The Spey was license produced when the JH-7 was in development. So, yes the aircraft was designed around a license produced western engine.

Spey engine was not licensed for JH-7 development. Spey engine negotiation started in 1970s. Aircraft was designed much later.

^^Irrelevant statement #1.

None of that changes the fact that Brazil, India and Australia were not sources of military technology for China.

You have very little understanding of concept o f leverage. China is in single vendor situation but it has much more leverage than India on most situation. It is enormous source of hard currency and technology to CIS countries. So it can expect engine and weopons transfer from CIS countries even though it violates IP. Why do u think Brazil growth turn zero last quarter but not of CIS countries.

^^ Irrelevant statement #2.

None of that changes the fact that your ‘technology transfer only happens between equals’ statement is complete horse*&%$. History is replete with occurrences of ToT between technologically mismatched entities, from the RR Nene to the Stryker.

Things were less complex in past so technology could be stolen and transferred easiy. Now it takes demands much both from receiving entity and transferring entity perspective. It can only happen among equals with difference in execution timeline as on partner will be more experience than other in particular technology.

^^ Irrelevant statement #3.

Doesn’t change the fact that the export of the 117 isn’t governed by Salut’s whims and wishes, or even genuine financial prospects.

Russia not stupid enough to depend one design and one factory for entire airforce. That’s why you see Salut engines for Su-27SM/Su-34 and the same switiching will happens during Su-35/T-50 upgrades.
Salut is Moscow based firm it needs profitable contracts in large volume.The same is done by maintaining two engines for IL-76 workhorse.
Russia will keep selling better engines to China as long as China improves its own engines with time. Since India was not able to source MKI engine from any other source It has lost the leverage.

^^ Irrelevant statement #4

Doesn’t change the fact that MLUs on jet trainers aren’t even a fraction as extensive as they are possible on a normal fighter aircraft. Aside from a new engine and a cockpit upgrade there is little that can be done to substantially alter its performance. So the prospect of ‘superior’ upgrade prospects for another AJT is a myth.

You cannot make MIG-21 as 5 th generation place by putting a turbo fan engine and LCD displays.It wont have flying characteristcs.

LOL. Just a few lines above you talked about how critical AJTs are to the professional flying experience. And now you’re selling the idea that the USN, an organisation with a $160 billion budget, is cutting corners by inducting an ‘obsolete’ BAE Hawk.

$160b is not much when you have so much other bills to pay from healthcare upto 90 year life expectancy to maintaining bases around the world. Procurement and development budget got squeezed.

The size of the Saudi Army was 75,000-100,000 in 2004. It was smaller still in the years earlier, enabling the RSAF to buy F-15s and Tornados. Even assuming that is grown by a very optimistic 25% in the last 6 years, it still remains around 125,000 strong. Unless you think its doubled in that brief period.

First off, the SANG does not get a cut of the defence budget. Its accounted for separately. Just like the 1.5 million Indian paramilitary and reserve forces.

The Saudi Army at about 125,000 is 1/10th of the 1.3 million Indian Army. Which means like it or not, the RSAF forms a proportionally larger part of the Saudi Armed Forces than the IAF does vis-a-vis the Indian Armed Forces.

The army size is 175000. Now you prove India army alone is 1.75 million. $41b national security budget include every thing. Otherwise defence budget is much lower.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-raise-wages-for-most-military-345848.html

Of course. The Su-30MKI that’s being manufactured completely in-house, is obviously a product dating back to the Stone Age.

It is not so much advance in material technology and even that India hasn’t mastered everything.

Ahh… so you admit that the success of license production depends on labor costs, energy costs and production volume.

And you just had p*$% on that one rational statement by implying that Mitsubishi doesn’t have bright engineers. :rolleyes:

And how to increase labor and energy efficiency in manufacturing complex product.Not many countries can do it. The slow development and amount of external assistance that Mitsubishi is getting for MRJ does not inspire confidence.

The companies submitted their financial bids in November 2011. Only you of all people would expect them to revise those figures by the end of December. :rolleyes:

Where you get idea that something Is going to be signed in December.

Irrelevant statement #5.

Having a long lead time doesn’t change the fact that the F-35’s peak production rate (post 2020) will be in excess of 150 units/annum, given that the SH, with a fraction of the F-35’s projected order book, was built at a rate of upto 58 units/annum.

F-35 second engine is cut. It does not inspire confidence of large volume for future. SH does not have fraction of order book. It was increased because F-35 is so much delayed.

Irrelevant statement #6

The Eurofighter hadn’t even entered service let alone been in full production when Austrian order was placed. And they were delivered in the configuration that the Austrians ordered it in.

It is in basic service since 2003 and Austria did not demand some thing extra either. This will give you idea of basic non-AESA and no multirole price.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flying-in-neutral-austrias-eurofighter-typhoons-226295/
But after reviewing the terms of the contract, the deal was instead renegotiated from 18 to 15 single-seat aircraft, shaving an expected €370 million off the project total.

The relaxation, as it were, was in allowing in-development AESAs to be entered in the competition. As for the rest, between the three of us, only the IAF is privy to the relevant details and its on that basis that they rejected the Gripen’s AESA offer while clearing the EF’s. Maybe if you ask EF folks nicely, they’ll let you in on it as well.

IAF simply don’t know a lot economic and technical happening outside India. The simply made the wrong decision.

So license manufacturing works successfully for unmodified aircraft (like the TAI’s F-16s and HAL’s Sukhois). EF/Rafale’s local production should be just fine then, since the variants are the same as those being built in Europe.

