Dassault has gone from 11 x 4 frames being required in the next 4 years for French forces (44) to 48 required by Egypt and Qatar in less than 4 years (I presume). With a UAE order for 50+ likely soon, the order backlog at 11 per annum production rate would have lengthened by nearly 10 years thanks to those 3 export deals. I gather production rate will be doubled but that does not happen overnight, so perhaps export order backlog will take about 6 years to clear. Then at some point French forces need more Rafale deliveries. I can’t see them waiting for ever so if some are supplied to French forces in the next 5 years or so, the backlog to clear extends past 6 years.

I don’t see Dassault being able to supply many Rafales to India in the near future. If UAE has negotiated delivery slots within 2-3 years should they order, how long would it take India to get its hands on 36 frames if UAE does order in the near future?

India needs to recognise that when Rafale was selected for MMRCA L1 it was a buyer’s market. Now it’s a seller’s market.

You say the ball’s in Dassault’s court. I don’t see why Dassault should have much interest in hitting it back over the net.

For this problem there are at least one simple solution: change the supplier.

By the way, it should not bring any problem from India , after all India has not been flying with with Rafale F3 in its Air Force.

Beyond that there are not shortage of eager sellers to take the place at the negotiating table where Dassault has been sitting today, like those sellers of the: Typhoon, F/A 18E/F, Su 35S, MiG 35 and Gripen E.

In my humble opinion there are one fact that has not been considered so far: the Dassualt would provide 18 Rafale F3 directly from France, once the other 108 will be produced in India, but those would have been increased the levels of nationalization of its parts gradually. So when Dassault won the competition of 126 Rafale F3, this would be capable to produce those 126 Rafale F3 within the time specified by India.

Despite the recent sales of the Rafale F3 their number would still be below those 126 Rafale F3 from MMRCA, and the Dassault had been already participating in other competitions during this time.

There are something more at the negotiating table than the 36 Rafales F3.

If you work hard enough, you might even have time to educate yourself about Swiss politics!

The leaks were done by dissatisfied military members, either to put pressure on the government to make it reconsider the aircraft choice, or to cancel it to invest money in other part of the military that greatly need it. What would be the point of a new leak when both the Tiger and Hornet should be replaced?

To be honest, I hardly see the point in a whole new evaluation from the ground up. From the official announcement of the Gripen choice to the vote (2011-2014), the Swiss Air Force and Armaswiss got a closer look at the Gripen E development, including additional test field of the Gripen Demo in Switzerland and Sweden. I don’t believe it would be a fair competition, other contenders would only be invited to ensure Saab keeps a good price on its offer.

In my humble opinion the same Swiss Government that had been chosen the Gripen NG, in fact it abandoned the Gripen NG during the referendum, which it made easy the work from opposition to convince the voters against the Gripen NG.

Like the old competition in which the Gripen NG it had become winner against the others, it were intended to replace the F 5E/F Tiger II, however the criteria to replace the F/A 18 C/D may not be the same.

Back in time when the F/A 18 C/D has been chosen by Switzerland since the decade of 80, in fact there were many comments that Switzerland did not need such an advanced fighter like the F/A 18 C/D even during the Cold War.

There was such referendum in the decade of 80 to purchase of the F/A 18C/D for Switzerland?

I do not think it is comical, but rather dramatic. HAL monopoly and being pre-selected gave them way too much weight into dictating their conditions. HAL being state owned made it impossible for Dassault to have any form of control over their doings nor allowed any business plan beyond MMRCA. Compared to other actors that were willing to invest ,willing to build a joint venture.In the case it was in production of heavily automated first grade composite parts. This do not require experience in assembling airplanes, and the level of competence compared to manual labor intensive HAL process was about the same for anybody. Zero that is.

About MRCA program I think it already deserves a book.

While the book does not appears perhaps because this history could not finished so far , maybe one of the key factors to derail it has been associated in the West about the use of industrial process technology from compound materials that it will be used for Rafale production line, it same could have been used for the production line of the FGFA (PAK FA) in India .

The Dassault had been proposed to take out from HAL the production line to another company in India, it could be associated with this fact, since as it were noted in several criticisms of the PAK FA: that for large-scale production form FGFA or PAK FA would be necessary high new investment in industrial process, since the PAK FA production line should be quite different from it standard has been used today to produce the Su 30MKI , Su 30SM and Su 35S.

