Sorry to butt in but..

They always have been and the F-35 is a nerd’s dream, it is a trip to gadget land. But in any realistic assessment, we all know that too much avionics can lead to an extremely complicated future for the plane.

You’re reference to the aircraft’s avionics as ‘gadgets’ suggests that you believe that there is a degree of frivolity involved. Which is fine if you would describe the Captor-E, SPECTRA, TIDLS, Striker II etc as ‘gadgets’ as well, and a double standard if not.

You must of course be aware also that aircraft avionics are not kept up to date with commercial avionics. F-16s were delivered for a number of years to customers with the equivalent of a 486 CPU. Not only that but since it was a militarised and standardized version of the chip it was on production (or on stock) for a very long time before it was replaced. Similar with the F-35, the avionics have been finalized for some time now (I hope for their sake) but how long ago was this finalisation?

Take a look a the tech refreshes associated with the aircraft’s avionics. It also employs a far greater proportion of COTS than any preceding fighter.

How soon before updated equipment pods will make legacy fighters a more cost efficient option for operations? (i don’t suggest the purchase of legacy fighters, simply that it would be cheaper to fly one for a specific mission with a new mission pod that use the F-35. There is to this day no guarantee that a flight hour of the F-35 will be cheaper than any other average fighter out there. Some fear it might be more expensive actually.

For strike in uncontested airspace the most cost effective option is probably the MQ-9. And it will be worthwhile to invest in a larger fleet of UAVs for unconventional/low-grade operations.

*Stealth for me is a complicated and somewhat alarming issue. When only one side has Stealth then that is OK even if the benefit is marginal (claims are that it isn’t).
What if both sides have stealth? The fundamental flaw in that reasoning is that proponents of the F-35 feel that only US radars will be able to pick up other stealth planes. A flawed and dangerous logic. If the rhetoric is true and radars of any design are useless in picking up VLO targets in reasonable for BVR and safe distances, then what is the benefit of stealth in a world where both sides have it? You are effectively returning air combat back to WWI when pilots had to do visual interceptions (IRST in our case).

Radars will be able to pick up (non-radiating) stealth aircraft but at vastly reduced ranges (perhaps bordering on WVR). Question is, are you better off if only the opposing side fields stealth aircraft? That the other side may also have a gun is hardly justification for one to enter a fight with just a knife.

*There have been people on this forum in this thread I believe who claimed the price will go down by 4% every year in production.
To show you how ridiculous this claim is, I want you to follow this reasoning, let’s say (for argument’s sake) that the current flyaway price for the F-35A is currently at 130 million per example. Starting from 2016 and assuming a 30 year production run the F-35 (4% reduction every year) will cost just under 40 million a piece. And that is without inflation and any changes. Is this normal? Of course not, the F-16 was not more expensive when it went into production, it was more expensive near the end of its production. That is the natural progression of things. If you start high, you stay high, but LM seems to be the only one not noticing this.

There is factor of diminishing returns but here the cost has been consistently been falling before the production ‘ramp-up’. As the production increases, the fall in costs will only accelerate. Also, cost only need to fall for another three or four years (not 30 years) before target costs are met ($108M to $85M).

Anyway, as a final thought, I have never seen so much affection towards something that has never shown anything in regards to its skill or usefulness. If the F-35 proves to be a good plane, fair enough. Nobody loses, but if it fails to deliver, the voice of the sceptics automatically become warnings that nobody paid attention to with grave results.

I have never seen an aircraft as widely (and more often than not… ignorantly) criticized by the media as the F-35. Perhaps its just short memories and the advent of the information age. In that respect, previous programs like the F-16 were fortunate in that ‘Lawn Dart’ attacks didn’t happen in the internet era.

Pentagon Warns McDonnell It May Cancel C-17 Program

By CALVIN SIMS

Published: May 12, 1993

The Pentagon warned the McDonnell Douglas Corporation yesterday that it would end the development of the C-17 cargo plane unless the contractor overhauled the troubled program, which has been hit by delays, cost overruns and technical problems.

In a letter to John F. McDonnell, the chairman of McDonnell Douglas, John M. Deutch, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, said that without “strong resolve” on the part of the management of the company to meet contract requirements, “the C-17 program cannot be continued.”

The letter, which the Pentagon released to the news media, was the first indication that the Clinton Administration was seriously considering canceling the $40 billion cargo plane program, which is more than $1 billion over budget and caught in a web of contract disputes.

