Spitfire9Doesn’t really matter what the Minister says today, the point is that further Rafale orders will be the logical option if there are further problems/delays with LCA or FGFA.
However it certainly confirms that the original buy was a matter of satisfying the relevant interest groups with the smallest possible commitment. A political decision, not one made in the national interest.
Who are these interest groups? Foreign ministry wants a token order to keep France happy? Some internal group that needs to be kept happy? Some way of keeping the finance ministry happy by reducing the spend?
Thinking back 3 or 4 years, the figure bandied about for 126 MMRCA including TOT was $10.5 billion. How does that square with the $8 billion reported for 36 Rafale without TOT? Don’t see any reason for Dassault to give India a good price now that there are orders for Rafale from elsewhere. Financially it would make far more sense to buy 36 extra MKI and buy a load more Tejas Mk1. Even if it’s a bit of a dog and not up to much it’s quite adequate to replace MiG-21.
However, the bulls**t about it always being just about ready to be brought into service would have to stop. It looks like HAL can’t make the thing either. Sack people, knock heads together, pull people in who actually get things DONE. That’s MY advice. If that’s impossible in India, forget MCA. It will just be a repeat of LCA.
Spitfire9Sure you’re right.
Spitfire9Bulgaria to Launch New Fighter Jet Acquisition Process by End-June
Gripen C/D lease looks very possible to me
SAAB pitches Gripen to Malaysia
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/163902/saab-touts-gripen-to-malaysia.html
Saab Malaysia Vice-President Thomas Linden said the Gripen multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) was among the first aircraft to focus on air-to-air combat, based on the operational range, payload and built-in Net Centric Warfare (NCW).
It also supplied military equipment to many armed forces in the world, and had supplied the Gripen NG fighter jet to South Africa, Hungary, Czech and Brazil.
If you say so, Mr Linden. You should know best. lol
Spitfire9To make matters worse, no chance of any additional Rafales
India To Cap Dassault Rafale Orders At 36: Defense Minister
That’s dumb. Pay for all the training and infrastructure to support the type then only buy enough for 2 squadrons? Stuuuupid IMO. Wonder if this is all to do with French/Indian diplomacy.
Spitfire9By the way…. Hungarian Crashed gripens where not tecnical error sais czech defence minister.
http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/experts-rule-out-technical-error-in-hungarian-gripen-crash
How does the defence minister know? Did the pilot say he forgot to deploy the brake parachute? Or forgot to apply the brakes? Or touched down three quarters the way down the runway?
Spitfire9You can do what you like in international airspace, can’t you? Agreed, I don’t like the idea of countries sending aircraft into busy skies with transponders switched off. Ideally before take off bombers should file a flight plan with all ATC agencies on the way to the target country but can’t see the military adopting that procedure somehow.
Spitfire9Allegedly the brakes have failed…
They ejected AFTER landing?
Spitfire9Point is, with the Rafale they know what they get, while with the F-35 it’s still work in progress, uncertain of what will it really be able to do or how it will perform compared to others (Rafale included) as they keep improving all the time as well
Now you’re just being obdurate. There’s no need a great deal of real world feedback to know that the F-35 is a VLO design while the Rafale is not. As for rest; radar, EW, MMI, sensor fusion, propulsion etc we already have a proof of technology in the F-22. And with the US, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Israel committed, with Singapore & Denmark soon to follow, there’s no ‘uncertainty’ around the project. Its future is as secure as can be.
Have you not noticed that over the course of the F-35 program, deadlines and promised functionality have failed to be achieved? It’s almost like trying to reach a mirage – as you get closer, it moves into the distance again. A chracteristic it shares with the HAL Tejas.
Spitfire9Bit surprised by this extract from aviationweek:
Australia has begun building the infrastructure it will need to support its planned force of at least 72 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings, with much of the work driven by U.S. demands for tightened security of the aircraft and their systems.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/work-begins-australian-f-35-base-facilities
When you buy a military aircraft does the supplier normally specify the security arrangements required to be followed by the user?
Spitfire9What part of NORWAY”S PROGRAM COSTS DID YOU NOT GET. Good luck with finding apples to apples comparisons. Bottom line, 2.5 billion quote is no longer accurate for the purchase of the Gripen E, how much more it will be? Even at the 80 million per copy quote in the attached article that leads to nearly 5 billion for 60 aircraft. Now do you think the SAAB exec’s statement was accurate?
Helps to read before applying snark there Swerve.