AFAIK in the decade of 80 the Soviet Union had been changed the MiG 29 9.12 design to production in large scale, once the prototypes from MiG 29 were using more components in carbon fiber than the productions fighters.

Probably one of these important reasons it had been associated with high cost and time that were needed to prepare the large scale for production line of the MiG 29 during the Cold War.

However as the PAK FA and FGFA there are no alternatives, since the RAM material could have been requiring an entire new production process that has been oriented for compound material in relation to the standard from today in Russia and India.

In this case of India could have been opted for this alternative to share the investment in HAL to produce the Rafale F3 in first place, and then the FGFA (PAK FA).

However if the Rafale F3 were delivered to another company than HAL, the entire cost of FGFA program would be increased for HAL, as well as maybe the own Rafale F3 in India too, however there would be more arguments to convince India to abandon the FGFA (PAK FA).

There are many who believe or wish that without the participation of India in the PAK FA , this will be canceled or else face severe delays in Russia.

In fact in my humble opinion I think that both the MMRCA and FGFA program were interspersed in India, and because this are so much complexity with both.

As well as about reaching this agreement of the 36 Rafales F3 with India, once by the Standards of India it has not been such big deal , may be there are more on the table than the 36 Rafales F3.

I can not understand so far: why only in this thread its has been describing the Brazil (Contract), and anyone so far it has been mentioned AFAIK the Switzerland (Contract)?

After all the agreement with Switzerland shall be much easier to understand, since it could be described as reference for most countries, once it has not been demanding such specific requires as the Brazil.

On the total value of the Switzerland contract that was voted in Switzerland: US $ 3.157 billion

1.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

width: 500	class: grid	align: center
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Type[/td]
[td]Number of Gripen NG[/td]
[td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td]
[td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Brazil[/td]
[td]Gripen E/F[/td]
[td]36[/td]
[td]Us$ 4.5[/td]
[td]US$ 125[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Switzerland[/td]
[td]Gripen E[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]US$ 3.157 [/td]
[td]US$ 143[/td]
[/tr]

By less than the unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

• 100% ToT
• a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
• development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
• financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years
• 
  Rights to export the Gripen NG in Latin America

With the second value of Switzerland contract has been provided by Eremit t would be:US$ 2,525 billions

official Swiss defence procurement documents

2.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

width: 500	class: grid	align: center
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Type[/td]
[td]Number of Gripen NG[/td]
[td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td]
[td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Brazil[/td]
[td]Gripen E/F[/td]
[td]36[/td]
[td]Us$ 4.5[/td]
[td]US$ 125[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Switzerland[/td]
[td]Gripen E[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]US$ 2.525[/td]
[td]US$ 115[/td]
[/tr]

By the increased of the 9% about the Switzerland cost per unit, the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

• 100% ToT
• a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
• development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
• financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years
• 
  Rights to export the Gripen NG in Latin America

With the price of the Swiss Franc today, according to:
http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=CHF&to=USD&amount=3126000000

The source of information that I used on the contract of Switzerland

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/[/QUOTE]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-18/saab-loses-3-5-billion-jet-order-as-swiss-reject-gripen.html

😀

The flaw in the F-35 is one air frame has to do different jobs for marines, navy and air force. The cost of $1.5 trillion isn’t worth it for what it does.

If Lockheed Martin has to start again it would have a separate airframe for the vertical take-off version for the marine F-35B, and better performing versions for the Air Force and Navy.

Lockheed Martin cannot admit this…..a bit like the banks that said they were too big to fail….we’re stuck with it and the tax payer as always will pay….but the F-35 is too expensive for what it is and for tax payers that is what matters.

Forget trying to overcome S-400 and S-500 air denial missile systems, counter-measures to any new system as always will be adopted in iterative improvements to counter at a much lower cost…..the point being it won’t cost as much as $1.5 trillion to do that!

Have I spelt out clear enough that it won’t cost $1.5 trillion to counter the F-35? (no degree needed to understand this fundamental flaw 😉
😀

If you’re right, then it may be the main reason for the US and its Allies to purchase the F 35A / B / C, after all how many nations in the world could spend something like US$ 1.0 Trillion to contain the F 35A / B / C?

That has been less than the US$ 1.5 Trillion to acquire and maintain the fleet from F 35A/B/C.