Except EF/Rafale are generation advance in material and manufacturing technology. They are more akin to Japanese F-2.

Three writeoffs in a fleet of 165+ aircraft, of a type that entered service nearly 15 years ago. And you’re comparing this with the ‘numerous’ MKMs and MKAs in service. :rolleyesAlso inviting the OEM for a joint investigation is standard practice especially to identify design shortcomings, if any.

Not all 165 entered 15 years ago and not with increasing Indian content. There are 46 MKM/MKA in service.

Even accounting for only operating profit, HAL posted a higher figure as a proportion of revenue than Embraer (albeit marginally so). Besides, since when is matching Embraer, the one and only benchmark of an aviation company and licensing policy’s success.

Embraer the airframer is much closer to HAL than any other firm. But Embraer has much higher development cost as it has to design, develop and test aircraft airframe by itself. See HAL joining for MTA but Embraer developing by itself in designing it. So naturally cost to Embraer will be higher with lower profits. Even the monetary contribution is equal but partnership is not among equal otherwise why the have to learn russian language for deputation and not russians learning english

http://www.hal-india.com/ANNUAL-REPORT_2010-11.pdf
MULTIROLE TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT (MTA)
33. Your Company has formed a new Joint Venture Company
(JVC) called “Multirole Transport Aircraft Limited” on 1st
December 2010 with the Russians for co-design / codevelopment
of the Multirole Transport Aircraft.34. The work share of HAL and the Russians and the Business Plan were discussed in March 2011 with UACTransport Aircraft (UAC-TA). The HAL Design Team (60
personnel) for Preliminary Design Phase comprising designers
from the R&D Centres (ARDC, TARDC, MCSRDC, ETBRDC,
SLRDC & ASERDC) has been finalised. The Designers have
undergone language training in Russian prior to their deputation
to Russia for participation in the design phase.

No one claimed anything about efficiency advantage (aside from those inherent in the IAF having a steady source of spares).

The costs of HAL production are roughly the same as those manufactured at Irkutsk. Possibly lower now with the production being pushed past 20 aircraft per year. More importantly the money is invested in the domestic economy and in addition has allowed HAL to contract for Sukhoi instead (with components and spares for the MKM and MKA).

We don’t know the cost at HAL and where the money is going. As profits are pretty low for airframer. Very little is exported. Segment reporting is now properly reflected. Just look at http://www.irkut.com profits. Now Su-30SM is created. That will become template for MKM/MKA upgrades at much cheaper cost. Thats the problem with licensing.

Doesn’t change the fact that western technology was very much an option when it was available, and only sanctions stopped it from being so in the present.

Your still not getting the point. Western technology availability does not mean China copied India approach of buying hundreds of planes and licensing at the end.
That’s why I said there is decades of time between receipt of engines and operational service of JH-7.

The point was that ‘Brazil, Indian and Australia’ were never viable alternatives to tech from ‘US and Europe’. But trust you to completely forget about the context of the debate and run away tooting your ‘glorious progress’ horn.

Read the context what I wrote. The above mentioned countries are source of raw materials for China with much more manpower and develop infrastructure in particular mining fields but for political reason China is going to favor CIS so it expect to reciprocity. Read about this not just technology but execution time line. technology transfer is two way street. and it only happens among equals.
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=27057

You’re drawing a parallel that doesn’t exist. The rationale against exporting the 117 are practical/technical not political.

And you forgetting one point for past 10 years Chinese are almost exclusively buying from Salut that is Moscow based with much higher salaries than rybinsk based Saturn. China can afford to buy from more expensive manufacturer.Salut has much robust portfolio thanks Yak-130/L-15 and all Flankers/J-10.

The F-35 isn’t in service either, but that didn’t stop a dozen customers from ordering it. As for the L-15 LOL, it doesn’t have to be good or bad, you’ll love it regardless. Also, you’re mistaken if you think the Hawk hasn’t been extensively updated (including the airframe) over the years since its inception. The lastest Hawk models have very limited commonality with the earliest ones.

The amount of money available for Russian and China Yak-130/L-15 will be far more than what will be available for future Hawk upgrades. And surely you don’t want your Hawk trainer having worst future than M2K in IAF.

It is utter garbage. Its good enough to be ordered by the RAF, two years after the first Indian order, good enough for the US Navy to be accepting T-45 deliveries till the end of 2009, to serve upto 2040, and good enough for Northrop Grumman to enter it into the T-X race. Its only those with agenda like yourself, who’re left insisting that its obsolete.

When you don’t have choice you will buy what is available. Just like US Navy is buying F-18. It is not cheap to develop new trainer by BAE or Boeing. They will have to accept it.

The SANG is operationally and financially independent of the Saudi defence ministry (and therefore budgeted for separately). Only a genius like you can interpret that to mean that its pay structure is ‘second rate’. :rolleyes:

It all comes under security budget. Which is total $40b.

The Saudi Army still remains about 75,000-100,000 strong (2005). Even assuming its enlarged in the half decade since, its unlikely to be larger than 125,000. A tenth of its Indian counterpart.

Which means unlike the IAF, the RSAF gets a bigger slice of the (in any case larger) Saudi defence budget, for a smaller fleet.

There is no evidence there total armed force is 1/10 of India. And that include Army, airforce, navy, airdefence etc. Your still pulling stuff from 2005.

Congratulations, you’ve again forgotten the context in which this argument was proceeding. The comparison was with direct imports (read: Saudi Arabia) not with the products developed by the domestic industry.

