Spitfire9RAF sources told Aviation Week the score of 12-0 did not figure in any of the post-exercise analysis and that the Typhoons were not using the full capability of their weapon systems and that in the “realistic operational” scenarios conducted during the exercise, the Typhoon performance was superior.
DACT never yields results that reflect the unfettered performance of the aircraft involved, it seems to me. Only figure I know that impresses me a lot is F-15 v other types in combat. Unless I’m mistaken, F-15 has shot down other aircraft in combat but no aircraft has ever downed an F-15.
Spitfire9Lockheed receives $431M to support F-35 production ramp up
Don’t understand why foreign military sales customers should chip in to support investment in production ramp up.
Spitfire9About the cost of retired RAF tranche 1 Typhoons, I considered buying a BAC Lightning when the RAF retired theirs. If I recall correctly, you could buy one for £10,000. How much will it cost to buy a retired tranche 1 Typhoon. $50 million? Don’t think so. $20 million? Perhaps. $10 million? Perhaps. $5 million? Possible. Remember that UK sold 72 Harriers + parts to the USA 4 or 5 years ago for <$200 million. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15876745
Addition:
My guess is that India could get 50+ ex-RAF tranche 1 Typhoons for $1 billion or less. Don’t know what tranche 1 specific spares they could also get for next to nothing. Total cost of deal would be what? $2-$3 billion sound reasonable?
Spitfire9On the contrary, what the IAF wants is lots of aircraft delivered quickly to compensate for the dipping squadron strength.
The Su-30MKI can do basic strike & CAS. The Mirage 2000, MiG-29, Jaguar and Tejas can do basic strike and CAS. The (Litening-equipped) Eurofighter T1 will be able to do it too. The upgraded ‘Super Sukhoi’ Su-30MKI and PAK FA will be assigned SEAD/DEAD and recce tasks.
There is no mission that’ll go unserved for the lack of an appropriate aircraft. The priority is to get the numbers up.
Yes. India should have the common sense to see that if you’re heading for a critical situation on fighter numbers, it is irrelevant whether one type available is x% closer to your requirement than another. Fighting with 0 aircraft (all of which meet your requirement perfectly) is not as easy as with >0 aircraft that do not entirely meet your requirement.
Spitfire9why ?
because if its going to be at a quantity that has an overall strengthening effect rather than diverting resources
even more after 36 * Rafale, with all that encumbers with specialized training, logistics, spare parts, etc,
how many trance 1 does UK have to give away ?
another handful of EF would cost at least as much to operate as the Rafale,
overall they are much better off capability wise by spending these billions on getting existing Su-30 operational
Ah, I meant Typhoon instead of Rafale. In the event that Dassault does not come up with an acceptable price, there won’t be a deal for 36 Rafales.
Spitfire9if they pick EF, its proof Rafale is seriously overpriced,
for how else could the total cost of EF be significantly less than Rafale ?
The sensible thing about Typhoon is that there might be a swathe of the things available (UK tranche 1, for example) at fairly short notice and possibly at a bargain price – UK more or less gave away its Harriers plus spares a few years ago. IAF could get going on pilot and maintenance training quite quickly and start standing up squadrons while local assembly was being set up/had not yet produced many aircraft. As aircraft came off the local production line, the UK tranche 1 aircraft could be retained in service to help maintain/increase IAF squadron strength or could be retired as suited IAF.
Apart from IAF (whose role is to provide defence capability in the air) wanting shiny new toys in the form of Rafale, can anyone suggest why this isn’t a better idea than buying Rafale?
Spitfire9IBAE also will fly a developmental active electronically scanned array radar with the Typhoon during the third quarter.
I wonder what that is. ‘Developmental’ doesn’t sound like a finalised configuration that’s pre-production.
Spitfire9Some 436 of a contracted 571 Eurofighters have now been delivered to customer nations, also including Austria and Saudi Arabia (and with Oman yet to introduce the type). This total includes 129 of an eventual 160 for the UK.
Noting that current commitments will sustain manufacturing until late 2017 or early 2018, Boardman says: “We need to get orders, or we won’t have a production programme.” But, realising that “international customers will place orders when they are ready – not according to our production continuity”, he adds that the Eurofighter partner companies have adapted “to build at low rate and maintain cost”. The latter has already been reduced by 20%.
The potential for a production gap is being considered, with Boardman noting that BAE completed a final batch of Panavia Tornados for Saudi Arabia three years after ending its programme for Germany, Italy and the UK, and “for a lower cost”.
Interesting that the Tornados for SA were cheaper to produce after the assembly line had been idle for several years.
