JSRI do not know what the time lines are, but the contractors that bid for the program surely do. From what i recall, the plan was to have X no. of Fighters delivered (completed at the production line of the seller) within a fixed alloted time, and then the production from India takes over the supply. As per media reports that quote the indian Defense Minister, the plan is to get one squadron operational, within 3-4 years of signing the contract. Given a 2013, 2014 contract, thats 2017-2018 for FOC for the first squadron. Can Lockheed deliver a complete squadron with 3b software by then? This is of course assuming all the TOT issues are sorted out within the year, which is unlikely given that the TOT restrictions are significant on the F35.
In reply to a question on delivery of MMRCA, Defence Minister A K Antony told Lok Sabha on Monday, “First squadron of MMRCA consisting of 18 aircraft is expected to be inducted within three to four years of signing of contract.”
http://www.brahmand.com/news/IAF-to-induct-1st-squadron-of-MMRCA-in-3-to-4-years/9140/1/10.html
yup 3 to 4 years to make operational squardon. with no sign of contract signing.
Rafale is going to negotiate a contract with the Indian government for its part of the program. Lockheed CANNOT negotiate a fixed price for F-35 deliveries, for the jet is still in testing, cost is unknown in the 2017-2020 time frame.
It is not the 2017-2020 costs that matter but costs beyond 2020 that matter when JSF costs will go down and Rafale costs will go up. you cannot run production line with such low production per year. what will be the cost of MBDA weopons for 126 Rafale?. Alteast twice the cost of JSF weopons.
Negotiations are negotiations…their delay reflects each side’s instance on selecting something that is favourable to them, and usually negotiations finalize when one side capitulates, or an equilibrium is reached. The fact still remains, that the operational cost for the rafale can be shown to a significantly higher degree of certainty by sighting actual data from actual operational usage both in the peacetime and wartime. What lockheed can do at best is show the IAF a computer model that takes into account 1/3 testing, and tries to draw a conclusion as to what cost would. The credibility of that model is questionable given that we are seeing huge fluctuations in the model as the program advances. Even though the fluctuations are for the better, they do show the inherent weakness of the model given the level of maturity of the program. This puts the F-35 at an extremely risky position, given that the services and the government of India probably wanted verifiable data to do an apples to apples comparison.
Rafale costs in French service wont matter as those costs were when Rafale production line was in begining. between what happened to M2K production line and now see costs and slow upgrading of M2K?
Might be a myth for you…What india wants, is best known to them. If Dassault cannot meet that then negotiations break down, or India reduces its demands. Whatever may be the case, you begin from the position that is referred to in the document (RFP), in order to meet in house production and tech transfer goals lockheed would have to seriously do a deal with the US government, and these type of deals take time.
There is no point in negotiating for some thing where manufacturer fighter production is uncertain. you can do it for MIG-21 but cannt do it for super expensive Rafale.
What it needs is immaterial here. What will actually happen is more important. Seems like the two sides will go at it a bit longer and hammer out a deal. I do not see another evaluation, or a re-deal. If its just a re look at the competition and picking the no. 2 , the F-35 still does not make it since the no. 2 was typhoon. If its a brand new program, and the MRCA is scrapped expect 4-5 years before anything happens. I’ll leave it to the more informed members on this board to actually predict what will actually happen. I am reffering to the current MRCA bid, and how unless the time lines are stretched out, and the deal goes into the post 2020 time frame, the F-35 stands no chance.
F-35 stands good chance. as it is single engine fighter. with lots of upgrade potential with lower cost weopons.
We are booked/contract signed for the next two lots. Beyond that the USAF,USN,USMC and the partners are still going to be negotiating their purchases. Where are you going to squeeze out a squadron from within 3-4 years after signing the contract?
first you have to sign contract. JSF production numbers will rise faster post 2020 where Rafale cannot compete. Rafale contract is good for first 20 planes rest are obsolete and super expensive.
I know because french have made room already in the production line by reducing the numbers (their procurement). The US is looking to up the production rate and build more fighters for themselves as services look at their IOC date of 2015, 2016 and 2018. The room for that squadron is clear in the french production line. I see no space in the JSF production line from where LMA can squeeze out a squadron.
