Spitfire9So let me get this straight… The only way the F-35 is better is if you actually have to take it to war?
Gee, why would anyone consider war performance when selecting a weapons system?
Dumbasses
Not every country has a penchant for getting engaged in overseas wars. A government’s primary responsibiliy is often said to be the defence of the state it governs. Nothing wrong with making that the primary responsibility of one’s air force.
Spitfire9F-35, Competitors Equally Capable for Most Missions: Report from Canada
OTTAWA — A highly-anticipated, government-commissioned report on the F-35 and its competitors shows little difference between the four warplanes when it comes to the vast majority of missions they will be required to perform.
The only major exception is fighting against another country, though the report says such an event is “highly unlikely” to occur in the future, and even then, “the government is not obliged to undertake such a mission.”
Full article here: http://www.montrealgazette.com/News/politics/competitors+equally+capable+most+missions+report/10458105/story.html
Spitfire9The Eurofighter article says that 421 Typhoons have been delivered. Sales so far are: Austria: 15. Oman: 12. SA: 72. I’ll call it about 100. Partner countries were originally going to take 620 but that’s down to about 470 now, I think. So total sales are about 570 with less than 150 still to be delivered, some of which are currently under assembly. I wonder what the longest lead parts are and when new orders will be needed to keep lines open for those. I imagine that a top up order for SA is the best prospect for keeping all the supply chain busy. Does anyone know the chances of the Saudis buying more, how many and when?
Spitfire9From french head of Armée de l’Air (Gal Mercier), with cost rationalization CFPH of Rafale disminished by 14% in one year. He also mentions that french AdA is outstreched atm.
It says: “Les crédits de maintenance étant insuffisants (il a manqué un milliard d’euros en 2013), l’activité est de 20 % inférieure aux normes de l’OTAN… L’activité devrait revenir à un niveau satisfaisant « en 2018 ».”
My translation: Funds for maintenance being insufficient (shortfall of a billion euros in 2013), activity is 20% below NATO norms… Activity should return to a satisfactory level “in 2018”.
Is M Mercier saying the Armée de l’Air had a shortfall of a billion euros in 2013 for maintenance of all aircraft or was it the shortfall just for Rafale? Having to wait 3+ years to return to satisfactory levels seems a long time to me.
Spitfire9Today may see a decision on whether the IAF will get an additional 106 PC-7 MkII trainers or whether it will need to procure the HTT-40 from HAL instead.
From the linked article:
The 53 PC-7 Mark II trainers already delivered by Pilatus face problems with service support. Pilatus has asked HAL to negotiate licensing and service agreements with more than 28 separate vendors.
“If Pilatus is playing hardball with the IAF with a contract for 106 trainers in the offing, imagine how difficult they’ll be when that contract is in the bag,” an HAL official told the MoD.
HAL officials made another powerful argument to the MoD on Thursday — that “end user” agreements with Pilatus ban India from weaponising the PC-7 Mark II, which means kitting it out as a light fighter with guns, bombs and rockets.
In contrast, weaponising the HTT-40 and selling it to allies like Afghanistan would require no foreign permission.
Given the difficulty that has recently arisen with Pilatus, might be a good idea to give them a slap in the face to show that non-cooperation by suppliers can lead to follow on orders being cancelled. Disregarding that, there appear to be several potential advantages in going down the indigenous route. However… (a) REALISTICALLY, how likely are HAL to come up with an aircraft that works? (b) How urgently are additional trainers required? (c) REALISTICALLY, when would the HTT-40 be delivered? It is quite important to be REALISTIC in one’s assessments when making a choice between alternatives.
Spitfire9Astonishing news: the first contract for the maintenance and support of the new A400M Atlas military aircraft has been awarded to… its maker!
Spitfire9This might be relevant to China’s stealth fighter program: computers holding details of F-35 design were hacked. The USAF employed a hacker to investigate and this is what is said to have ensued:
The logical place to start the investigation was with Lockheed Martin, the primary contractor. Its own computers held vital information about the aircraft, but perhaps more important, it was in charge of the many subcontractors to whom various aspects of the F-35’s development had been farmed out. But when the air force’s hacker showed up at a Lockheed office to start his investigation, he was met not by fellow techies or military officers overseeing the F-35’s construction. He was greeted by the company’s lawyers.
The hacker requested a laptop. “Why do you need that?” the lawyers asked. He explained that he had to look at Lockheed’s internal computer networks, for starters. Also, he wanted to know what software and applications a typical Lockheed employee’s laptop was running. They might have flaws in software code or “backdoors,” which allow a user (including a legitimate one, such as a systems administrator) to bypass normal security controls, like a user log-in and password screen, and gain access to the machine. An intruder could have used these access points to gain a foothold inside the company’s electronic infrastructure. All the spy needed was a way in, a place to set up a digital beachhead and conduct operations.
