Spitfire9In this case BAe was clearly to blame. The problem was not with the parts not being delivered on time but with the quality and compatibility of parts. It was actually a dispute between HAL a DPSU and BAe i doubt buraeucracy was involved.
As soon as the Indian MoD threatend to cancel the follown on orders and issued an RFI for trainers, BAe cleaned up their act, and hence they got the follow on orders.
Fair enough if there was a problem with quality. Compatibility of parts: was there some confusion? If so, why? Late delivery: were the parts ordered in good time or were they ordered so late that it was not realistically possible for them to be delivered on time?
As for the Indian bureaucracy being a joke, I agree with you but its an old joke which the Brits created and even after successifve governments the ‘Babus’ remain the same.
How long has India been independent? If there was a problem, why has it not been addressed many, many decades later?
I don’t mean to be offensive but I have had experience of dealing with several countries (not India) where the approach towards doing what has been agreed and doing it on time is… what shall I say… relaxed.
Spitfire9This is a commercial problem. The Indians say BAe hasn’t delivered parts on time. BAe says it’s delivered all the parts which have been ordered, & hinted that orders haven’t been placed in a timely fashion because of bureaucratic delays in India.
I have a lot more confidence in BAe than in Indian bureaucracy. The latter is a joke in my opinion.
I can see it taking so long to make a selection that the prices in quotes will no longer be valid and all remaining participants will have to quote all over again.
Spitfire9The F-35 is not going anywhere including the F-35B. To think otherwise is dreaming or at very least wishful thinking.;)
That may be your assertion but I think that flies in the face of what has been said by those who choose to fund /stop funding or continue / cancel all or part of the F-35 program.
As I understand it, F-35B is on trial for its life. Why: in simple speak, there are lots of unresolved problems with it.
Spitfire9Yes, but that is also part of the reason the F-15 and F-16 have endured so long and sold so well. The original engines made just over 20,000lbs thrust; 30 years later they have evolved to 32,000lbs and much higher reliability, largely due to competition. And it gives customers real options, like when Saudi Arabia recently re-engined all of their Eagles.
I remember reading (can’t give source now but is was US military or political) that the benefits accruing from 2 suppliers were estimated to be in the $billions.
If it worked so well before, why not do it again?
Spitfire9As for South Korea and the F-15K. Would you care to explain on how the Rafale could compete with the Strike Eagle. In the Role of a Strike Fighter. (i.e.Tactical Bomber)
In short I don’t believe the Rafale could beat the Strike Eagle on Merits. At least not in the intended role.
IIRC Rafale was reported as coming out top in the evaluation. Can’t say in what roles. What was telling was that when SK later invited bids for a second order, the non-US contenders declined to get involved. I imagine they saw no point in wasting money since they believed the SK government would buy a US product, whether inferior or not.
Spitfire9COLUMN: An IAF View Of The FGFA Partnership
Let us be clear that the T-50 prototype that is currently flying is the work of years of design engineers from one of the most skilled design bureaus of the former Soviet. This is not suggest that HAL does not have any design strengths, but merely to say that in this particular programme, the space for any inputs simply does not exist. In simple words, even if HAL is partnering in the twin-seat version, their job will involve no/negligible inputs as far as airframe is concerned.
This seems the sensible, informed approach to evaluating the 50/50 project claim.
It simply cannot ever be a 50/50 project. Claiming it could be such is chauvinistic nonsense IMO.
Imagine this scenario: India has a long history of designing fighter aircraft. India designs, builds and starts testing a lightweight fighter. Russia (with very limited experience of designing fighter aircraft) signs a co-development deal. Could that by any stretch of the imagination be construed as a 50/50 project?
Spitfire9Another European 5th Gen fighter’s hope after PAK-FA ??
Turkey to build ‘national, original’ fighter
Thursday, December 16, 2010
ÜMİT ENGİNSOY
ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News
Turkey’s top defense procurement committee decided late Wednesday that Ankara would develop and manufacture its next air-to-air fighter aircraft, either by itself or in cooperation with another country, Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül said.