JSF production capacity is much higher than what countries are going to order.
What does that mean? The NGJ is a jammer that meets the USN needs, and is designed around the Super Hornet and the Future FA-XX. The F-35 is able to carry it because it is an open architecture fighter, where all the provisions are in place for future systems and sub systems. The software is open architecture unlike that of the raptor, so integration is as easy as a putting a patch. Fibre optic cabling has been done already anticipating future systems and growth. It does not mean that the NGJ has been deliberately made less powerful so that it can work with the F-35, infact having it work with the F-35 is not even a design requirement.
USN has limited size carriers and medium size aircraft F-18E. so it will have to design stuff for that power and size. It cannot design some thing for bigger size.
JSRThe reason why Rafale is more competitive in the MRCA context:
* Rafale can meet the MRCA delivery timelines, the F-35 cannot
how do you know MRCA delivery time line with all the upgrades?
* Rafale can nail down on a fix contract cost, LMA cannot do the same, as the jet is still in development
Rafale cant it become unworkable in UAE after 5 year negotiation.
* Rafale can provide a documented, proven record of operational and logistical cost, The F-35 can only provide a computer model, that is periodicaly updated based on lessons learned from testing. Needless to say, with almost 2/3 of the testing remaining, that model is far from FIXED.
that why it took unlimited negotiation after selecting Rafale after EF. (India must have know EF price by than)
* The MRCA is as much as TOT as it is about procuring a capable fighter. If the F-35 has to provide a comparable TOT and In house production promise, many complex issues must be hammered out by the Indian and the US Governments…That will take plenty of time!
Snecma could not help Kaveri. This TOT Is myth as Rafale itself uses Hexcel compoistes and presumbly other suppliers.
* For the JSF to be considered, its developer actually needs to offer it. Clearly given the contents of the request for proposals, LMA felt they could field a more competitive bid by offering the F-16I instead.
Developer didnot know in begining how long this MRCA will drag on. It needs re bid.
For the F-35 to be more competitive, in the MRCA context, the IAF would have to considerably delay the entire acquisition program, and look at an IOC date that is far out into the future. There are also issues, with the F-35 being able to fly to India and be put to the test by the IAF, but i guess those can be ironed out.
F-35 expensive cost make it more likely to be available sooner with empty slot and LM has invested alot in production line. Rafale manufacturing is winding down.
There is no deadline because contract is signed by the political establishment. According to what is known, the IAF does specify the number of fighters it wants in the short term , after the contract is signed.
so there is no dead line for contract so how you know Rafale can be faster delivered and on budget.
Well actually they do not. The F-35, is compatible with the NGJ, The USMC has apparently shown some interest to use it as such. The open architecture software, and fibre optic cable layout, means that the NGJ integration onto the F-35 is just a matter of software patch and tunnel testing clearance. Of course you compromise on stealth, but then by not adhering to strict EMCON, you kind of make that tradeoff to begin with.
It means NGJ is developed taking into account F-35. it does not mean more heavier and power NGJ cannot be developed for larger aircraft that is more effective.
JSRThey also had a very close relationship with one of the most Corrupt and Evil Countries on the Planet! (i.e. USSR)
do you realize India has even more special relationship with even more corrupt and evil state KSA.
see the private inflows from KSA to India. KSA put Oil embargo on West in 1970s. USSR reliably supplied.
infact money from KSA is keeping millions of people backward and high oil prices surely bankrupting countries.
JSRIn the MRCA context, the rafale is far more competitive then the F-35, hence LMA did not even bother offering the F-35 and chose to offer the F-16I instead. By bidding with the F-35, they would have failed to meet timelines for IOC and delivery, and would not have been able to bid with a fixed amount. That would have meant an outright disqualification.
how is rafale more competitive?. Rafale has lower production rate, slow upgrade path, less powerfull engines so less sensor reach. I think Rafale will need 3ET to match JSF range on internal fuel. LM with F-16I was thinking that competition will be finished soon before JSF is developed.
