I can’t really grasp how such massive savings in relation to the capital needed to effect them have not already been made. Take the first example: savings of $65,000,000 in manufacturing 1,000 F-35A at a cost of $652,000 invested… yet it has not been done??? It seems like defence contractors don’t have much idea of how to run a business efficiently. Or should I say, have little interest.

Not really. I added up all the savings projected from the listed activities, and got a figure of $243,000/aircraft. Even if we round that up to $300K/unit, over the existing production run (~150 aircraft), that results in total savings of $45 mil (had all these steps been taken in the beginning). That’s a minuscule sum compared to the aircraft’s development budget ($60bn).

Of course, those savings are substantial when compared to the investment required, but keep in mind that many of these are an outcome of the learning process involved in setting up this kind of production line. More important IMO, are the projected savings from modifications/upgrades designed to reduce the operating cost of the aircraft (I’ll see if I can dig up the article describing that aspect).

Today the F-35 is the latest toy available… make your conclusions..

Sounds like the conclusion that the air forces of 12 countries are wrong and you’re right.. 😉

For me, it will be fine for its primary job for countries who have other platforms to do the rest.. for others, it is not what they need from simply operational standpoint

All those countries can standardize on the FA-50, which can also double up as an AJT/LIFT. The F-35 is intended for those countries who’re looking for more.

Saab cannot transfer the IP for the Selex radar, skyward irst, britecloud and not for the engines etc….Anything the developed to make those systems function on their platform…that’s another story.

And plenty more besides, assuming its built on a pattern similar to the legacy Gripen.

You can set a minimum offset value as percentage of the deal but you still think of how that is going to manifest itself. That’s not the purview of the military to figure out….at all….not even a little bit. Given the investment we made in the F35 project and the potential (non guaranteed contracts) that might result in Canada, the evaluation of industrial (and tax revenue related) benefits have to be balanced against program costs. If not, you should just ignore the supposed 11 billion dollars in Canadian contracts from the mix right? You can’t have it both ways.

So have the govt certify the offsets (i.e whether the value-addition is legit). And fixing a ceiling for the cost of the program pretty much takes care of the other aspect.

So the assumption is that the Liberal are politicizing the acquisition and the conservatives were not? Hello? What? “11 BILLION dollars in business”. “Will crater the defense industry”

The conservatives lied about the intention to sole source, lied about costs, lied about the decision to sole source again, lied about costs again, and got called out twice, and then finally decided the optics were too horrific to continue.

Who said anything about the Conservatives? We’re the talking about the military, specifically the RCAF. It doesn’t have ideological blinkers on now, does it?

I do chuckle when I hear how irritated that some people are that there is a competition. Particularly people that are not paying for the plane and benefiting from being defended by it. I can only think of two reasons for that….pomposity or personal benefit.

I think a competition is an excellent idea. As long as specifying the technical requirements thereof, is left to the professionals.

Also IAF has been very hush hush about what the Mirage 2000-I upgrade includes.

Does it have the RDY-2 or RDY-3 radar for instance

Pretty sure its an RDY-2. The RDY-3 is a scaled down variant for smaller aircraft, if I’m not mistaken.

You have a point. But making LCA better than F16 will be gradual.

Its never going to be better. All the stuff planned for the Mk1A is also planned for the F-16V. Similarly, the F-16 will never be better than the Rafale. The Tejas’ USP is its cost effectiveness. At less than half the cost of a new build F-16C/D (and cheaper than a Mirage MLU) if its provides 80% of the capability, its an ideal purchase for an air force looking for a bump in numbers. Focusing on unnecessary leaps in performance (vs increasing the production rate) is a counter-productive idea.

“French offficial” sounds like a very reliable soyrce… did he have russian or american accent? ^^

Oh come now.. its rather obvious that all this was said in a French accent –

1. “If some people in the MoD do not want to allow the Rafale deal to go through, so be it. We are currently building it for Egypt and Qatar, and we could have another customer in Malaysia.”

2. “If you don’t want the Rafale, go ahead and build the F-16 here. You can build it in India and supply it to Pakistan also.”

3. “The Rafale project is commercially viable based on the numbers that the French military requires, even if there is not a single export order.”

4. “The government of France is standing behind the sale. Surely India is not asking for a bank guarantee when it has the word of the French government?”

5. “In 1917, when the United States abandoned its isolationism and sent a division of troops to France to fight in World War I, it was not because there was some document with a clause that required them to fight. It was because of a common strategic aim. New Delhi and Paris must have a common strategic aim on the Rafale.”

Hell he might even be a member of Keypub for all we know. 😉

For front-line combat aircraft? Has India ever done that before?

They apparently would like to start now.

I doubt it. I suspect that what the US government can get agreement for on a transport aircraft support contract is not the same as what Dassault (or even the French state) can get agreement for on a front line combat aircraft support contract.

What does the role in wartime, have to do with supervision and depot maintenance in peacetime?

Also, I don’t know about France but UK has certainly been implementing an availability-based support mechanism –

Britain’s Future Contracting for Availability Approach
Britain Hammers Out Through-Life Support Framework for Tornado Fleet
UK’s Eurofighters Fly To Availability-Based Contracting