Clearly Eurofighter is reaching the point where new orders are required to avoid disruption of production within the supplier chain. Where will (could) they come from?
I wonder how pleased SA are with the aircraft. They are gaining combat experience with it, albeit in a relatively benign environment – ISIS does not have any significant air capability as far as I know. A follow on order from SA for 50+ would be a big boost and extend production for another year or more.
Is there ANY chance of the UK taking up any more of the tranche 3 aircraft originally intended?
I assume that there are no more customers to be found in Europe and none in the Far East. What about sales to any more countries in the Gulf area? Anyone know if there are serious prospects of signing any new customers in the next year?
Spitfire9Since there is no thread for Indian aviation, I’ll stick my post here…
The article is about overhauling of DRDO and defence PSUs. The text below interested me:
With the objective of achieving self-reliance in defence production, the DPSUs have been continuously modernizing and upgrading their capabilities and widening their product range. Some of the DPSUs have also collaborated with DRDO and other R&D institutions in this regard. There is also increasing emphasis on partnerships of DPSUs with the private sector for sourcing various components so that DPSUs can play the role of system integrators and become more competitive.
That appears to be an admission that state-controlled entities are inefficient when it comes to making things (not THAT much of a revelation to most informed people). So why get the private sector to partner with DPSU’s? Just squanders part of the increase in efficiency that could be achieved by getting the private sector to do what is required on its own. Another thing – if DPSU’s are uncompetitive when it comes to making things, why should they assume the role of systems integrators? They’re probably uncompetitive at everything they turn their hand to, so why make systems integration inefficient, too? What is the point of PSU’s having any involvement at all, except by competing for work with companies that operate in a real, competitive environment? That is the test of whether or not you can do the job – competition. To be honest, I doubt the DPSU’s would get a single contract on merit. Good thing, too. India could start learning how to design and produce aircraft efficiently.
Spitfire9Two wing and one centerline, of course.
Follow that a tanker can only refuel 3 fighters but you’re not going to have your entire serviceable fighter force requiring refuelling at the same time, are you?
Spitfire9I am at work and want to dig up sources.. but the “editor” is a notorious F-35 hater who takes things out of context on a regular basis (BIO has already pointed out a few items where he was wrong).
Sounds a lot like a company based in Marietta that is a notorious F-35 lover which takes things out of context on a regular basis. If it’s OK for LM to pump out a load of positive bulls**t about the F-35 intended to deceive and mislead, then negative bulls**t from the editor concerned is not such a bad thing is it? Or would you prefer that everyone just accepts whatever LM says without challenge and they should have the right to a monopoly on distortion where the F-35 is concerned?
Blind belief in the F-35 is the approach of some; blind disbelief in the F-35 is the approach of others.
Spitfire9Having had a look around for info, it appears Paveway II is going to be the only LGB available for use at IOC (unless integration has been delayed). Better than nothing but that presents the same problem that Typhoon suffered when Paveway II was the only guided ordinance integrated: the result is a BIG bang which may restrict its use (you may not want to blow everything to bits within quite a large radius of the explosion). It’s a pity both aircraft did not start with integration of a 250lb guided munition, adding a 500lb bomb at a later point.
Spitfire9Haven’t ANY guided munitions been integrated? The report mentioned that out of 200+ requirements, 8 had not yet been met. Would one or more of those be the integration of guided munitions / A2G missiles?
Spitfire9Five years after the first F-35s were supposed to be declared combat-ready, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer says the fighter jet’s operating software is ready to go “with some minor workarounds” that need to be remedied later.
“All but eight” of the 243 software capabilities anticipated for the declaration of “initial operational capability” are “on track to be completed and verified” before the Marine Corps announces the milestone for its version of the plane, Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for acquisition, wrote in a report to Congress obtained by Bloomberg News.
Spitfire9From flightglobal today at http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/top-usaf-official-warns-of-quotblowbackquot-if-congress-saves-a-10-414688/
Proposals in the US Congress to protect the Fairchild Republic A-10 and Lockheed Martin EC-130 from retirement and restrict further fleet reductions could force the US Air Force to “delay or eliminate” modernisation programmes, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James warned on 15 July.
The House of Representatives and the Senate are meeting to reconcile differences in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2016, but both versions so far agree on keeping the A-10 close air support fighter and the EC-130 Compass Call fleet flying.
It seems that the politicians are more concerned with US forces having the support of a CAS aircraft that works (A-10) than the USAF getting a shiny new toy that doesn’t work as effectively in the CAS role (F-35).
I think I go along with the politicians. I think if I were in a platoon pinned down under enemy fire I would prefer to hear a Warthog was on its way to help rather than to hear an F-35 was on its way to help.
Sign In