There is no dead line for signing the contract.
http://newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/Rafale-jet-deal-put-on-the-back-burner-French-Minister-leaves-with-hopes-alone/2013/07/28/article1705118.ece
There was never any deadline for signing of this contract. Negotiations are progressing well. Once these are completed, the contract will be signed.”
Regarding advanced 4.5+ versions: Those with the Money and a real need for somthing superior, have made their call. 5th generation it is, 4.5+ may only come into the picture if the existing 5th gen projects go way off budget, and are thus unafordable. But China, Russia and the US, are all committed to 5th generation projects for the future. They still have to fly 4th and 4.5 gen jets for a long time. With the Duper Hornet, the USN realizes a potential hedge against Fa-xx delays, and or the congress mandating that the FA-XX be merged with USAF’s 6th generation program, which on a timeframe is 5 years beyond the USN requirement for the FA-xx (2030)…
4.5 g fighters have there own advantages like more power supply from twin engines.
5G stealth fighters has limited internal capacity for big weopons and jamming pods.
JSRyou make no sense, why talking about f16? it is not flanker. you have no point. f16 already works. flanker need upgrade for export partner to use.
china have many planes, they also work.
Flanker does not need upgrade as it use same radar, weopons and engine for export.
JSRlol JSR
no one want your old mig29! every one even malaysian trying to retire it or sell it.
flanker is good but have to be upgraded so many time to make it useful. china have to do it, india have to do it, malaysia too. at least the american plane work when you buy it. that is why the malaysian love it so much.to replace mig29, if malaysia using flanker os a bomber then it need a good fighter. i think j10b with aesa can do that for them. also one engine so should be cheaper than super hornet to fly!
or long run malaysia can weight for j31. if singapore get f35 then malaysia need something of same generation.
also most of top pilot in malaysia is chinese anyway, so make sense chinese pilot fly chinese plane.
what are Mitsubishi F-2 & F-16E ?. they are the upgraded versions of standard F-16s. US has diffferent kind of customers those who can afford (large soverign wealth funds) and those cannot. Thats why you see all F-16s to (Turkey, Greek, Israel, Egypt, Poland) are more less standarized.
Malaysian clearly estimated that they can customize and buy the heaviest & expensive version of Flanker. and how RMAF is going to customize F-18E if there is Israeli part in it. as there was no reason to change MKI to MKM.
chinese aviation is just one flight aviation for show. no follow up.
JSRThat’s an arrogant assumption to make. The reason I did not bring up the subject of the payment arrangements and other details of the deal is because is has no bearing to what we’re currently discussing.
so how come you made claim that RMAF was close to buying F-18 when you dont have any idea about cost and payment arrangements. They may have evaluated the plane but thats all about it. Alot of countries evaluates planes and make cost assumptions but end result is usually nothing.
The whole point about a technical evaluation is not only to evaluate the technical performance/characteristics of a given platform but to ALSO determine how much it will cost to operate and maintain the platform over a given period of time; compared to other platforms in contention, and this is precisely what the RMAF did….
Thats what i want to know as government surely rejected the so called lower cost option.
Really? If you know better or have better sources to indicate that I’m wrong or am indeed ‘speculating’, them kindly correct me, PLEASE enlightened me.
your definitely speculating regarding long term costs. There is very good estimate from Aussies F-18E deal from 2007. they have included some long term costs.
What on earth are you on about? The price quoted by Boeing to the RMAF for 18 SH Block 1s would have been off-set by a trade in for the 8 ‘Ds’ operated by the RMAF.
Boeing announced this, so did the RMAF, the local defence press and the international defence press. And where exactly does the Rafale enter the picture?
so you will have 8 less planes to fly around and with rock bottom prices tha Boeing will give you for obsolete planes there wont be much difference in cost. when Boeing announced any thing about price in 2001?
I will attempt – again – to explain the situation as it was in the 2001/02 period.
1. The RMAF DIDN’T want the Su-30. It actually wanted the Super Hornet and yes, it was fully aware that buying the Super Hornet would be a more expensive affair.
There are less expensive options in Su-30 if they didnot want Su-30. 18 Su-30 could have cost mere $500m. RMAF could have retired MIG-29 and F-18C and get F-18E.
