Spitfire9At this point, five years on, it seems both sides would be better off just going their separate ways.
+1
I would suggest reconsidering Typhoon because it was the other type that met MMRCA requirements.
I would suggest:
(a) deciding the budget available
(b) asking Eurofighter to quote for the supply of 36 Typhoons with ‘standard’ support to enable operation of the aircraft
(c) doing nothing more until Eurofighter has come up with a quote. That should not actually take very long – Eurofighter has done this several times
(d) when the quote is received:
– either say “Thank you, but no thank you” if the quote exceeds budget substantially
– or attempt to negotiate price down to budget
Spitfire9India’s Air Force has raised objections to the indigenous new generation anti-radiation missile (NGARM) currently in development.
The 60-kilometer-range NGARM, developed by state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), will undertake flight trials in three months but Indian Air Force (IAF) officials say the missile is too bulky.
DRDO is developing NGARM for the service’s Mirage-2000H, Jaguar, Su-30 MKI and the upcoming Light Combat Aircraft.
“NGARM being developed by DRDO weighs around 140 kilograms and is too heavy, whereas IAF wants only such missiles that do not weigh over 100 kilograms; this one will not meet our requirement,” said a senior Air Force official.
“DRDO has never kept us in the loop about this missile, and we are not sure if we will at all use it,” the IAF official said, adding, “infrared radiation seeker technology from Russia will make it too bulky.”
Mmm… sounds to me like DRDO got it wrong but did not let on that there was a problem. The mind boggles. At least mine does.
Spitfire9I think the Indian PM got things wrong. Having been confronted with the complexity of the MMRCA deal and its very high cost, IMO he should have gone for a simple, lower cost alternative – buy what Dassault supplies to the Armée de l’Air. No silly guarantees over the performance of non-Dassault companies/organisations.
Spitfire9As someone pointed out earlier, there is a $3+ billion difference between the highest price GOI rep says GOI are prepared to pay and the lowest price Dassault is prepared to accept. That is a deal-blocking difference. I think both parties are wasting their time in continuing to talk about India buying 36 Rafale from Dassault.
Spitfire9From my reading of the press releases from Saab and news outlets, there will be final assembly of the last 15 Brazilian Gripen in Brazil. Final assembly of all other Gripen E/F will be in Sweden though with some components sourced from Brazilian industry (at what stage is unclear- post initial Swedish AF contract?). The two seater F will have higher percentage Brazilian sourced content and engineering input, that point has been made clear. It is unclear if follow on orders from other clients would be assembled in a Brazilian facility.
I think the Brazilian government expects it will order a lot more Gripen E than it has ordered so far. The cost of setting up production and assembly facilities and buying TOT to assemble 15 aircraft would be prohibitive. I would expect Brazil to end up ordering at least 50 aircraft and possibly a number nearer 100. In addition I think Brazil will be the supplier for the South American market (with Colombia and Ecuador being potential customers). Just from a business perspective it would not make sense for all other Gripen E sales to be based on assembling aircraft in Sweden if it turns out that they can be assembled much more cheaply in Brazil. For example, if a country was interested in buying 20 aircraft and the package offered by SAAB was priced at $3 billion but the same package from Embraer was priced at $2.5 billion, it would make sense for Embraer to be the supplier.
Spitfire9It may certainly help with the construction of the assembly facilities for the 15 Brazilian Gripen to be built there. I think it’s a bit premature to say it will lower the cost for all Gripen.
I was referring to Gripens purchased from the Brazilian assembly line and – if Embraer have the knowhow – to support provided by Embraer. Of course exchange rate movements over 5-10 years cannot be predicted but if country X is interested in a couple of squadrons of Gripen E 10 years from now, it may be that those sourced from Brazil will be substantially cheaper than the same (or almost the same) aircraft sourced from Sweden.
Spitfire9Was just listening to the BBC World Service. They were talking about Brazil which is apparently suffering its worst ever depression. By chance I was looking yesterday at some Brazilian Real v Swedish Krona historical exchange rate charts and I saw that the Real in 2016 buys 40% or so less Krona than it did in 2011. With quite a lot of Gripen E structure to be produced in Brazil and with an assembly line in Brazil, I wonder if the cost of Brazilian-sourced Gripen E will turn out to be lower than was expected when SAAB was chosen as supplier for Brazil’s new fighter. Certainly lower production and assembly cost measured in $US would make Gripen E more likely to be selected for smaller air forces with tight budgets. If there were sufficient TOT for Embraer to offer the support SAAB offers for countries introducing and operating Gripen, that would further enhance its competitiveness in the world light fighter market in the 2020’s.
Spitfire9A mixed Gripen-E/F18-F fleet of 72 aircraft could possibly provide better capability at a lower cost than 65 Typhoons or 65 F-35s, especially considering we don’t do SEAD/DEAD first day strike and likely never will. Gripen and the F-18 have pretty much the broadest set of certified weaponry and both aircraft have commonality with our existing muntions and share a similar engine (414).
