TeerTotally desagree here.
They have a performance edge over F-35 in the A2A role and already a good foot and a half into the 5th generation systems; perhaps you should look at their specs again.
When F-35 comes into service i can assure you that a Rafale will have little to envy it when it comes to systems and avionics.
You are welcome to disagree, but given the trouble the Rafale is having in finding export success now, with no JSF around, you might want to think about what will happen when there are JSFs and later, PAK-FAs around.
The fact is that with a huge production run anticipated for the United States alone, the JSF becomes thesolution for most nations which buy US and which can leverage the spiral upgrades from the US procurement path itself. Its a very powerful argument, and minor advantages in tactical performance as claimed by rivals really dont count for much.
And let it be clear – as an aviation enthusiast point of view – I totally support “more the merrier” – but given costs & business economics, I doubt we’ll see the “good old days” as they existed with multiple manufacturers and different fighters.
TeerThis:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95374
Whats interesting is that LM has a very workable solution here:
The modular sensor packages are an excellent idea; so is the field logistics aspect. Second, several UAV/UCAV programs already demonstrate advanced mission planning, waypoint derived navigation attack approaches, and the Sabre concept can definitely do this. For A2A, the manned approach also makes sense which can intervene in those missions where the technology is simply not there for A2A (ie rapid decision making).
This will surely go through substantial changes, but the point is LM is already thinking on these lines. LM already has the US fighter market pretty much sewn up and with the JSF it will dominate globally.
It will be interesting to see how Boeing remains relevant. The F-15 Silent Eagle is not enough & even the F/A-18 E/F – like the EF & Rafale has a limited window period before the JSF arrives & will not by, itself allow Boeing to remain as a lead player in the fighter market.
If the US defense budget contracts – then we might even see further consolidation in the years to come, with LM as the prime vendor for fighter programs.
TeerAnyways, why would the UK need more? Just wondering…
TeerThey wont split the deal, the loser will be placated with other contracts. India anyway is buying whatever it can get its hands on.
TeerDont know who said the below, but:
OTOH I think LM has a point that many other countries will ultimately buy the F-35. If they can deliver a plane that meets the specs, and is not too expensive, that is….
Absolutely. Spoke to a very seasoned industry professional recently, and he mentioned that with the JSF, LM has locked up the fighter market for years to come. Yes, they have troubles in development & cost, but the JSF is, for all practical reasons, the future, if it managed to achieve a reasonable balance. The JSF will be the new Viper, with the additional factor that 5G fighters are so expensive, that there will be few if any alternatives, such as the PAK-FA for those states which cannot/wont buy American for whatever reason.
Typhoon, Rafale etc have a window period before the JSF arrives. After that it will be two groups – the high end JSF vs the PAK-FA; the rest – with the Gripen NG on the high end & the chinese aircraft on the cheaper side – provided China licks its engine development issues.
The rest of the worlds fighter makers will face severe competition & may not be able to make it. National programs eg India, S Korea, Japan would still exist but will be mostly for strategic reasons to meet local requirements and not compete with the likes of the JSF. Things may change here, especially with S Korea or India if ample funding is available but its too far to call.
UCAVs will be where the rest of the world will then move to. The LM Saber concept is very interesting – and actually reflects the thinking that is going on in several organizations.
TeerThese are MANPADS fodder. Against any opponent with access to Iglas, Anza/QW’s, these aircraft will fare poorly.
TeerTake a look under his profile. He’s busy attacking everyone else with distasteful rants 9/10th of the time. “Hell King” indeed.
Wanshan,
Sweetheart, I’m twice your age with three times your level of education. I didn’t say anything about what anybody else meant to say, I said something about how you could have responded differently. But that subtlety is lost on you.
Well said, sir.
TeerSome of this work may end up coming India’s way anyway as long as there is money in it, which there is & as part of offsets.
For better or for worse, the USG has to make the decision about which country India or China is more palatable for the future – ally/peer at worst as versus outright competitor/challenger.
That will also determine the investments which will start off as offsets and gradually include more critical engineering technology across the value chain.
There is huge potential in India which has lain untapped thanks to the pacifist Gandhian mentality which stifled investment and support for this area for the first fifty odd years of Indian independence, and continues to rear its head whenever India seeks to unshackle its aerospace and defence industries.
TeerFair point, but i do not see this being that easy in case of composites.
Anyway your probably correct.
Do you know if in the testing of the MMRCA’s the IAF will get a chance to do wargames against some of the aircraft in the IAF?
I’d say that composite tech will be easier to absorb by India despite the complexity, since we have had such effort from our own side in our own systems. So there exists a basis for understanding & TOT. The hardest to “absorb” will be precision engineered systems made of hundreds of tiny parts & systems and non standard avionics LRUs. While the former is still possible, OEM restrictions may render the latter as black boxes, eg mess around with the Exciter/Reciever on the integrated EW & you lose the warranty & stuff like that.
Which is why our own programs remain so critical to making our own derivatives. The good part is that several ventures are underway which will cover most avionics and structures and design capability (aside from public sector) is also ramping up. But system of systems in propulsion – eg engines, we have a long long way to go.