2. Forced – by the political leadership -to get the Su-30, the RMAF then specified certain modifictions that would have to be made to the Su-30 to suit its specific requirements; by that time the RMAF was already aware of developments the IAF was making or had made with the MKI – as you’re no doubt aware, the MKM was influenced by the MKI. Right or wrong, the non-Russian items that are fitted to the MKM was those chosen by the RMAF to meet its requirements.
Political leadership didnot force which variant of Flanker to chose nor the quantity nor mixing up of different items.
3. I DID not mention anything about the PLAAF or its Flanker variants, you did, for some unknown reason to me. As far as I’m concerned, not only are you making an ”apples to orange’ comparison but you’re also bringiung up stuff that has ZERO bearing to this discussion. Since you’ve brought up China, why not bring up Vietnam and Venezuela next?
According to you RMAF wanted F-18E that has non electronic scanning radar/no MAWS/no wide angle HUD and no TVC/Canards. so why it chose such complicated and heavy version of Flanker? how it become requirement. I showed you that there were simple variants of Flanker available with faster delivery and possibly ready combat syallabus with much lower costs.
4. The RMAF DID not complain about costs associated with buying the MKM …..
In case it escaped you, what I did mention [on at least 2 occasions] is that due to a number of factors, buying the MKM has NOT turned out to be a cost effective solution DESPITE the fact that the price paid for 18 aircraft was cheaper than what it would have been if the RMAF had ordered 18 Super Hornets.
The point is you have no idea about long term non AESA F-18E costs. non AESA radars dont have the MTBF of AESA. External fuel tanks can add alot of drag.
You could only afford 8 F-18C and they are not so much upgraded despite being in service close to two decades.
JSRThey may not have operated anything comparable but did conduct a detailed evaluation of the SH in the 2001/02 period and received a full technical briefing; and in 2011, 3 pilots spent a month in the U.S. being trained on the SH; a technical evaluation team was also there, thus. despite not having operated anything comparable the RMAF was able to make an informed comparison between the MKM and the SH.
technical evaluation does not say anything about long term costs and the things that you mentioning were not present in F-18E in 2001.
For your information, the Malaysian government came very close to ordering 18 SH Block 1s in 2002, but made a last minute decision to go for the MKM after the Russians revised their off-set and transfer of technology offer; but you probably already knew that, since you seem very well informed on the RMAF.
They didnot came close. its your speculation.
If the RMAF had gone for the SH in 2002 [BTW the cost would have been reduced by trading in the ‘Ds’], apart from different radios, the RMAF would not have had to integrate anything that had not already been integrated to the SH. I was told this by a Boeing official and by a number of industry and RMAF people; I’m a regular visitor to all the defence shows in Malaysia and Singapore.
Those F-18D in used market has no bearing on new built composite material F-18E. in defence shows there in Rafale also.
Anyhow, since you insist that you and only you know best, there is no point in me responding to anything else you have to say ….
you made riduclouse claims regarding RMAF. No body forced RMAF to buy heavier canard/TVC equiped Flanker. They could easily chosen ligher Su-27SKM/Su-30MK and put the same wide angle HUD/MAWS/wing tip EW pods/strike pod. you are presenting these thing as some kind of new variant development of Flanker. RMAF took the decision for heaviest version of Flanker at that time and now complaining about costs. very little understanding of costs. Do you seriously think RMAF have better understanding of Flankers than PLAAF who buy single seat majority.
T
JSRThe Superhornet was fully operational and in service with the USN at that time. So all the operating/maintenance procedures is complete from USN and be used as is by RMAF. the MKM on the other hand is custom built for RMAF, and it showed with the long time needed for it to achieve full operational capability, and one of the reasons is because there is no ready made operating procedures for the MKM.
The money was there in 2002, rather than getting the Superhornet as wanted by RMAF, the political leaders bought the MKM instead. Another political buy is the A400M, which was bought without any requirement from the RMAF.
Su-30MK was operational with PLAAF. so?