Gönül told reporters after a meeting of the Defense Industry Executive Committee that the Undersecretariat for Defense Industries, Turkey’s procurement agency, would start talks with Turkish Aerospace Industries, the country’s main aerospace company, for a “conceptual design” of a fighter aircraft and a jet trainer to be built after the year 2020.
“This … effectively is a decision for the making of Turkey’s first fighter aircraft,” he said.
The minister said Turkey may cooperate with South Korea, but implied that this is a small possibility. “We can manufacture the new fighter aircraft with them, we don’t rule this out. But the decision we have taken now calls for the production of a totally national and original aircraft,” he said.
Minister Gönül said Turkey’s newly designed fighter aircraft “would be a next-generation type, would replace the [U.S.-made] F-4Es and would function well with the F-16 and the F-35.” He therefore confirmed that the new aircraft mostly would be meant for air-to-air fighting.
Is it realistic for Turkey to consider embarking on the design of a “next-generation” aircraft alone? Perhaps this is a bargaining move to strengthen Turkey’s hand in any joint project with another country.
Spitfire9actually, your comparison isn’t very accurate: the rafale is built in eurozone. their price in euros (the currency with which they’re built) is constant (same amount of euros for the aircraft), while the dollar has dropped …
therefore, you can’t really say that the aircraft price has increased, it’s your currency that has lost its value which is not the same.
I think that’s a good explanation.
Ironically the cost of the F-35 to non-US customers might actually have gone down quite substantially compared to Rafale, Typhoon etc had the project not got badly out of control.
Spitfire9I’ll be very suprised if Rafale pull the Brasil Tender off.
Rafale is a great platform, but too exspensive for Brasil.
It may be expensive but Brazil has a big, fast growing economy. My guess is that it should be affordable. If a decision on FX-2 is postponed and India deselects Rafale from MMRCA contention, Dassault might be forced to give a real “best price” quote if it wants to have the chance of producing a decent number of Rafales.
Spitfire9I have just read the following:
Late Dec. 6, Lula told official television station TV Brasil that it would be up to the government of his successor, Dilma Rousseff, to decide the issue.
“It’s a very big debt, it’s a long-term debt for Brazil. I could sign off on it and do a deal with France, but I’m not going to do that,” Lula said, according to an excerpt published by the state news agency Agencia Brasil.
Analysts said they believed Lula’s comments meant the longstanding project to modernize Brazil’s air force was likely scrapped.
…
“My impression is that the F-X2 (the code name for the fighter jet tender) is dead and buried,” said Nelson During, head of the specialized website DefesaNet.
Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5182728&c=AME&s=TOP
Can it be possible that F-X2 is not wanted by the incoming administration?
Spitfire9“Eu poderia assinar e fazer um acordo com a França, mas não vou fazer”.
Lula could not be clearer. Rough translation:
“I could make and sign an agreement with France but I’m not going to do so”
So… no deal during Sarkosy’s visit in December?
Spitfire9I will bet two rupees that none of the twin engined fighters will win the MRCA.
I bet one rupee that none of the single engined fighters will win the MRCA 🙂
Spitfire9If India wants a combat capable/ already mature platform & the US is not a problem, then buy the Hornet or advanced Viper
But the US is a problem, isn’t it? So long as the US attitude is that recipients of its military aircraft (or aircraft containing US components) must accept a degree of control over the use of those aircraft, the US is a problem.
Anyone know how finely that control is exercised? For example, if the only US component of an aircraft were a couple of batteries, would the US still demand control over the use of the aircraft?
Spitfire9I think India could be an Ideal partner for SAAB/Sweden with the AMCA. First of all the risk is reduced for both parties, for SAAB because they know IAF is an assured buy and for IAF/HAL because with SAABs experience the project looks far less risky.
Now there is a problem with engines, if the Kaveri with the Eco core comes along well even that will be offset.
It’s a shame Volvo is not a prominent player in the engine development game. A neat package would have been Gripen NG co-development, Volvo co-development of Kaveri, SAAB co-development of MCA.
Spitfire9First Evaluation Firing of an ASMPA by a Mirage 2000N
the crew fired the ASMPA missile (without its nuclear warhead)
I’m relieved to hear that! 🙂
Sign In