Direct imports are always better unless you have certain level of industrial competency of generating yearly volume.

Who says the existence of a ‘future fighter’ is right measure of a successful policy? The Japanese effort was a failure because their end product was vastly overpriced compared to the aircraft it was derived from.

Why it got expensive because the industrial competency was not there and yearly volume was also caped by budget constraints. As I said in Defence industry either your full in it or not in it. There is no middle road of half baked budgets and export constraints. Japan simply cannot afford another license or it can develop new fighter. It is pretty much done.

Ahh… so now production rate depends on the scale of the production facilities and size of annual order, huh? What happened to the idea about its production being slower than the Eurofighter’s because of high complexity?

Complexity of product increases the cost of production facility, subcontractors and skilled training of workers.

Who said anything about ‘thousands of planes a year’? (No weaseling out of this one). You claimed manufacturing non-naval fighters was ‘far easier’ than naval fighters.

So the Super Hornet is hard to manufacture than the Eurofighter, owing to its naval design? (Can’t wait your hear your BS about this one LOL).

F-18 has been in service nearly half a decade ahead of EF service and with much greater volume and yearly budgets. EF will need alteast $50B worth of R&D and testing required before it can have service life of carrier borne aircraft. Some thing was done cheaply in past does not mean it can be done in future. F-18 lineage for carrier goes decades back.

LOL, ‘Random Date’!! I suppose the real date could be 2013 or 2014 then. The IAF is satisfied with EF’s proposed delivery schedule. Perhaps if you offer to buy a few EFs for you personal air force, they’d share that the relevant details about the AESA program with you too.

Six weeks has already passed. And we haven’t heared about MMRCA decision. They cant be serious.

The F-22 had an order book that was less than one-tenth that of even a downsized F-35. And yet it was built at a peak rate of 25 aircraft/year. Even the F-18E/F was built at peak rate of almost 50 units/year (58 deliveries in 2008). For the F-35, 150 units/year is a very conservative figure.

Past and future are different things.

That’s because there is no ‘BAE part and HAL part’ per se. HAL effectively functions as a subcontractor. BAE’s role is mostly a one time effort enabling HAL to build the aircraft, including transferring the technology, setting up the production line in conjunction with HAL, training the engineering staff and supplying the raw material (either imported or domestically acquired).

This was done with first order. Why again for second order 6 years later.

Really? Because India’s order will be announced before the end of this month and signed before the end of the financial year (Mar 2012). Unless they set their factories on fire, the production isn’t reducing by 10 aircraft.

I am waiting for that signature. I bet we will be debating the costs and implementation for long time to come.

As far as upgrades go, except for integrating the IAF’s munitions of choice, and progressive software upgrades to the Captor-E (particularly for new EW and comm. modes), there is nothing specific that the IAF is seeking.

And you know it.

How does obtaining upgrades from Russia, nullify the economic and financial benefits of retaining the production in-house? Saves forex and facilitates domestic investment.

It completely nullifies all the advantages of license production See Chinese example and Japanese F-2.

Maybe because in addition to being more expensive over the long term, the after sales support from Russian has been found wanting.

This is only one side of story.

The upgrades are slow compared to what? Induction of the Su-30MKI certainly isn’t slow – it was intended to be 12 units/year and was later stepped up to 16 units/year and is now being further increased to 20 aircraft annually. As far inflation goes, its no higher than imported equivalents. Also the expenditure is the domestic currency instead of valuable foreign exchange. And having domestic personnel build the aircraft, far from being a waste, is one the biggest advantages thanks to lower labor costs.

I have looked at yearly financial statement of Irkut. Its avg comes about $1b per year for past 10 years. It does not say much about MKI licensing success. Mind you these are only Irkut part since they are not selling the whole plane.

Yet more evidence that until sanctions were placed China did rely on the west for technology and its decisions thereafter were influenced by limited degree of choice.

There is couple of decades time line between introducing JH-7 bomber and first receiving of engines.

Err.. maybe because it doesn’t have the option of buying from the only other major centres of military R&D – US and Europe.

Apparently they learned enough first time that the most numerous Delta canard fighter will be Chinese. and China purchased Austrain composite manufacturer. They also got Airbus assembly line.
You cannot expect business as usual with bankrupt EU. By the time first industrial machines for MMRCA assembling arrives from EU China would have moved far ahead.

Its not in production yet, but if that thought gives you comfort, so be it.

China also got S-300PMU-2 ahead of every one else. So what makes you think it wont get new engines. China economic importance is increasing relative to rest of the world. And this give it influence.
. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-12/03/content_14206628.htm

So what? It beat out the Alpha Jet, MiG-AT and Yak-130 for that contract.

Yak-130 was not in service so how it beat out.. L-15 is just entering service. I have more confidence in this design concept than couple decades old Hawk.

No matter how often you restate the idea that its obsolete or even obsolescent, it’ll still remain blatantly false.

It isn’t false. It does not belong to next 50 years. India always buys things at tail end.

First off, take another look at your own damn link. You’ve added the number of active troops and total number of troops to get half a million. And even the actual 250,000 number includes in the national guard which like I said before is budgeted independently.

Secondly, the Saudi Army does not operate fixed wing aircraft and (this will probably come as news to you), choppers, tanks and AD units are not manpower intensive (especially compared to infantry formations). Also, even though its sanctioned strength is a tenth of the Indian Army’s, its actual strength may be even lower due to recruitment troubles.
Carrying on from above, by virtue of having smaller ground forces, the RSAF always had more money for capital expenditure.