Could any of the F-18 support equipment be used for F/A-18 support (decreasing support costs if F/A-18 were selected)?
Spitfire9Vnomad, the SAR has this habit of making future predictions that might become true, or not (see the Raptor´s one´s on this last bit).
2015 numbers are these:
F-35 CPFH – $42,200
F-16C/D – $20,318An important observation, something that i am aware that you are aware :), but for the rest of the readers, with the increase of the fleet, the F-35A CPFH costs almost certainly will come down (quite a lot)…
unless it starts to be heavily used in operational scenarios (the ones were the F-15/16/18 are being used today).
Mmmm… are you saying something in the bit I put in bold? Like CPFH figures for F-35 are for non-combat use whereas CPFH figures for F-15/16/18 would be lower if they were not being used in combat zones?
Spitfire9No new input AFAIK. I don’t know where you checked from, but this is from the last SAR report –
Does ‘Unit Operations’ include fuel?
Spitfire9Out of production by the time the first major upgrade is required, not for Canada to acquire the airframe initially. I would expect the first upgrade to be necessary probably somewhere in the early to mid 2030s depending upon when the airframe enters service.
Err… your point? So what if a type is still in production or not when it comes to upgrading?
Spitfire9The chance of a F-18E/F purchase becomes less and less likely as the evaluation draws out. It is likely to take at least two years, and probably closer to three, to get to contract award on this. Unless Boeing gets another export of the SH then it will almost certainly be out of production by the time Canada is ready to order.
Yes. A definite possibility.
As for operating costs, you need to also factor in the mid life upgrades of the aircraft. Looking at the options, everything but the F-35 is likely to require two upgrades for life of type while the F-35 should require only one. A common upgrade charge is somewhere between 30-50 million per airframe. Given when this occurs the F-35 will be the most numerous aircraft with the broadest support and supplier base, and likely the only airframe with any chance of still being in production, its upgrade costs will be significantly less than competitors.
As has been stated previously, the longer this competition takes the more likely F-35 is of becoming the winner…again…
I think yes, Rafale would probably be more expensive to upgrade. But I also think that it is wrong to think that there is the remotest chance of Rafale (or Gripen) going out of production before Canada needed either of them.
Spitfire9Service officials admit that despite being an ideal close air support platform in high-end conflict with Russia, the long-delayed A-10 replacement, the Lockheed Martin F-35, will be too expensive to operate in the Warthog’s day-to-day role.
“[F-35] will be particularly capable in contested environments, like Russian doctrine where you would bring your air defences with you, because there will be a limited number of airplanes that can operate in that role,” USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements Lt Gen James Holmes tells a Senate Armed Services subcommittee panel on 8 March. “It would certainly be an expensive way to go after a permissive environment mission and we hope to not have to do that, so we will look at other options.”
Gosh! An outbreak of common sense. Highly undesirable to some, methinks.
Spitfire9From an article in vanguardcanada.com:
Given the government’s commitment to a strong presence in the Arctic, it has been mentioned many times that two-engines would be the preferred configuration. This is something I strongly agree with.
If a pilot ends up losing the engine on a single-engine fighter over the Beaufort Sea (or anywhere north of the tree line in the Arctic) he/she will be left piloting a lawn dart. Even in the event of a safe ejection, the chances of survival are slim-to-none. A pilot in command of a twin-engine aircraft, however, could limp it back to one of our Arctic airbases, as the chance of losing both engines is minuscule.
The counter-argument to this is reliability. If you have a well-built, reliable engine in your single-engine fighter, what is there to worry about?
Unfortunately, all it takes is one event for a pilot to lose his/her life. Having two engines gives you one more possibility, and there is no way around that. It may be the more expensive option, but at what point does saving dollars trump protecting the lives of our servicemen and women?
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/09/01/fighters/
Is recovery of a pilot who ejects over water or in winter really so unlikely?
Spitfire9Buying more Su-30s and developing the Mk2 is solid idea. But with the IAF’s ‘second-stage’ PAK FA/FGFA available only after 2025, there will remain a significant capability gap at the higher-end of the spectrum. Especially for deep strike, deep recce, SEAD, anti-AWACS type missions.
More Su-30’s can be supplied in a predictable time frame. Tejas Mk2 can’t. Nor can PAK FA/FGFA. AMCA is 2030+ so basically India needs to get something for deep strike, deep recce, SEAD etc. Choice seems to be Rafale, Typhoon, F-35. Rafale seems to be too expensive. Typhoon, well, because of special circumstances – namely, some partner countries will have too many when they receive tranche 3 aircraft – this might be the least expensive option. F-35? Who knows how expensive it will be to operate + US will try to stop you using it if your country wants to do something that does not fit in with the current American view of how the world should be.
Sign In
