for field trials to India on a NCNC basis?
VnomadThe flight testing process is preferred (especially in a multi-vendor purchase) but it is not mandatory, as long as the service is reasonably satisfied with the viability of the proposed configuration.* Unlike the MMRCA process, its not being measured against a check-list of required characteristics.
There is really a process laid for selection of a new type that including RFI/RFP Tendering , Flight Testing Done in India under all condition IAF flies , Negotiations of TOT , Lic Production and with recent DPP Emphasis by MOD for Make in India and Indiginisation this has become more complex and time consuming as can be seen even with Rafale deal.
Please show me where in the DPP does it say that only fighters need be flight tested and other aircraft are to deemed to be immune to varied climatic conditions. Don’t ‘interpret’ regulations.
Please show me where these tests are not needed …..Show me why MMRCA type operational in host airforce for many years had to go through these comprehensive trials and some even failed on some trials
DEFENCE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE – 2016 – Page 21-22
60. FET will be conducted by the user, only pertaining to conditions where the equipment are most likely to be deployed. In other conditions where the probability of deployment is not high, appropriate certifications confirming the functional effectiveness under such conditions may be obtained; in cases where applicable, simulations based testing may be resorted to. All weather testing should be carried out only in cases in which such testing are absolutely essential. All the requirements for FET must be unambiguously stated in the trial methodology included as part of the RFP.
65. FET will normally be conducted on NCNC basis. There may be cases where trials are not visualised or trials need to be conducted abroad in vendor premises. Where field evaluation is not feasible, there may be possibility of conducting evaluation through computer simulation. In such cases, the exact scope of the trials shall be included in the Statement of Case while seeking the AoN. The SCAPCC shall debate the scope of trials and recommend suitable options to be approved by the SCAPCHC/DPB/DAC, as applicable.
66. There may be cases when, during the process of trials in India, it emerges that certain validations need to be carried out abroad in the vendor premises. This may be necessitated due to export restrictions, security related issues, availability of testing infrastructure/platforms or such like reasons. Permission for such validations to be carried out abroad would have to be sought from the Raksha Mantri. Similar actions as given in paragraphs 58 – 65 (Chapter II), would be taken in the cases where Trial Teams are deputed abroad for evaluation purposes.
67. In certain cases, particularly in those involving integration of systems or sensitive equipment, the Acquisition Wing can depute a Multi-Disciplinary Technical Delegation abroad for evaluation and an Empowered Committee for negotiation purpose; both could be combined as a Multi-Disciplinary Committee. The Technical Delegation should have representatives, on need basis, from the user service, DRDO, Maintenance agency, QA agency and the TMs. In addition, AMs, and FMs or their representatives will be included in the Empowered Committee. Such committee would be constituted after due approval of the DPB.
68. After the acceptance of TEC Report, all selected vendors would be asked to provide their equipment for trials in India, except when trials are to be conducted at vendor premises. Any vendor failing to produce equipment for trials by due date would normally be given a grace period of 15 days to produce the equipment for trials. An additional grace period of up to 30 days
may be obtained by SHQs from their respective Vice Chiefs or DG-ICG, keeping in view the practical time period necessary for trials. Equal opportunity would be provided to all vendors while granting such grace period. Wherever feasible, the entire trials viz. user, technical, Maintainability Evaluation Trials (MET) and EMI/EMC would be conducted simultaneously in order to save time. If the equipment is not fielded at the start of trials, then the vendor/equipment would not be considered at a later point of time.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
FET: Field Evaluation Trial
NCNC: No Cost No Commitment
SCAPCC: Services Capital Acquisition Categorization Committee
SCAPCHC: Services Capital Acquisition Plan Categorization Higher Committee
Vnomadhttps://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/on-f-35-export-success/
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/544679.html
No source in there anywhere.
The Hankyoreh article quotes –
1. Andrew Feinstein, “global arms industry critic and author of The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade”,
2. William Hartung, “director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute and author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military Industrial Complex”
3. Winslow Wheeler, a now retired Pogolesian
All of whom did nothing but engage in speculation about the sale.
The other is a blog post by Picard, a Keypub member and disciple of that blowhard (“designer of F-16”) Pierre Sprey (they might even be the same person). And it provides no evidence of Korea succumbing to ‘Washington political pressure’.
VnomadJust look at the reaction of Washington after Israelis started to demand switch from F-35s to F-15s. That isn’t normal..
‘Switch implies the F-15I orders are in lieu of more F-35s. Why didn’t we hear those reports first time around i.e. six years ago when the F-35 order was first placed? Why didn’t we hear this when the follow-on order was placed in 2014? Why is it that the only opposition to it has been from certain sections of the Israeli cabinet, with the IDF’s support remain strong as ever?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Israeli air force debates purchase of F-35 fighter planes
A complicated argument is underway in the innermost sanctum of Israel’s Security Cabinet. On one hand, several decision-makers are asking tough questions about Israel’s plans to purchase F-35 stealth fighter jets. Even some defense officials do not wholeheartedly support the size and scope of the deal. One the other hand, most of the military establishment, particularly the air force, supports the deal. These officials consider the purchase vital to maintaining Israel’s aerial superiority in the Middle East, a task that only gets tougher as the years go by.