National guard is not some second rate pay structure. You simply have no evidence that India armed force is 10 times Saudi. I said at most 4 times and with Saudi pay scales more than 4 times India. Capital expenditure of Saudis are far lower than India.

Yet another baseless statement with a very obvious bias. The Su-30MKI is ‘deeply customized’ so its obviously a failure. The Phalcon is a hybrid system so naturally its a poor quality product. :rolleyes:

Su-30MKI is failure to extent that instead of investing in newer more capable Striker Su-34 or Fighter Su-35. your stuck with middle ground. Licensing is never a correct approach unless you have your industrial and R&D capacity right. See Japan failures with F-15J/F-2. where is Japanese future fighter?.whats the point of licensing those in past. Japan will have to face the music of wasting money through debt in keeping industrial capacity without creating the product. Same will happen to India.

Dassault had the capacity to up the scale of manufacturing the to meet whatever rate the French MoD wanted to buy the Rafale at. Just as the EF is being produced at the rate that concerned govts. have finalized through NETMA. There’s no question of fun or of complexity being a hurdle.

Dassualt will also need extra money to increase production rate. Once your production falls. It is not easy to train and hire new workers.

LOL. So manufacturing non-naval fighters is not just easier but far easier than manufacturing a naval fighter (ooh!).

That explains why the Super Hornet wasn’t shortlisted – its a naval fighter. Must be frightfully hard to build especially compared to the get-it-at-walmart-cannot-fly-from-carriers Eurofighter.

Naval figheters are heavy and aerodynamic compromises. I highly doubt India has Boeing level of experience of building thousands of planes a years.

Its a good long four years before it becomes operational and you’re again mistaken if you think the process is linear where the software development begins only after a 1400 T/R prototype has been flight tested. The bottomline is that the IAF is convinced that the delivery schedule is viable.

This is not going to happen. It is random date. As I said it be will just hardware not full functionality AESA.

That was precisely the peak production rate and yes they wanted ‘to build 2500 planes in 10 years’ to completely replace the F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 and AV-8B (with only the SH and SE being retained beyond 2025). Even if the F-15s and F-16s go through a lifetime extension, the F-35 production will still cross the 150/year mark that you believe (for so far unspecified reasons) is necessary to be cheaper than the F-22.

F-35 production rate is never going to cross 100 planes a year. It did not happened with F-22 during best of times.

.
This simplistic ‘BAE contribution is $__ and HAL contribution is $___’ is purely a product of your imagination.

That is whole problem. You only count BAE part of contracts as total cost of Hawk.

:rolleyes: The MMRCA proposal and bid was submitted by Eurofighter Gmbh not by the British government or BAE Systems. Collectively it churns out over 50 units annually, now being reduced to 35 aircraft/year. If the IAF/MoD wants 18 aircraft off the shelf by 2014-15 and a dozen kits thereafter, that’s what it will get.

With regard to RAF EF, I made it quite clear that I was talking about leases not purchases. To simplify that – the IAF gets a squadron of EFs transferred, flies them for two or three years (primarily for training and creating a flying manual/syllabus) and then returns them to the RAF (to be retired if necessary). It operated transferred RAF Jaguars and VVS Su-30Ks in the past under a similar agreement.

EF is reduced to 35 per year. And by the time India orders it. It will be further reduce to 10 aircraft per year. It is in the same boat as Rafale. Judging from M2K. There is little prospects of upgrades. All the cost will be borne out by India.

The economic and technological benefits of license production over direct imports are very obvious to everyone without a blatant bias (read:yourself). And that doesn’t preclude components that cannot be economically produced at HAL (eg. T/R modules for the AESA) from being imported.

It is not obvious. See Japan example of F-15J.(where is Japanese F-15SE?) and India example of Su-30MKI. India has again go to Russia for upgrades. So whats the point of licensing. Just straight buy Su-35/Su-34.
Licensing means slow upgrades, slow induction, compounding effect of inflation. Waste of industrial technical personal with all negative effects of upto pensions, energy, raw materials etc.

A low euro makess the Eurofighter and Rafale cheaper. However a euro-bust make the Rafale cheaper as the Eurofighter most likely would in the case of India be sold in German mark which historically has tendencies to become the victim of market overvaluation, while the French franc often has been on the other side of the spectrum. The British pound would probably also be high as it would be considered a safe haven during a period of transition.

I doubt Italia, Spain or the UK for that matter would be able to buy the JSF if the euro does bust and stop the credit flow of the European banking system. Importing expensive high-tech equipment would have to be postponed.
When that is said the European economies are robust and diversified so they would probably bounce back fast. But I am guessing that politicians would cut defense first over social programs, maybe with the exception of France where the domestic defense industry employ so many, and got so much lobbying power.

But back to topic. When will a decision be known?

Low Euro does not necessary mean Rafale/EF is cheaper as they are still importing US components or energy prices tied to dollar. you need energy to run factory and transport various components.
but i agree Dassault will have more realistic idea of Rafale minimum price beyond that they cannot go down. as they are already at minimum production level of 10 or so aircraft per year.
but there is much risk with pricing of EF/JSF whose initial forecasts are based on much optimistic production rates and are not developed to extent of Rafale.

That was not what was being said. It was that Japan had the option of purchasing equipment and technology from the west, including anything and everything from IRST sensors, composites, munitions, and engines to simple design consultancy. Developing everything in-house was inevitable for China given lack of available options outside of Russia.

China always had options depending on which side on pond it was on. Look JH-7 and it spey engines.It is still more capable bomber than MIG-27/Jaquar/M2K. Fact of matter is these two countries China/Japan made right decisions most of time despite being in single vendor situation.