Last month, Defense Secretary Les Aspin dismissed an Air Force general who had headed the C-17 program and disciplined three other contracting officials after the Defense Department Inspector General found that the Air Force had illegally funneled almost $500 million to McDonnell Douglas for unfinished C-17 work.

At the time, it appeared that McDonnell Douglas had escaped any fallout, and investors were relieved. But Wall Street analysts said yesterday that the C-17 and McDonnell Douglas faced uncertain futures. Shares of the company fell $1, to $61.875, on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday.

Cancellation of the C-17, which McDonnell Douglas has been developing since the mid-1980’s, would be a big setback for the company, the Air Force and the regions where the plane is built. McDonnell Douglas, the largest military contractor in the United States, had said the C-17 could eventually account for 20 percent of its revenues. The program employs 13,000 people.

The C-17, which would replace the outdated C-141, has twice the capacity of the C-141, can land on shorter runways and requires half the crew. The Air Force said it needed the C-17 to meet the growing need for humanitarian airlift missions.

McDonnell Douglas, which is based in St. Louis, expressed confidence yesterday that the C-17 would not be canceled.

“We have assured the Deputy Secretary of our full cooperation in the action detailed in his correspondence,” the company said. “We remain confident that the C-17 program is viable and will result in production of an aircraft used in the armed services in the 1990’s and beyond.”

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, Mr. Deutch, a former provost of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the handling of the C-17 program by the Administration was “especially important because it will define for Congress, the public, and the defense contracting community how we will manage the department’s major acquisition programs.”

Officials of the Air Force and McDonnell Douglas said the production, scheduling and technical problems of the C-17 had been resolved. Indeed, McDonnell Douglas announced last month that the C-17 program had turned the corner and would post a profit in the second quarter, after losing $1 billion over several years. The company was required to absorb the loss under the terms of the contract. ‘Cost and Schedule Uncertain’

“I cannot report that this program has turned the corner and is in good health,” Mr. Deutch said. “While I believe that McDonnell Douglas can deliver C-17 airplanes, the cost and schedule are highly uncertain.”

Mr. Deutch said he planned to appoint a high-level team of Air Force, Pentagon, and industry experts to review all aspects of the C-17 program. The team was expected to produce a report by July 15 on improving the program. The Secretary of Defense has plans to make a final decision on the C-17 in August.

Representative John Conyers, Jr., a Michigan Democrat, who is the chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, praised the Pentagon action yesterday. “Taxpayers do not want to pay for programs as wasteful as the C-17 and the Secretary’s personal intervention into ending waste and mismangement is critical,” said Mr. Conyers, whose committee held hearings on the program last month.

Still, some Pentagon experts said they doubted the C-17 would be canceled because of its importance to the Air Force and McDonnell Douglas. They said the warning yesterday was intended mainly to give the impression that the Administration was taking steps to revamp the Federal procurement system.

New York Times

Sound familiar?

I think you’ve missed the point. After two years of discussions, demonstrations, etc., during all of which time the offered product has been said to qualify, the terms are suddenly, without warning, changed in a way which disqualifies it.

How can the terms have suddenly changed? Honeywell had been in the competition from the start and its offer did not include a modification to the existing engines. If the terms were tailor-made to ensure RR was the sole bidder, why would Honeywell have stuck with it that long?

The logical conclusion is that the buyer has decided not to buy the product & is looking for a way to exclude it. In that case, there is no point investing in making it meet the new terms. It’s like the firms that refused to bid when Korea requested tenders for fighters, after it was obvious that its previous competition had been decided in advance, with other tenders being just to get better terms from Boeing & the US government for F-15s, or firms declining Norwegian requests for bids in its fighter ‘competition’ (AKA negotiating process for F-35 purchase). Waste of money & staff time to bid when it’s a foregone conclusion.

If RR had a product that matched the competition on cost and beat it on price, there is zero reason for it to drop out. Its the exact opposite of the examples you’ve quoted – the competition here was arguably ‘rigged’ to provide a level playing field. RR may have preferred a non-competitive contract where it cheaply upgraded the existing Adour engines, but that in no way prevented it from winning a contract for a replacement engine. Especially since it would have had lower integration costs.

And re-lifed airframe. They’re supposed to have more airframe hours after the upgrade than a new-build Su-30.

The Mirages have a robust airframe, a quarter of the fleet is just 10 years old, and no life extension to the airframe is being done.