If the third stage of Israel’s deal with Lockheed Martin is approved, the total number of stealth fighters in the Israeli air force will reach 50. Two squadrons have already been purchased, and Israel has the option to acquire 17 more.
While the next squadron of 17 jets has yet to be approved by the Cabinet, the government has already approved the purchase of all the ancillary equipment for them. Right now, the debate is over whether Israel should complete the purchase of the jets. The first delivery of stealth jets is scheduled to reach Israel by the end of this year.
In the course of the debate, various sources have been flooding Israeli decision-makers with presentations, statistics and analyses showing that the stealth fighter’s performance is much lower than what one would expect from an aircraft that costs more than $100 million. According to these claims, the jet has a limited range of just 1,200 kilometers (746 miles), problems with its stealth capacity and a diminished weapons load. The biggest deficiency of all, however, is US insistence on keeping the jet’s source code to itself. It will not allow any of the countries that purchase the jet to know what really takes place in the aircraft’s impenetrable “brain,” or to control its operating system.
The Israeli air force rejects all of these allegations outright. The top pilots and experts in what is considered the best air force in the world have examined and tested the F-35’s performance and were satisfied with it. The commander of the Israeli air force, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, even spoke with his Italian counterparts, who took the jet on long flights (including from Italy to the United States) and reported that its range is significantly greater than what is now being claimed.
Given how complicated and sensitive Israel’s relationship with the United States has been over the past few years, Israel’s air force has complete independence in all matters pertaining to the handling of the jet. A senior Israeli defense official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “The stealth fighter will not be leaving Israel except for operational strikes. We have no intention of sending it for maintenance in the US or Turkey, where its engines are manufactured. The Americans have come toward us in this respect, and we have no complaints against them.”
Another sensitive issue has been the installation of Israeli weapons and arms on the fighter jet, but this, too, has been resolved. As part of the understanding, the Americans agreed to include an F-35 “test jet” with the second squadron. It will have special equipment installed to allow Israel to run practice exercises and test all of the changes and additions it plans on incorporating into the stealth fighter, just as it does with all its other fighter jets.
Overall, the Israeli air force is pleased with the deal. Another senior source said, also on condition of anonymity, “There is no other way to maintain our qualitative advantage. This is undoubtedly the most advanced fighter jet in the world today. Given the current situation, Israel cannot allow itself not to acquire it.”
VnomadThe RN flies aircraft off ships. The RAF flies aircraft off land. Been that way for a long time. See RAF Coastal Command in WW2.
Until 1939 the entire Fleet Air Arm was a part of the RAF. Wouldn’t have been too hard to take over the maritime patrol role. Also, ‘the RN flies from ships and RAF from land’ ought to apply to the F-35B as well instead of jointly manning the squadrons (with the first one being an RAF raising).
VnomadBTW I was wondering why the MPAs are operated by the air forces instead of the navies in UK, Australia and Canada. I can understand that for countries without a significant history of naval aviation or where the Navy is a junior or otherwise less important service, but that certainly doesn’t apply here. One would think anti-submarine warfare would be exclusive domain of the navy/navies.
VnomadThe US made fabulous planes in the past… why? because there was competition not only against the USSR, but between the manufacturers as well. Today, LM gas the monopoly in that business, and, strangely, their program, between unreached capabilities, delays and cost overruns is far from being an example if “how to do it”…
Unreached capabilities, delays or cost overruns were uncommon in Cold War military projects?
For europeans, to get a good platform, with right cost and performance, they should set their requirements and let manufacturers compete to deliver… the winner takes the market, at the defined price, period
Seeing as rest of Europe doesn’t really share French feelings vis a vis US military products, this mode of production will likely result in the future European fighter being an American type.
VnomadStarategically speaking ( and i’m not specifically ralking about F-XX) Its been twice the rokaf rejected the winner of a competition due to Washington political pressures…
So.. the ROKAF picked the F-15 because of Washington political pressure and then unpicked the F-15 because of Washington political pressure?
VnomadThe Koreans, indeed, wanted to purchase additional F-15s as the F-35 option deemed too costly and risky. It looks as if it has taken a lot of effort to re-structure the requirements and tailor fit them to the only possible option (F-35) and that effort has cost someone a lot of corrupt money.. This, of course, can’t be easily “proven” on the level of investigative journalism..
Especially the Israelis are a rather bad example as they seem quite reluctant to accept more F-35s and would rather prefer F-15s, instead, quoting range and payload as major factors..