Yet more irrelevant information.

How it is irrelevant information. China has options of buying from Brazil/Australlia/India/Africa etc but for politicial reasons its first choice is CIS. Don’t confuse past with future.

China hasn’t been supplied with the 117 or promised it for that matter. We just have to wait it see if the J-20 is powered by the 117 or AL-31/WS-10.

117 hast not been supplied to anyone else either.

Of course not. Its widely exported because its obsolete. :rolleyes:

It is widely exported long time before India ordered.

BTW its you who’s going on and on about it being or failing to be the best (without really defining what best implies). My contention was that its a competitive modern lead in fighter trainer – exactly what its meant to be.

It is not longer competitive unless you don’t have choice. Its history is as old as spey engines powered Phantom.

LOL. The decade old number is 90,000. Kindly don’t mix in the National Guard which is budgeted under a different head independent of the defence forces. Just like the 1.5 million strong paramilitary and central armed police forces in India. The fact remains, the Indian Army has always been ten times larger than the Saudi Army, and taken a proportionally larger cut of defence budget.

I am not mixing. 90,000 is too low number to maintain such huge fleet airplanes, tanks, chopper and airdefence missiles like Patriot. Now where it is proved that India personal are 10 times larger. At best 4 times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

The IAF’s total annual budget is $10 billion today up from about $3 billion a decade back. Unlike the Saudis it had limited money available for capital expenditures through the 90s.

Saudi also had prety limited money with low price of 1990s. They are not much bigger than IAF.

None of that changes the fact that the aircraft and equipment that’s been contracted for so far (incl. 270 Su-30MKIs and 5 Phalcons, upgraded fighters and a still substantial fleet of Jaguars, Mig-27s and Bisons), makes better value for money than the Saudi fleet.

The problem is these are all license produced or deeply customized products. None of them will be on time or with required quality.

The trouble is you can’t make up your mind what part of the IAF/Indian MoD you have an issue with. You know that a substantial part of the IAF’s fleet is license produced, and leaving you looking around for reasons why license manufacturing is a bad idea. I have little doubt that you think US using license produced PC-9 and BAE Hawks is smart, while India doing the same amounts to employing junk.

US has industrial capacity to make license work.Just like China. See J-11b example.

The BAE contract IS for license production at HAL. It is contractually obligated to provide the requisite raw materials and engineering support to HAL (though it may or may not reimburse HAL for labor).

It is only BAE part. No one has counted HAL part.

To remind you for the umpteenth time now – we were talking about the production rate and your nonsensical assertion that the Rafale production line has a smaller output because it is more complex than the EF. An assertion that completely disregards the fact that it was the French MoD’s decision (based on budgetary restrictions) to phase deliveries over a relative large period of time, NOT Dassault’sshortcoming in producing a supposedly over-complex Rafale..

Production rate is low because products are more complex and expensive. Not because some one made decision for fun.

And you can create a production line for non-naval aircraft like the EF and F-15E, with chump change. :rolleyes:

They are far easier than Naval fighters. As I said India will be not be able to operationalize Multi-role N-LCA in next 10 years.

The EF proposed to the IAF is a Tranche 3 variant with an AESA radar. Its quite evident that they are at the same level.
Take potshots by all means, but at least try to make them appear moderately intelligent.

‘That much more’ huh? After that vehement insistence on it being an out and out cheaper option thanks to its single source origin. Also, where are the costs incurred by the UK absorbed if not into its domestic economy?

The CAESAR went into flight testing back in 2007. The R&D effort has been building on that over the last half decade. Also the MMRCA trials did require the competitors to reliably demonstrate (including an assessment of prototypes) the ability to deliver an AESA on schedule. The EF did so, to the IAF’s satisfaction (unlike Saab).

How can they deliver tranche 3 with AESA when AESA specification has not flow yet. Show me that 1400 T/R module EF in test flights. Just look at PAK-FA example it just flown with AESA radar and it will take 3 more years and 10 to 15 pre-production vehicles to reach only in basic air to air function for operations.
How many test EF test vehicles with AESA is going to be built?. If French delivers Rafale AESA in 2013. Give them 3 to 4 years to iron out bugs. At best 2017 with full function.
It took very long time to perfect F-18E multi-role AESA. Maybe a decade of development and testing.
No one Is sharing this with Korean what makes you think India is exception.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-south-korea-outlines-strategy-for-indigenous-fighter-363847/
AESA transfer is not so easy, as advanced nations are reluctant to do so,” DAPA acknowledged. “We believe we can manufacture the hardware, but the problem is the software.”

And you came up with this figure of 150, how? Not that its an issue given that production is intended to be ramped up to a peak of over 250 units annually.

There was never 250 production in JSF planes unless you want to built 2500 planes in 10 years. Even F-16 has hard time building more than 200 per year.

The Hawk production line is running just about a year behind schedule.

That plane is nearly obsolete. They sold first lot at $25m

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3670366
As part of a $1.7 billion contract signed between HAL and BAE in 2004, 66 Hawks were to be acquired for the Indian Air Force: 24 would be supplied in fly-away condition and the remaining 42 are to be assembled and license-produced at HAL. The entire project will be executed in eight years.

The second lot of 57 Hawks were sold by BAE/RR at $1.1B. so total $20m per plane. That $5m is HAL contribution per plane.

How long will it take the MMRCA for what? First deliveries – 2014-15. Kit built units 2016. If the force needs to be augmented earlier, leasing EF T1s from the RAF is an option – it was done with the Jaguar and the Su-30MKI.