The proposal is to upgrade all 51 aircraft to extend their operational life and update their capability. The ‘cardinal points’ of the proposal include: no airframe modifications, no changes to major aircraft systems, no modification to equipment bays, limited cockpit modifications, minimum retrofit line modification facilities/activities, and, most significantly, it does not cover the cost of supply of weapons. – The Tribune

Several posts on Livefist dealing with the specifics of the Mirage upgrade – Post 1, Post 2, Post 3, Post 4. Another by Neelam Mathews on AIN. By NDTV here. By Flight Global here. By Hindustan Times here.

^ No mention of any modifications to the airframe anywhere.

Statement by the former Indian defence minister – However, this (Mirage) upgrade programme also includes fitment of advanced multi-mode target radar, reconfigured glass cockpit and advance avionics, state-of-the-art electronic warfare system and capability to launch advanced missiles.

^ Again, only mentions the avionics upgrade. Airframe strengthening is a fairly significant and expensive activity, its extremely unlikely that it slipped through the cracks in reporting.

You exaggerate. From the figures in your links, the operational fleet of Su-30s would have had to be 265 in 2012-13 for the R&M cost per aircraft to be a third that of the M2K.

In 2012-13, the MoD/IAF spent Rs 487 crore in R&M for the Mirage fleet and Rs 870 crore on the (three and a half times larger) Su-30MKI fleet.

Even if we tilt towards the Mirage it still ends up costing at least twice as much in repair and maintenance, as the Sukhoi does.

You’re counting aircraft which haven’t been built yet.

Actually, if I count aircraft which haven’t been built the Mirage 2000 will end up costing over 3.5 times more than the Su-30 in maintenance. (The quoted figure is higher when spread over a 180 strong fleet rather than a 270 strong fleet.)

Also, the significant measure is cost/availability, & Su-30MKI availability was only 48% that year. Adjust the R&M costs to allow for the much higher availability of the M2Ks, factor in the extra crew member & higher fuel consumption & the picture looks very different.

India has finally set up overhaul facilities for the Su-30, so availability is probably rising. In surge conditions such as those at Red Flag, it exhibited excellent operational availability in a high tempo environment. But even if we don’t factor in all that, at 50% availability compared to 75% for the Mirage it would still be very competitive; 50% more aircraft could be acquired at a comparable life-cycle cost. And its obviously far more capable.

And don’t forget that spares cost is a very high proportion of M2K maintenance cost, & that would be reduced if it was Indian-made.

You also have to factor in the capital costs involved in a fresh project, unlike the Su-30MKI supply chain where supporting a larger fleet requires just a scaling up of existing production.

Hmm. It seems you don’t actually know anything about it.

I know its not logical for a company offering a better product to simply give up on a contract. They could have offered a new build 821 and then beaten Honeywell through lower integration costs.

The Mirage 2000 upgrade is bought in. As sole manufacturer, India would have been in a much better position to shop around for upgrades (as it is with Jaguar). It’d have had aircraft which are much cheaper to operate than Su-30. BTW, the M2K upgrade is radical. Pretty much a complete replacement of the avionics, & there’d better be airframe modifications, or there’s no chance of them lasting as long as required! The airframes must be getting a re-lifing, to extend their flight hours.

– It would have taken time to absorb the tech and plan customized upgrades. The Mirage upgrade was being negotiated with Dassault about the same time as the production line was offered. The Jaguar in contrast was domesticated at HAL back the 80s.
– $45 mil is a steep price to pay for just an avionics upgrade, even for a thorough one.
– The Sukhoi consumes more fuel but costs less a third of the Mirage in terms of repair & maintenance (Link 1, Link 2). Given its cheaper acquisition cost, it’ll likely have a lower life-cycle cost.

The slowness of the Mirage upgrade isn’t because it’s inherently slow. It could be done much faster. But everything takes longer when the GoI is involved.

The GoI is not a variable, Mirage or Sukhoi the GoI will always be a participant. The question here is, all other factors being same, if setting up a Mirage production line would have been preferable to expanding the Su-30 production. There’s a strong political argument for it (diversifying sourcing of supply) but in economic terms foregoing the Mirage option wasn’t much of a loss.

When I asked if Tejas is ready to replace Jaguar, I meant what I wrote: readiness, not performance.

Even an early retirement of the Jaguar will start only after 2020. If they get proactive now and invest in additional capacity, it should be a more than adequate replacement.