The Allies won the Atlantic battle in World War II because the US were capable to launch at sea more transport ships than German U-Boats were able to sink at the North Atlantic, despite that even a torpedo were much more cheaper to produce than ship and its cargo that were sunk by it.

Even the U-Boats had been returning for its bases in France after having fired all torpedoes, the convoy of the Allies kept coming to the UK in large quantities despite heavy losses.

“After all quantity is a quality in itself”.

Something at least is certain, that amount of F 35A / B / C will not contained by all assets available today around the World , so whoever the future opponent of the F 35A / B / C, this will have to spend many resources to face this threat that has been represented by US$ 1.5 Trillions .

If the US has been capable to spent $ 1.5 trillion in the F 35A / B / C, so it are good for them, after all not many countries could find out someone other country to lend them money to buy its fighters.

Anyway who could give the money for the US to purchase something like 2,500 fighters along all the weapons and wait for 24 years if the loan will be paid off?

The fact that MTA is five years closer than it was and KC-390 is now visible on the horizon. C-130J is still an option, but no longer the obviously correct choice that it was.

IMHO were very good your arguments in those posts, however beyond the KC 390 and C 130J, as well as I would also puts the An 178 in the basket.

The KC 390 project had been developing very well until this year, however its future is already quite uncertain, once the Government of Brazil are in serious financial situation ,already it has stopped to support the project temporally at least this year . Indeed it has been accumulated debts with Embraer at $ 300 million due to this program. Because of this Embraer are ‘reworking’ the schedule from KC 390 for the next years.

The Embraer has not been able to bear alone the costs and risks of KC 390 program, even due to the loss of the value from currency from Brazil, among the Embraer are registering financial loss this year due the problems of the Brazil currency too.

The Antonov 178 that were look dead months ago, still alive even in the present situation of Ukraine.

At the moment I think that the most likely An 178 could be available to the market even before the KC 390, in reason of the Government of Brazil’s with its problems could lead the program even to be cancelled in the next years.

The military programs in Brazil has been almost placed on hold, only the Gripen NG program are advancing in Brazil because the same has been funded by Sweden and not by the Government of Brazil.

I guess that Embraer are trying to persuade Sweden to also finance the KC 390 and enter as partner in this program.

There is a saying: where there is a problem also exists an opportunity. Maybe the current situation of both the Ukraine as of Brazil could be an opportunity for India to enter in some of these programs , instead of purchasing new batch of the C 130J if India would give up from MTA with Russia.

If Brazil or another country could put some pressure over Embraer ‘to allow’ the development of the another second version of the KC 390 with engines and avionics from Russia, I would guess that even Russia could opt for KC 390 in the future instead of this new project MTA.

Perhaps in the future will be India who export the KC 390 or An 178 for Russia.

That doesn’t seem likely. Beforehand, they had no reason to procure them having no planes to carry them, but I’m not sure what’s the cause of the delays now. It could be financial reasons (e.g. these missiles are not the priority currently), or perhaps the development of the R-77-1 got delayed or the production lines (or availability of some components) are not yet fully ready?

In 1978 the US Inteligence had been watched in real time througt imaging from spy satellite for the first time a test in which the MiG 31 equipped with the radar N007 PESA was capable to hit four targets simultaneously with air-air missiles R 33.

It were revealed in 2008 that Su 35S has been equipped with the most advanced version from PESA radar like N035 Irbis -E could be able to hit two targets simultaneously with SARH ( Semi Active Radar Homing) missiles like the R 27, or then eight targets with missiles ARH(Active Radar Homing) as R 77.

The MiG 31 with legacy missiles R 33 with SARH head seeker and the legacy N007 radar, it has been acquiring since 1978 twice more targets in relation to the much more advanced Su 35S ( with only SARH missiles)has been equipped with the most advanced PESA radar as Irbis E after 30 years from uninterrupted technological development in the hardware and software field.

This is just a detail, however it shows at least that there may be some inaccuracies in the disclosure in this aspect about the capabilities of the Su 35S, about the R 33 with only SARH head seeker or then in both .

I guess the doubts are not just about the new version of R 77-1, once there are a long tradition of maintaining doubts about the ARH like the R 27EA, R 37 and R 77 from Soviet Union until now in Russia with the R 77-1, R 37M and others.