It is not an option. They haven’t completed Saudi contract. And anything will be new built for India. Remember BAE cuts its workforce recently. And RAF EF will be pretty run down.

LOL. You’re telling me that a BAE produced Hawk being 33% more expensive than a HAL produced unit is a result of unaccounted labor expenses? Even assuming that’s true, would that labor be worth a whopping $6 million+ per aircraft.

Its still an excellent outcome nevertheless, as long as that money is being spent in-house instead of on exports.

BAE/RR are pretty open. It is HAL that funny accounting. No one knows what true costs are. As the second lot contracts are worth $20m per plane to BAE/RR.

And if HAL can deliver that Hawk for $20 million, its a bargain. The same goes for EF – every bit of the aircraft manufactured in-house is money reinvested into the domestic economy, making licensed production clearly preferable to direct imports.

HAL only assemble plane after giving $20m per plane to BAE/RR. We don’t know the final cost of plane but it is surely more than $20m. Making license production is not clearly preferable once products are of increasing complexity. You cannot compare Hawk with EF. It is like comparing new S-Class Benz with B-Class.

I would not be surprized if he jumps the ship at some point and head UAC Civil airline projects.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/qa-boeing-chief-rejects-cold-war-mentality/449993.html
Q&A: Boeing Chief Rejects Cold War Mentality

Becoming one of the many taxi drivers with a Ph.D. was not what Sergei Kravchenko wanted to do 20 years ago.

Though he had highly educated colleagues from the Russian Academy of Sciences who did that, became programmers for banks, or took other jobs in order to feed their families when funding for science dried up at the end of the Soviet Union, Kravchenko joined the ranks of scientists who sought work abroad.

He left to consult at academic institutions in Sweden and other countries, but was lured back to Russia in 1992 by an offer to head Boeing’s first research center in Moscow — primarily, he says, because he saw in it a glimmer of hope for Russia’s hard-pressed scientific and engineering community.

Today he is in charge of more than 2,000 scientists, programmers and engineers — Boeing’s largest operation outside the United States. He is proud to say Russian engineers played a crucial role in developing some of Boeing’s biggest projects, including the 787 Dreamliner — some components of which are only made at the company’s plant in the Urals.

To have America’s most advanced commercial aircraft dependent on something made in Russia is one of his proudest accomplishments, since Kravchenko views the remaining vestiges of Cold War thinking as one of the most frustrating inhibitions to advancing U.S.-Russian relations.

No less important, as one of the first Russians to become the general manager of a major American company, he is a role model to young local managers. He became president of Boeing Russia in 2002 and was named person of the year in 2009 by the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia.

But while he is obviously dedicated to his work at the company — and speaks warmly both of Boeing and his U.S. colleagues — it is science, not business, that remains Kravchenko’s first love.

He has science in his blood — he’s the third generation of a family of scientists, part of a Russian and Soviet tradition in which science is passed down from parents to children.

Joining Boeing actually meant giving up a promising academic career. While at the Academy of Sciences, he earned two Ph.D.’s in 10 years and became the youngest doctor and professor of sciences in Moscow. In 1988 he won the state youth prize for science and technology. His precociousness could be thanks to his mother’s efforts — she made the “shrewd strategic investment” of making him study English from the age of 6.

The Moscow Times sat down with Kravchenko to discuss Russian science, the future of the high-tech economy and why a lingering “Cold War” mentality discourages other high-technology firms from following Boeing’s unique lead.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: How did you make the transition from academia to Boeing?

A: In 1992, I was working in Stockholm as a research professor, when I got a phone call from my former boss, a vice president of the Academy of Sciences. Boeing said they wanted to open a technology research center in Moscow and they were looking for a manager.

Probably the main reason I was interested in this was that at that time the fundamental sciences and the aerospace sector in Russia were in a very, very difficult situation. The funding was almost zero. And many of the best research teams that I knew and worked with were struggling to survive. In my own institute people who worked for me and with me in the lab became programmers for banks; some of them were taxi drivers; half of them emigrated. At that time I had more people in my phonebook from my Ph.D. and student years with area codes in Germany, Israel and the United States.

I was worried about this because we have a long heritage of science and engineering in my family — my son is the fourth generation of scientists and engineers in our family — so the history and tradition of Russian and Soviet science is very close to my heart.

I was thinking that if I joined Boeing, and if I could help to create this technology research center, maybe I could help a few dozen Russian scientists not to emigrate but to stay and continue to develop in their fields.

Q: What were the challenges in being one of the first Russian general managers of a Western company?

A: OK, so I don’t know the history of baseball in as much depth as maybe a boy from Chicago, but that’s not that important for growth at Boeing. At some point it became obvious that in order to grow the business here in Russia I needed to know the company from the inside. Boeing management asked me to go to Seattle and I lived and worked there for six years. And they rotated me like crazy, so I learned engineering, sales and marketing, business development, commercial aviation services, worked with suppliers. So when I came back to Moscow we developed a strategy to grow the intellectual services, including design, IT, and so on, and how to grow manufacturing of titanium parts and components here.

When I started, the office was many orders of magnitude smaller, and a huge number of our employees working here were Americans. Not anymore. And we have people who are fully integrated, fully trained, local employees in executive positions. The same is true for the engineering, technology, finance, sales and airline support managers and directors. So in 20 years we have been able to create a local Boeing and this is the key to our success in Russia.

Q: What are the challenges of running a high-tech, science-intensive company in Russia?