The lawyers gave the hacker a laptop fresh out of the box; it had never been connected to a Lockheed network. It had never been touched by a Lockheed employee — other than an attorney. The hacker protested. This was like being asked to figure out how a house was burgled without being allowed to inspect the crime scene.
Spitfire9Funnily enough, Dassault was all gung-ho about how 100% ToT would happen, despite fully knowing that HAL was the agency identified by the GoI as the prime integrator in India. Back then, winning the deal was the only thing on Dassault’s mind. Later on, once they won the evaluation and negotiations started, the tune changed somewhat. Dassault was looking to get Reliance Industries, a company that hasn’t even manufactured a gyrocopter, let alone a fighter, to become the prime industrial partner in India. So, its definitely not incompetence that they’re worried about, otherwise Reliance wouldn’t even enter the picture. There were and are, other private sector entities like Tata and L&T and Mahindra & Mahindra that actually have defence businesses. Reliance has nothing, not even a hangar. So why would they choose Reliance instead? Their first defence product ever and that would be a Rafale? Dassault was so confident that Reliance would be able to absorb all the technology that HAL, which has built hundreds of fighters cannot?
Understood that Dassault knew that the RFP specified HAL as the business that was to undertake assembly. In fact, had the GOI accepted Dassault’s proposal to use Reliance (or Tata and L&T and Mahindra & Mahindra etc ), India would have gained an alternative to HAL for aircraft assembly. Importantly, a private entity alternative – which I imagine would be far more effective than a state owned company such as HAL in fulfilling future assembly contracts.
withhold contract payments and then let the entire Rafale fleet get grounded due to lack of OEM support while the GoI tries to negotiate with Dassault on how to set things right? After a contract has been signed that doesn’t penalise Dassault for non-adherence to terms? And then you’ll blame the GoI for not signing a water-tight contract and act like Dassault is this super ethical company that can do no wrong, and is merely sticking to whatever was contracted for.
I never suggested that Dassault should not be penalised for non-adherence to terms. Agreed, it might not be possible to cover EVERYTHING in a contract. That is one reason why it is a good idea to do business with companies one believes will be reasonable when trying to resolve issues that are not covered in the contract by negotiation. I don’t know if Dassault falls into that category. Personally I suspect it does not. It’s a shame SAAB doesn’t make the Rafale, isn’t it?
HAL shouldn’t have to deal with the hundreds of suppliers that Dassault uses for the Rafale. Rather, Dassault should take responsibility to be the sole authority that negotiates with HAL as the prime integrator of the Rafale, and assists it in signing all the hundreds of sub-contracts that will need to be signed with Dassault’s suppliers. Otherwise, each supplier can seek its own terms and conditions and bring the ToT process to a halt.
I agree that it would be simpler for Dassault to arrange TOT. It has a relationship with Rafale sub-contractors and is in a better position than GOI to ensure those sub-contractors adhere to their agreements. Of course each supplier can seek their own terms and conditions. That’s business! Dassault cannot dictate terms and conditions to suppliers. If they don’t like them, they won’t sign contracts. Same as Dassault and GOI – if either party does not find the terms and conditions of the Rafale deal acceptable, there will be no contract.
Spitfire9That’s based on an anecdote footnoting a US cable about the US ambassador’s visit to Bangalore. HAL and the Indian MoD had a different set of complaints, which pertained to the tooling and jigs supplied by BAE.
I spent a couple of years exporting to the Middle East and one of the problems I encountered was that some buyers were incompetent and went to some lengths to avoid giving a specific specification when asked to give one. And asked again. And again. Why? If they had specified exactly what they wanted to buy and it turned out that they had specified incorrectly, they would not be able to turn around and blame the supplier for misunderstanding what was required and shipping the wrong goods. It was all to do with avoiding being in a position where one could be shown to be at fault.
Re: the Hawk screw up, am I to understand that it was simply down to the tooling and jigs supplied by BAE?
Spitfire9And the initial problems with the Hawk as I understand it, were caused by faults in delivery from the contractor i.e. BAE. This is precisely what the MMRCA contract seeks to avoid.
What I heard was that GOI screwed up on sanctioning procurement of spares for in service Hawks (took ages to do it, surprise, surprise) so HAL raided kits supplied by Bae for assembly of new Hawks. Rather than putting their hands up to admit their mistake, the way to avoid losing face was to shift blame to the contractor. Great way of running things if you have power and incompetence – find someone else to blame for whatever problems you have created. That way you can carry on being incompetent forever and ever and never be held responsible for your incompetence! This is precisely the sort of idiocy Dassault seeks to avoid.
Spitfire9First, the company’s maximum liability for a single aircraft will likely only equal the aircraft’s value, though there may be a multiplier element depending on the contract. This ‘unlimited’ liability leading to bankruptcy idea is utter nonsense. This kind of business is something insurance companies do everyday.