USN operational aircraft has no bearing wont RMAF. does F-18E in 2002 has 7 LCDs? IRST? wide angle HUD like Rafale? Electronic scanning radar?MAWS? wing tip poded ECM. but its beside the point. Operating F-18E with external fuel tanks is hugely expensive operationally with lower g levels and top speed. This is plane that is 50% heavier than simplistic F-18C. I showed you there was no money as some of the payment was done with Palm Oil.
JSRThe fact remains that because of various differences in the avionics fit in the MKM, nobody was able to assist in developing a syllabus that was specific to the MKM and the RMAFs operational use for it; and the RMAF had to do it the hard way. This is not fantasy or something I conjured up whilst hitting the keyboard. The same happened years before when the IAF bought its MKIs, the Russians were unable to help because it wasn’t operated by them. I actually met the IAF team that was here in Malaysia and spoke to them in lenght about this issue ….
That avionics dont make differnce in combat. combat is learning flying with weopon operations. All these things are certified at factory.
I have explained in detail why operating the MKM has not turned out to be a cost effective solution for the RMAF; despite the platform being cheaper to buy, and I have also mentioned why the RMAF is less than happy with its MKMs. Again, I also personally know people who were involved in the deal and I personally know people who are currently flying the MKM, and who use to fly the Hornet – I did not here here about the stuff I mentioned from 3rd parties or from the internet but from the people who were actually involved in the deal and from people who fly the MKM, you can call it ‘hearsay’, I call it ‘facts’.
You didnot explain anything because you dont have iota of idea about comparable platform nor the payment arrangement. Personally know people wont make difference as they havent operated anything comparable.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200308/06/eng20030806_121792.shtml
Elaborating on the payment mechanism, he said Russia would implement a transfer of technology and offset program worth 270 million US dollars, constituting 30 percent of the value of the contract. In a counter-purchase arrangement, Russian will buy 270 millionUS dollars worth of palm oil from Malaysia while the rest of the aircraft purchase will be paid in cash by Malaysia
You can keep disagreeing all you want and you can doubt my claims, it makes absolutely no difference to me …. If you have better sources to indicate that what I have said is factually wrong, please corrrect me.
My take is that the RMAF would have been better off buying something that was already fully integrated and in service; rather than buying a small number of a customised variant that had equipment specific only to the RMAF. Another advantage is that the RMAF exercises with the USN and RAAF much more regularly and intensively than it does with others, thus in 2002 despite not being ‘cheaper’ than the MKM, the Super Hornet was the more ideal buy. At the moment, unless cash is allocated, the current budget can barely fund a Gripen buy but in 2002, there was cash allocated for 18 Super Hornets….
what was fully integrated in service in 2002? that is comparable. non-AESA F-18?. how do you know you can afford F-18E in 2002?
I didn’t say otherwise. As I mentioned previously, I was merely pointing out the differences in equipment.
That difference of equipment is very minor to combat.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/military/su-30mk/su-30mk_history/
The airframe, engines with thrust vector control, digital flight control system as well as armaments are the same as in the baseline model. The aircraft is fitted with an interrogator/transponder (IFF) of French origin. Additional nose domes to accommodate sensors of the South Africa’s Aviatronics’ missile and laser warning system were placed under the fuselage nose section. The onboard oxygen generating system is of Russian origin.
JSROf course there’s no fundamental difference [that’s precisely why the Indians were able to provide assistance in setting up a maintenance syllabus] but who’s talking about flight characteristics and weapons? The MKM and MKI indeed do share the same engine, radar, thrust vector control and other gear, but due to the fact that the MKM was had a slightly different avionics fit and also because the RMAF had a slightly different role for its MKMs, a syllabus specific to the MKM and the RMAFs operational requirements was needed ….
slightly different role does not make difference in combat syllabus. your using exactly the same weopon systems with same primary radar.
And you’re still not realising what I tried to point out: That even though the MKMs were ‘cheaper’ to buy compared to others, that there were a lot of hidden costs or costs that were not included in the actual contract for airframes [there was the same situation with the Fulcrums in the early 1990’s] and because of this the MKMs in the long run were certainly not the cheaper option. The RMAF has also found [it actually knew this before the deal was signed] that the MKMs are more expensive to operate for every hour flown, requires more hours of ground maintenance and have engines and flight components with a lower MTBF and TBO, compared to the Super Hornet.
how do you know some thing is cheaper or expensive on long run? my point is RMAF can never afford 18 F-18 superhornet with current budgets.