Except that as a large part of the Indian fleet is approaching retirement, that could be a grave mistake. India must either buy a lot of new aircraft, quickly (from where? What types?), or keep some of the older types running.*

Upgrading existing aircraft isn’t all that much faster than building new units. The last upgraded Mirage 2000 for example will be delivered only by 2021.

And is Tejas ready for to replace Jaguar?

Its got a shorter range, but its far better in all other respects.

BTW, both engines offered a big increase in thrust, & IIRC the difference between them was small. RR withdrew when, after two years of negotiations, the terms were changed to rule out upgraded engines, which was what RR was offering. Odd, that change in terms.

The F125IN is also an upgraded variant of an existing engine. RR could simple have entered a new-build Adour 821. Unless ‘upgrade’ refers to a modification of the existing units, in which case I’d be skeptical about any significant thrust improvement being achieved.

*Underlines the folly of rejecting the French offer to transfer the entire Mirage 2000 production line, doesn’t it?

Depends on the costs involved. Consider the cost of the relatively simple Mirage upgrade (no re-engining or airframe modification). The Su-30s are multirole as well, might have been cheaper to simply step up production.

Vnomad…

I will NOT get into any discussion about abilities or individual parts there of….BUT, it really is disconcerting that you INSIST on saying that Canada IS buying F35’s…yet contrary to YOUR assertions, reality in the Country of Canada is that the program has been “reset”…

The writing is on the wall Jay. At some point, you’re going to have to make your peace with it. The longer the deal drags on, the less viable everything else becomes. And with the CF-18’s going through a life-extension, fate bodes well for the F-35.

So please stop sitting there like you actually KNOW that Canada is getting them, because it is FAR, FAR from anywhere near a done deal…..you can fantasize and speculate all you want…not making it happen though….bottom line, Canada is loosing interest, Belgium is loosing interest, everyone that HAS ordered them have reduced their numbers substantially. And the figures coming out of the Netherlands don;t look good for the fabled “Cost reduction”…..

Belgium was never a JSF program participant, so they have no officially expressed interest ‘to lose’. You may be confusing it with Denmark, which is in principle running a competition, and in practice gearing up for a F-35A purchase. The global economy hasn’t recovered from the recession yet, so yes everyone is cutting orders.

As for the rest. Dassault might be offering ToT, license building, offsets etc., but don’t be so sure about the cost (look up the latest estimates from India for reference). It might swing a deal in the Gulf (doubtful given plummeting oil prices) and the Indian deal might just scrape through. If not, its curtains for the Rafale. The EF’s prospects in the Middle East are slightly brighter, but it too will go out of production by 2017.

Similar case for the SH. Export hopes practically died in Brazil. As orders shrink, Boeing is scaling back production to 24 units per year, down from a peak of 56/yr. By 2018-19, it’ll barely be cheaper than the F-35A. That just leaves the Gripen E in play and its thus far not bothered to compete in Canada, considering it a waster of resources.

That’s nothing uncommon. Due to ever increasing development times the new aircraft may be entering service using elements of avionics suite from previous designs. At the time of service introduction, the early SH Block I was not much different from a standard Hornet, the only notable exception being touch screen LCDs and radio.

SH may have entered service a decade earlier but underwent a major upgrade to Block II (AESA, JHMCS, SHARP, MIDS-JTRS) since then. By all means and purposes, its suite is not necessarily older than the one of the F-35 (Block 3I?) which must have been design-frozen at least ten years ago (and still doen’t work properly, BTW)

Reply on F-35 thread.

There are reports of technical problems, & the project has moved extremely slowly. The Adour upgrade was very low risk indeed, both technically & financially. What was needed? Something to transform the Jaguar, or just keep it useful? It’s not a new design, & most of the airframes aren’t new. Was it worth a high-risk upgrade?

The Jaguar does fairly well, what it was designed to do i.e. low level strike. Its role today has however shifted from being a stable platform for unguided munitions to that of a PGM delivery vehicle (LGBs as well as specialized stuff like the CBU-105). And for flight operations at medium altitude i.e out of the MANPAD/SHORAD envelope, the Adour 811 is grossly insufficient and from what I understand, a significant thrust upgrade is required.

Given the delays involved, it wouldn’t be the worst decision to entirely retire the type ahead of schedule. It’d probably be more cost effective to invest in greater production capacity for the Tejas rather than invest in a Jaguar MLU which would start deliveries only by decade-end.

Cough bs cough.

That’s what Boeing said as well. Pity they haven’t been able to flog the SH to more than one export customer.