About tests of weapons systems and the like, thats occurring in the host nations so no wargames. But post this MMRCA exercise the IAF will have a very good idea of the overall abilities of each combat jet which is invaluable information if it ever came to facing them in exercises or even combat.
TeerTeer, but it also is a fact that its the Russian circumstances at the time of MKI purchase, the low cost of the Su30 and the favorable attitude of the Russians which enabled the creation of MKI.
I do not think the French would have done it. Nor the Americans. The development cost they would ask over the base configuration would itself have made it unviable, which I believe is the case even right now.
I think you made me add Mig-35 as it would allow a highly customizable option as reason to include along with EF and Gripen NG to make it to the finals.
But I am still unconvinced with the Teens, Boeing/Lockheed need to come up with a good future plan which can give IAF a good comfort level w.r.t upgrades. The future upgrade cost of Rafale takes it out of my list. Thanks to Dassault.
The point is this is what the IAF expects from every competitor and if they dont meet this criteria, they will face a problem. Remember the flap about the Rafale, because Dassault didnt reply with a proper reply to the RFP (no ARM, missing lines etc).
How they achieve this, and what they offer is another thing – it may not be the same as the MKI where we integrated our own hardware into the aircraft, but they will be expected to offer a degree of flexibility to the IAF. Thats a given & several IAF officers have remarked on this (usually while being sceptical that the US aircraft will allow this – which is a problem for them if they dont.)
TeerReading this months AFM and other publications it appears that post 2020 the RAF will be down to 8 frontline fast jet squadrons with 3 of those being jointly manned by the RN an allocated to the CVF. This would mean that wiht a 5 squadron force of Typhoons there will not be enough to support deployments and only the CAW with its 2-3 squadrons of F-35s being able to mont any deployment.
Surely this force level is far below critical mass to meet any future planned commitments? Even if the 2 reserve conversion units are given a similtaneous war role, the RAF will become a non-player on the world stage, looking good for PR but with little practical teeth!
Look on the bright side, it’s still bigger than required for the “small air forces thread”.;):p
But somehow I dont think the cuts will be that drastic..
TeerSacking them will only cripple the IAF which is having a hard time keeping its pilots from resinging and going to the civil sector (the aviation industry crisis may be helping them). Its easy to see which job they would rather quit !
Sensationalist articles aside and the usual hyperbole laced responses aside (the one prior to yours), the proportion of IAF officers indulging in business/trade is minute.
Its usually lower ranked officers/airmen who have been passed over for promotion or have a relative employed in some family trade where they chip in.
The vast majority of IAF airmen and officers have barely enough time as is, to even spend with their families, let alone run businesses on the side. Many IAF officers wear not just one functional hat, but several. An airman is not just put on regular admin detail, he is also asked to assist technical workmen in the base repair workshop, he is also asked to ensure other duties. There are only 24 hours in a day, and while some slackers as in any organization do game the system, they remain by far, the minority as the system is robust.
TeerO, that part where India wanted to nuke a neighbour but forgot that it might destroy India at the same time? Thank God USA intervened. I think India can harldy attack 5.000 targets. For a person that level one could expect wiser comment.
The IAF is well placed within current resources to attack a target list of 5000. India nowhere mentioned that it would nuke any neighbour. But if it were to be attacked, the Indian doctrine stresses on a substantial response.
TeerAs soon as the production lines and supply to USAF/USN closes the IAF will be held to ransom. All of the IP for any parts would still be kept with the parent companies..
Unless the companies actually set up a production line in India to sell the SH to the developing world I can easily see the cost of spare parts for the SH and F-16 going stupid.
Now also consider that by the time the USAF retires its fleet etc India may possible have its version of the PAK FA. It would financially make no sense to keep the F/A-18 : F-16 flying.
It would be better to buy an aircraft which would have some parts flying some where in the world.
Also to consider with the heavy use of composites on the SH if the production line for the SH closes so will possibly some of the material lines at HEXCEL, Cytec or 3M for those materials. Soon as that happens direct replacements for say wing skins etc becomes difficult.
Its not unkown for some of these suppliers to keep production lines ticking over because of contractual obligations with the US GOV.
One of the key things the IAF will expect from the MRCA is to add/upgrade items on it of its own volition. This is something they are very serious about, and one of the reasons why the additional Mission computers were added to the MKI.
Spares – most of the ones (mandatory spares) which account for day to day ops – are expected to be built in India. Thats the most basic reason behind the TOT clause, which 99% of the articles ignore, being focused on things like magic technology etc.
Coming back to upgrades, what the IAF is doing with the MKI points to what it expects from the MRCA as well. It has added the Litening2, EL/OP Radar pod, other new munitions types, and the MKI is also acting as the trials testbed & initial user of the in development Astra BVRAAM. There are several other systems also noted to have been evaluated for the MKI.
The same approach will be taken for whichever MRCA is chosen.
TeerThere is a lot of investment by the Indian side in the local development of capability for hypersonics, both by DRDO & ISRO for their respective programs. The formers efforts will flow directly into the Brahmos-2. The timeframe for the Brahmos 2 is another 5-6 years, as the orders for the current Brahmos missiles themselves will take at least another 3-4 years at the minimum to execute.
Sign In