I personally know people involved in the deal, people in the local defence industry and people who operate the MKMs in 11 Squadron [some formerly flew Hornets in 18 Squadron and evaluated the Super Hornet both in Malaysia and the U.S]; I can tell with certainty that despite the MKM and MKI sharing the same flight characteristics, that there was a need for a combat syllabus specific to the RMAF, and that despite being cheaper to buy compared to the Super Hornet [its only competitor in the 2001/02 period] that the MKM in the long run has not turned out to be cost effective solution. The RMAF – unless it is forced to by the political leadership – does not desire additional MKMs and did not even want MKMs in 2002.
you keep mentioning cheaper. any data to back it up than hearsay. India can afford to fly 200 MKI with $30b budget. Algeria can afford 44 MKA with $10b budget. China can afford to fly 600 Flankers with $166b budget.
Indeed. I was merely pointing out the differences between both variants.
its very minor and does not lead to any thing different.
JSRThere is nothing ‘special’ about the combat syllabus, it’s just that it didn’t exist as the MKM is not operated by anyone else and the RMAF was forced to developed its own syllabus which was specific to the MKM. Factory pilots tested the MKMs to ensure everything worked but they did not develop any syllabus or maintenance procedures specific to the MKM. As there are differences between the MKM and MKI, a syllabus specific to the MKM was needed.
As alex pointed out –
There is no fundamental difference between MKI and MKM in flight characteristics, weopons. you can put Japanese LCD there and it will show same information.
same engine, radar, weopons. your not going to use airplane different than MKI.
If the RMAF had only specified TACAN, a Western IFF and Western radios – like what was done with the Mig-29Ns – the MKMs would have been cheaper.
You also have to take into account that the deal did not include weapons, Damocles pod, Chobham pods, data links, simulator and a long term support package; all of which were separate contracts.
Your still not realizing that this the cheapest new fighter for RMAF even including all the extra costs.
The MKM – unlike the MKIs – have wingtip EW pods and an MAWS but they don’t have a HUMS.
These external pods are certified at factory airframe long time before it is exported.
JSRHavent checked the figures recently but Indian GDP should be about $ 2 trillion while Chinese GDP should be about $5 trillion (real, not PPP).
You should try to read a bit more.
China revenues are 8 to 10 times of India. and with lower debt and interest burden on government much more money is free to spend.
see monthly revenue collection.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130715-701430.html
JSRThe RMAF had to develop its own combat syllabus for the MKMs as the Russians were not able to provide assistance. Help that was provided by India was in developing a training and maintenance syllabus.
What is so special about combat syllabus? Su-30MKI programe is very old. RMAF only received planes in 2007-2008. by that time thousands of hrs were flown by factory test pilots.
First of all, back in 2002 the RMAF never wanted Su-30s, what it wanted was the Super Hornet. A major problem is that the RMAF customised its own variant of the Su-30, it was fitted with a number of non-Russian made stuff and integration didn’t come cheap. The MKMs have German radios, French LCD panels, a South African MAWS and a French INS; and off course Indonesian practice bombs:]. The RMAF was offered MICA and TopOwl in place of the Adder and Shura but decided against it after being notified of what it would cost to integrate these to the MKM.
There is no evidence that Su-30MKM is expensive than Su-30MK. infact $900m for 18 planes very cheap even if you add that $100m to Thales.
JSRwho said it? well, I’d say you did (India), through the tests performed. MMRCA was an open tender, and every aircraft manufacturer that is worth speaking of presented its best offer available, and you picked the two eurocanards which, if one thinks just for a second, were pretty much certain to cost more than any other proposition (so costs obviously weren’t part of the tender at that point)… now if you didn’t pick the two best performers, on which basis was that decision made then?
how was that open competition?. were Meteor tested along with Rafale AESA in 2010-2011?. than all other additions like ARM. It is all paper specifications comparision. All addition and improvements will now be demanded and it will cost way more than what was estimated. that’s why you see so long negotiations.
Sign In