A: We’ve never had a problem finding talent in Russia. Talent, unique facilities, unique expertise — they do exist. The rumor that everyone emigrated, everything stagnated and all the scientists and schools aged and retired, is actually not true. We always had and still have more proposals and interesting opportunities in Russia than we can work on.

I have Russians in this office who came to Moscow to work with me from Canada, from the United States and from Australia. They had good careers in those countries, and they came back and helped us to create hundreds of high-tech jobs for Russian engineers and scientists here.

There were internal and external challenges. Internally, it was not easy to convince Boeing that the scale of the Russia project could be much bigger than originally planned. But we had a lot of executive support to our proposals to grow intellectual services in Russia.

The external challenge was to explain to some important people here in Moscow that Boeing wants to build a win-win, long-term project in Russia — not to steal ideas, not to poach the brightest people. There were times when I heard that people used the term “internal emigration” — meaning I’d invented a new way to “steal” Russia’s talent because scientists and engineers who might have moved to Seattle to work for, say, Microsoft, did not have to leave the country if Boeing built a center here in Moscow. There were people who said this project was a spy center.

It was difficult, but our strategy was to be absolutely transparent. To say straight what we were doing and who were to our partners. We never talked about the technology specifics or the money that was spent. But we talked about why we were doing this. And the idea was not only to help the company but also to help Russia because at that time there was a clear problem with underutilized intellectual capacity.

Scientists are like musicians. If musicians do not have a piano or a violin to practice on every day, it doesn’t matter how good they are, they will lose their skill, and it will take a very long time, if it’s possible at all, to regain it. At that time the best research teams in Russia were not very busy. So what we did was bring new interesting and challenging projects to these organizations. We never paid scientists or engineers as individuals, and we never implemented a grants system.

I think the government began to realize that it was a very good model: People stay in Russia; they continue to be employed by Russian institutes or engineering services companies; they pay taxes in Russia. Our projects supported universities and helped to maintain the Russian educational tradition in aerospace. Experts working for us are still Russian citizens, they don’t emigrate, they enjoy working on really big technology challenges, and in doing this they develop new knowledge, which they can apply to Russian programs as well.

Q: What should Russia’s role model be for engineering services?

A: Russia needs to learn from India. India jumped from an undeveloped country to one of the leading high-tech countries in the world in 20 to 25 years because Rajiv Ghandi had a vision that India could become the destination for IT services work for the whole world. This became the engine for Indian economic growth. So if you think about what we’ve done in Russia, we’ve prototyped the same thing in engineering and research and development.

We manage a design center in Moscow that is the largest engineering presence outside of the United States for Boeing. We have developed partnerships with almost 400 scientists, and we have here the second-largest IT presence for the company, after India. All together that serves as a prototype for the future opportunity for Russia’s economy — to export intellect in addition to the export of raw materials. I call it “intellectual services export.”

Russia’s economy relies very heavily on the export of gas, oil and metals. And it’s like an addiction. It’s like the economy is on drugs. And the only antidote to this drug addiction is intellect.

I’m a big believer in Skolkovo. If you go through our building in which you are now sitting there are 12 floors — and each floor is an engineering or technology floor. We have a mini Skolkovo 300 meters from the Kremlin.

Medvedev thinks about something a little different — he also wants the best of these people to create absolutely new technologies and new businesses. He dreams about a Russian Steve Jobs. But for that you need to have the environment, the infrastructure.

What we have done at Boeing in developing the export of intellectual services from Russia is a standalone case, but I would like to see way more companies, way more American and European companies, doing what we’ve done.

Q: How do the challenges of the business environment affect your efforts?

A: Sometimes people blame Russia — they say it’s very corrupt, it’s not transparent and it’s difficult to do business. I read about this, but I don’t feel it. People ask me “how do you work in a corrupted country” and I ask “what corruption?”

Maybe it’s because my business is a high-technology business or maybe because it’s so visible, large scale and we work with the government all the time, but for 20 years we have never faced the problems that people sometimes say are a show-stopper to do business here. Again, maybe that’s because of my domain. It’s a business based on the Internet, based on people working on very complex, virtual statements to work. It’s a people-intensive business, not a capital-intensive business.

Q: What are the management nuances to building and running such a business?

A: I think the management secret is very simple: We try to attract the best local people. Of course there are lots of people who are well educated and talented. But we’re looking for people eager to learn.

I started to build a team when I was in my early 30s, and I always felt like I was the youngest person in the office. Well, I don’t have that feeling anymore. Now we also have a responsibility to attract people who are half my age and make sure that they see the very best growth opportunities, and not only here in Russia — maybe they can work for Boeing in other countries. But eventually they can come back and do the work here at a high level. Career opportunities are really important for young people.

A Russian paper came to me and said: “Sergei, tell us your three secrets” to build such a team and unite people.

I said: the first thing is you need to speak English. Boeing is the largest U.S. exporter and English is the language we use. It doesn’t have to be perfect; we’ll improve it on the job. Two — you need to have a driving license. Because everybody is expected to travel but the company doesn’t provide personal drivers in Seattle and elsewhere. Third — you need to have a sense of humor.

If you have these three skills, then come and we can find an interesting job for you. Everything else you can learn from us.

Q: What keeps you up at night?

A: The Cold War ended almost 25 years ago, but there are still people in both countries who have very little trust and understanding of each other. But more importantly, they have very little desire to learn and to appreciate that the world actually needs strong ties between the United States and Russia.

My business is very much dependent on how fast this mentality will evaporate. I’ll probably retire and it’ll still be there, but I hope that it will be much less when than it was when I started.