Ever tried insuring anything where the insurance company can’t quantify the risk? If I want to put on a play outside in London on 1st June, I can get an insurance quote against my loss if it rains so the performance has to be cancelled, all the tickets sold have to be refunded but the cost of the venue and personnel involved in the production still have to be paid. Reason: hundreds of records for rainfall in London on 1st June are available. If there were only 1 or 2 records for rain in London on that day, getting insurance would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
What is HAL’s track record with licenced production? How many different aircraft have they assembled? How many problems that have cost money have been encountered (either of their own making or otherwise?) Weren’t they involved in assembling an aircraft called Hawk where they required outside authority to order parts which was not forthcoming in a timely manner and screwed up production? Could that outside authority screw things up for Rafale assembly, too? etc etc
Insurance companies aren’t stupid. They avoid business where they cannot quantify the risk of paying out. Why should Dassault take such a risk? Is Dassault stupid?
Second, the terms of the deal were spelled out in the RFP. Nobody forced Dassault to participate under the Indian MoD’s terms if it felt they were restrictive. But if it at this point tries to negotiate a better position for itself, its basically a subversion of the contract. EF Gmbh could well argue that they could offer a better price under these new terms.
I don’t know if Dassault accepted overall liability using HAL as part of its bid then thought better of it after looking into how much control they could exercise over HAL’s activities re: Rafale. I would remind you that Boeing subcontracted out a lot of the 787. They had teams of engineers monitoring and guiding subcontractors during development and early production yet ended up having to buy some of their problem subcontractors to get control of their activities. While Boeing made mistakes of their own in 787 development, the last figure I heard on the production required to break even was 1,000 frames (rather than <500 anticipated IIRC.) At $200+ million a pop, they need to produce $200+ BILLION worth of 787’s just to reach break even after extra costs and contractual penalties payable for late delivery. Might be worth remembering also that the deals Boeing had with subcontractors were not based on Boeing paying the customer for their mistakes with no comeback on subcontractors if they had fallen down on the job. I dread to think how appalling the situation would have been for the 787 program if that were the case. But of course, that could never have been the case because Boeing would never have agreed to such an insane arrangement.
My point: if you are financially responsible for timely production but cannot control elements of production, you risk burning your fingers extremely badly.
The Super Hornet line is a small fraction of Boeing and the Eurofighter line a small fraction of Airbus. No company with a shred of common sense dismisses a $20bn+ order as ‘peanuts’ unless its planning to quit the defence business and layoff its employees working there.
As pointed out elsewhere, Dassault does not need more Rafale orders to continue with the program. More orders would be good, of course, but only if the terms of any deal were good.
Spitfire9If they would have gone for an OTS contract they would have paid double to get the technology needed on the LCA. The ToT is all about feeding their industry base.
OK, so India is trying to kill two birds at the cost of one stone, rather than two. But how did this start? Was India looking for TOT primarily with supplying the IAF with modern aircraft as a secondary consideration? I think it was the other way round.
Spitfire9ARLINGTON, VA — The Office of Naval Research (ONR) received one of the nation’s top manufacturing awards for an innovative, cost-saving method for making advanced cockpit enclosures, or canopies, for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program Dec. 2.
Officials from ONR’s Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) program accepted the Department of Defense’s Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Achievement Award at the Defense Manufacturing Conference in San Antonio.
The Department of Defense’s Joint Strike Fighter program is developing the next generation of affordable, lethal strike aircraft in variants for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The automated process will be used to make canopies (the transparent shells around the cockpits) for more than 2,000 aircraft, saving nearly $125 million over the life of the F-35 program…
…The automation project began in 2011 and cost just $1.3 million.
Amazing. $60,000+ saving per canopy x 2000 for spending $1.3 million!
Spitfire9Sooner or later (sooner) they will need new airframes. The really stupid thing about all this is that it is totally self inflicted. The entire process has been a byzantine mess from the start. They would have been far better served if they hadn’t tried to do so much with one contract, tech transfer, local production, etc etc. They should have kept MMRCA as close to an off the shelf purchase as possible and left the LCA as their indigenous/foreign effort.
The GOI being conscious that their decision making process was astonishingly slow and convoluted, I see a lot to commend your view. To me the GOI missed the opportunity of creating a plan B by accelerating Tejas development and production. If Tejas were coming off the assembly line at a decent rate now the need to agree terms for Rafale production would not be key to maintaining IAF squadron strength.
Spitfire9In one finding, the GAO said tests from Air Force and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 indicate parts are being replaced on average 15 to 16 times more frequently than the F-35 program office assumes.
??? Did the the F-35 program office assume parts would be replaced far, far less frequently than on previous designs but that has not been the case or did it assume frequency would be in line with previous designs but F-35 needs parts replaced many times more often? 15 times the expected frequency is staggering to put it mildly.
Sign In