Mmmm… flightglobal article is dated 18 May 2015 so I presume that Mr Nillson’s statement was made recently. It’s not an opinion he is stating – he claims Norway has set aside a certain amount to finance F-35 whereas Sweden has set asidea third of that.
Just thinking of $1 trillion lifetime cost for ~2,500 US F-35’s: that comes out @ ~$400 million a piece. Don’t remember if the US figure includes development but it is of minor importance given the number of frames. $13.5 billion for 60 Gripens reported in defensenews in 2012 comes out @ ~ $225 million each.
I won’t be surprised if Gripen cost is lower than the 2012 estimate. And I expect the Norwegian lifecycle cost will be substantially higher than the US one so I think it is not implausible that Gripen will cost Sweden about a third of what F-35 will cost Norway.
The reason I posted was many will recall that Norway assessed Gripen as being more expensive than F-35 to and ordered F-35. Which appears to be utterly inaccurate.
Spitfire9What part of NORWAY”S PROGRAM COSTS DID YOU NOT GET. Good luck with finding apples to apples comparisons. Bottom line, 2.5 billion quote is no longer accurate for the purchase of the Gripen E, how much more it will be? Even at the 80 million per copy quote in the attached article that leads to nearly 5 billion for 60 aircraft. Now do you think the SAAB exec’s statement was accurate?
Helps to read before applying snark there Swerve.
Mmmm… flightglobal article is dated 18 May 2015 so I presume that Mr Nillson’s statement was made recently. It’s not an opinion he is stating – he claims Norway has set aside a certain amount to finance F-35 whereas Sweden has set aside a third of that for Gripen E..
Just thinking of $1 trillion lifetime cost for ~2,500 US F-35’s: that comes out @ ~$400 million a piece. Don’t remember if the US figure includes development but it is of minor importance given the number of frames. $13.5 billion for 60 Gripens reported in defensenews in 2012 comes out @ ~ $225 million each.
I won’t be surprised if Gripen cost is lower than the 2012 estimate. And I expect the Norwegian lifecycle cost will be substantially higher than the US one so I think it is not implausible that Gripen will cost Sweden about a third of what F-35 will cost Norway.
The reason I posted was many will recall that Norway assessed Gripen as being more expensive than F-35 and ordered F-35.
Spitfire9A Hawk is one quarter the cost of a Gripen.
I know Gripen and F-35 are fighters. Supersonic, too. Hawk isn’t so what’s your point? That Sweden could get ~250 trainers instead of 60 Gripen? That Norway could get ~750 trainers instead of 52 F-35?
Spitfire9Interesting comment re: cost of Norway’s 52 F-35 and Sweden’s 60 Gripen E by head of aeronautics Ulf Nilsson
Comparing Sweden’s programme to acquire 60 Gripen Es with Norway’s to introduce 52 F-35As, he says: “We are one-third of the cost that the Norwegian state has set aside.”
Only for register flightglobal users: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-saab-targets-fresh-export-deals-for-gripen-412275/
Spitfire9Undoubtedly there have been some questionable decisions made over time, but most of the diversity in India’s fielded platforms and programs is simply a consequence of its diverse relationships and strategic imperatives, and rapid economic and national development. On the latter point, China is the most comparable nation, and there too we see the consequences in the form of what would otherwise be a strange and eclectic mix of aircraft, ranging from J-7s and Q-5s through JH-7s, J-10s and J-11s, to J-20 and UCAV prototypes — all at the same time. Same in the field of AWACS where China has four or five different types. These are growing pains, and reflect the dynamism underlying both powers. It would be as foolish for India to try and replicate the consolidation and efficiency of e.g. the UK armed forces as it would be for the UK to emulate India’s eclectic mix.
Better to focus in a more disciplined manner on fewer projects IMO. I think projects would come to fruition with less delay.
Spitfire9France will lead a joint project with Germany, with minor contributions from other European powers, possibly Brazil also.
Maybe. The problem with several countries co-operating is that they do not have the vision to see that if their individual requirements are not fully met, they may well be very much better off in terms of overall military capability. Given the potential savings of developing and manufacturing one aircraft that probably fits none of the partners’ requirements fully, European countries are dumb to individually develop very similar aircraft (eg Rafale, Typhoon) in parallel. What is required is for countries seeking a similar capabilty to sit down and agree what requirements they have in common and to pursue those together.
It was an economic nonsense for Europe to fund the development of two or more similar fighters when tens of billions could have been saved by developing just one.
Sign In