We would certainly never have thought in the early 1990s that there could be thousands of Russian scientists, engineers, and software programmers working for us and developing the most advanced American commercial airplanes. We never thought that there would be a sole-source producer of the critical titanium parts for the Boeing Commercial Airplane group in the Urals. I think that the trust and interdependence between countries is actually much better than it used to be.

So why don’t some people see the clear benefits of this cooperation and try really hard to build the necessary trust faster and leave these old fears behind us?

I think that there are still way more projects that Russia and the United States can cooperate on, to improve global security, to develop new technologies, to grow both economies and give people new opportunities to learn.

But they don’t yet happen because there are still a lot of people in both countries who need to overcome this Cold War mentality.

No restrictions means it wasn’t stonewalled by sanctions. And China has repeated tried to get them lifted, as recently as a few weeks ago where it was tabled as a quid pro quo for investing a bail out fund for the Europeans.

China isnt interested in bailout EU. Arms embargo lifting is more related to buying whole manufacturing plants & R&D not end product.

I’m interested in seeing if China will attempt develop to develop a next gen engine, persist with the AL-31 or try to acquire the 117 from Russia. And of course, in knowing how amenable Russia will be in the latter proposal.

China will get the engines just like it got engines for L-15/J-10/JF-17/H-6/J-11. If not 117 something like AL-31FM3 or indigenous. Even if China economic buble burst it will have more impact on Australlia/Brazil/EU/US not on CIS countries.

Its a modern jet trainer and it does exactly what its supposed to do by today’s standards. An aircraft doesn’t have to be the F-22 to be modern.

And lest you think the differences are confined to ‘just LCD screens’, in addition to being larger and heavier, its equipped with FLIR, laser range finder, HOTAS, OBOGS, CMDS and TERPROM. Which makes it as contemporary as it needs to be. Oh and you’re wrong about the engine tech being 70s grade too, unless you think the Mk871 and Mk151 are at par.

There is certainly upgrades but nowwhere near flying charaterstics of newer trainers.

The Hawk isn’t a low value product and its absurd to think the licensing cost for it can be 50%.
And yes HAL’s production cost is factored in. Do you honestly think the Indian government issued a second contract to the HAL to manufacture what it had already paid BAE to do. Also only the first six aircraft were built from kits, the rest are to built from the raw material stage at HAL.

It is not expensive products. it has become expensive now due purchase by dysfunctional customers. Look at Kingdom of Saudi its defence budget of $40b is nearly identical to India but the quantity of modern heavy fighters like Tornado/F-15/EF is nearly twice as large as India. Not to mention BAE Hawk/Airrefuellers/AWACS along with all expensive subcontractors it could afford decades ahead of India. India don’t have less money it is the approach of license building everything that make things expensive and slow to induct.

Of course BAE will contract out its requirements – its the primary contractor. If the cheapest source of aircraft grade aluminium is the Indian Hindalco that’s where it’ll be ordered from, even if the money will be dispensed by BAE. Though its obvious that HAL will be consulted.

Its BAE related contracts in India. Nowwhere it is mention they are sharing revenue with HAL. Why your mixing two companies.

And pray how does the weight of the aircraft (never mind the fact that the EF is heavier than the Rafale M) or the presence of an ESA, prevent a production line from being extended ? (In case you’ve forgotten, you assertion was that this is what caused the Rafale production to run slower than the EF’s.) :rolleyes:

You cannot produce Naval fighter with more advance electronic radar at same cost & speed as simple airdefence fighter. Let see how long it takes to put N-LCA on actual carrier operations after 10 year experience with LCA.

I don’t have to. The fact that the EF’s fly away cost was determined to be within 5% of the Rafale’s speaks volumes. Take a look at the EF’s program cost from the NAO report (deduct the proceeds from Al Yamamah sale) and compare it to Rafale’s program cost.

EF cannot have Rafale costs & weight once it reaches the same capability-development level.

That’s usually trumpeted by higher production quotas for subcontractors and a shared development cost (even if it is higher).

those subcontractors have profits in mind to develop high advance components which require fixed investments over period. They are not going to give u free license. You dont combine so many big names for small production either.

If you recall France was very much a part of the original Future European Fighter Aircraft program and only opted out when denied design leadership and a preferential workshare. The Dassault Neuron project too has half dozen countries involved.
If Dassault VP Eric Trappier is to be believed, even Dassault has concluded that the next aircraft it develops will have be pan-European. Ironic considered that it of all parties should be most appreciate of the merits of a single nation program.

It has to do economic reality that France cannot afford go it alone and export markets has dried up. It does not mean going alone is not a preferable choice.

Again you wander off on a tangent. :rolleyes: We were talking about the cost of the F-35 vis a vis the F-22, not its production rate. Its widely and rightly accepted that the F-35 will be cheaper than the F-22, especially once inflation is factored in.

The amount of money spent on JSF program already approaches F-22 program without any operational fighter and cost has only one way to go.

Three as many firms? Unlikely. In any case, number of firms is irrelevant as Indian will source its supplies through a single window – NETMA.
Thank you for repeating what I said. :rolleyes:
Point that was originally made was that despite it being slightly more expensive (that too in the initial stages of domestic production), the difference (vis a vis direct imports) is more than made up by forex savings and industrial investment.

Slightly more expensive? You haven’t answered the question how many BAE Hawk are in operations. I have no doubt that HAL made Hawk will be way more expensive as BAE made Hawk. Low production rate spread over many years. (the compounding effect of inflation).