Why did the Israelis order 33 F-35Is then? Why did the Norwegians, Dutch, Japanese and Australians? Why is the RCAF plugging away for the ‘costly and risky’ F-35? Also, if the Danes were to order the F-35, would that too be an example of corruption?
Alleging absolute levels of corruption (i.e. every ROKAF chief and the entirely of the MND) without evidence would have been more believable, if everyone else wasn’t on the same path.
VnomadSimple question here –
Are we willing to let a UCAV engage in warfare autonomously? Truly autonomously, no user input in-flight. Are AI systems that reliable?
If not, how do we intend to communicate with it? Satellites can be easily downed. UHF data-links have bandwidth restrictions and can be jammed. Uni-directional data-links are range-limited.
VnomadNo idea. I have no idea what is involved in designing or writing aircraft software. In the same way as someone who grows bananas won’t have any idea about what can go wrong and how that could most simply/quickly be remedied when growing mushrooms.
How are you so confident then that software issues can’t be addressed with software patches?
Market leaders like Microsoft (and many others) have a tradition of bringing immature (in the sense of not properly tested) software to the consumer market and letting the consumer find the bugs. It saves money on testing, since you don’t have to pay the users for testing your software. Since Windows 10 is free, it would be difficult to sue Microsoft because the software supplied did not work properly. If it worked in terms of an operating system (files were saved correctly, keyboard inputs were reflected in what was written to the screen etc) then I concede you can argue it works. But if it shuts down every 4 or 8 or 16 hours I would say it is not fit for purpose and does not work.
This is a qualified response. At odds with your initial (rhetorical?) ‘does-work/does-not-work’ classification.
Also for the record, given that the average fighter jet flies.. maybe 180 hrs every year, and my laptop gets that much use that every month, a more honest analogy would be with a reference to ‘a shutdown every 40 or 80 or 160 hrs’. And yes, with restarts taking just a minute, most people can live with that.
Not having a go at F-35 here but it is my opinion that if you design a system that shuts down every few hours, then that system stops the aircraft working so it (the software/aircraft system concerned) does not work.
If you were driving your car along and the brakes stopped working (but only for a few seconds/minutes now and then), would you say your car worked? Or if the indicators only stopped working now and then when you engaged 3rd gear?
If your brakes stop working you’re liable to crash your car. Do you think the F-35’s FCS crashes ‘every few hours’?
And if we go with your assumptions, no fighter jet in the world works. Will stand you stand by that inference?
The goal is to get to one event every eight or nine flight hours, which is in line with legacy airplanes, he said.
VnomadThat I cannot know. Even if I were given all the source code and I worked 1,000 hours a day it might be several decades or centuries before I could answer that question, if ever.
Fine, I’ll rephrase. What software issue can a generic aircraft face that cannot be remedied with a software patch/update.
If software does not do what was specified, it does not work. If I write a piece of software that calculates the payroll for the work force based on hours, pay rates for different jobs undertaken, whether the pay rate is hiked to a different rate because it’s on a public holiday, at the weekend, during the night etc and the software says Joe is due to be paid $999.99 or $1000.01 when the correct amount is $1,000, then my software does not work as it should do. It does not work. Needs fixing. My fault. I am liable for all costs due to my software not working.
Wouldn’t I just love to work for the military where if it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, they’ll still accept it by changing the goalposts to say it can fall a little bit short of calculating correctly! Or accept it on the basis that I will have sorted the problem by the next version. Or accept it on the basis that I will be able to come up with a patch for the current version. Who cares anyway – it’s only taxpayers’ money I’m wasting by not getting it right. At least, got that right, didn’t I? ;)]
I downloaded Windows 10 last year. Over the next few months, it was updated with numerous patches, with major update last week that took over an hour to install. Would I therefore be justified in saying that my OS hasn’t worked for the last six months? And assuming that future patches are inbound, that it still ‘does not work’? What if calculator app kept crashing, would that lead to the conclusion that ‘Windows does not work’?
In fact, if we create a binary solution to all such questions, we may find the majority of fighter jets in the world ‘do not work’, facing some bug, gremlin, technical blip whatever.
VnomadProof please.
Quoting from an earlier post of mine –
The Rafale’s development costs was estimated to be Fr 60 billion (link) in 2000 (30% higher than intended). That’s about €9 bn or $12 bn (at the then exchange rate). That was fifteen years ago. Assuming a dollar rate of inflation, that $12 bn is equivalent to $16 bn today. That’s not including cost overruns incurred between the development of the F1 & F3 variant.
In 2011, the UK NAO estimated the development cost to be £6.7 bn, twice as high as originally intended (link). That’s $10.7 bn. About $11.3 bn with inflation. Since, the UK sponsored 1/3rd of the Eurofighter’s development cost, that puts the R&D tag for the entire project at about $34 bn.
Sign In
