JSRIt seems iran is going to use it as bargain.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2011-12/12/c_131302004.htm
Iranian official in Russia to discuss U.S. drone, nuclear issues
JSRJapan had no restrictions on it as far as technology went. That they didn’t pursue a domestic fighter as persistently was a question of priorities. They got the fleet they required albeit a somewhat higher cost than initially envisioned.
No restriction on technology does not mean that US firms are willing to provide what Japan want. Japan itself developed significant critical parts. They started with F-15J for modern fighter and end up with F-2.
It would appear the sarcasm in that comment escaped you entirely. Point is the existence of trade doesn’t imply that resentment was absent. I’ll reserve my judgement until I see what engine powers the J-20.
what ever engine powers J-20 means Chinese are satisfied with it. They arent stupid to start some thing big without doing all the analysis. It isnt MIG-21
So you don’t know how many are being manufactured annually, you don’t know to what degree its sourced domestically (aside from total guesses), you think the Hawk 132 is 70s technology and yet as per your ‘anal’ysis’ the project has been poorly implemented.
Did I miss anything?
Yep it is 1970s tech interms of design, engine tech, materials. just putting LCD screens does not make it 1990s. All i know is the follow up contract in 2010 have significant British monetary content. so it means the first one is not at satisfactory speed done domestically.
Do you honestly think licensing cost approaches anywhere near 30% of unit value? Besides, like I said before, HAL’s production costs are factored into the contract value.
so licensing is cost are so cheap that every one can afford it. Licensing may well be 50% of contract value incase low value product like Hawk trainer.
HAL production cost are not factored into contract. Read that BAE release.
and its BAE that is distributing further the contracts for supply of subsytems
http://www.aviationmodelworks.com/blog/aviation/two-contracts-for-meggitt-from-bae-on-indian-hawk-jet-trainer
Two contracts for Meggitt from BAE on Indian Hawk Jet Trainer
Posted on January 31, 2011 by admin
And how does that relate to your ludicrous idea of the production rate being a function of the aircraft’s complexity? What gave you the idea that the Rafale’s naval variant and electronically scanned radar led to it having a lower production rate?
Naval multirole aircraft are heavier and need acceptance trials much more than regular airdefence fighters. It is very difficult to achieve that weight reduction. trying to make EF a Naval fighter and its weight will ballon towards F-18E.
Electronic scanning radars are expensive. you cannot compare it to slot array.
It had little to do with the composition of the aircraft and everything to with budgetary priorities. France simply opted for a lower annual outlay in lieu of better value for money. Once critical mass is obtained, scaling up production is simply a matter of having an adequately large production/assembly line and sufficient lead in time for subcontractors.
Also, do you have anything that actually supports your theory about the Rafale costing France less than the corresponding cost of the EF to the UK, aside from your finely honed intuition?
Rafale is not expensive than EF despite Rafale being Naval, Multirole (It actuall lifts more with bigger fuel tanks) and electronic scanning radar. You cannot prove it otherwise.
Manufacturing efficiency may or may not offset the disadvantage having of a smaller build order and a single customer to foot the development bill. Its far from a given.
It does not necessary end up like that. Single customer have more focused priorities and single assembly line and design team reduce cost.
We’ll see what the F-35 costs when it enters full rate production, adjust it for inflation and then compare it to the F-22. Making those claims now just results in hot air.
F-35 lots are already approaching F-22. F-22 never passed 30 aircraft per year.
Volumes not there for what? 126 to 200 units are set to be manufactured for an aircraft that has either 560 confirmed orders (with more likely) or for one with 180 confirmed orders (with another 100 or so intended).
Maybe an Indian produced MRCA will initially cost more than a European one. So what? As long as the technology is assimilated, the money disbursed in whatever proportion to Indian suppliers, and 50% of the contract value is reinvested in the country, its a net win.
560 confirmed order are spread over alot more firms than 180 confirmed orders of Rafale. I have not doubt EF price will keep increasing once it gets AESA. There is practicall no chance of EF built in India being cheaper than what is built in EU countries.
JSRChina’s primary leverage is its brute economic and diplomatic clout. It can get away with stealing US or Russian technology but no everyone can.
Again why Japan and China should even have clout as the are in single vendor situation. everything they developed in aerospace has significant outside content untill this point or developed from previous licenses.
Again my question to you is would the Russians agree to see American or European engines or radars on their Sukhois And how would it affect other projects India is involved in. And the scales of economy won’t make a major difference-you might as well as design a new, lighter fighter than modify a heavy aircraft. Which is why China is building the J-10.
Whats the point of extensive licensing when you dont have a choice. India is not Malaysia with small purchase.
You cannot design a new heavy fighter from scratch cheaply. China obtained license they used it to certain extent now they have moved on. It didnot impact other projects at all. (Not even L-15/H-6). . unlike India where LCA got impacted due to sanctions.
Thats the problem with MMRCA trying to obtain license that will drive up the cost, delay the induction which is already at the tail end of life cycle.
JSRFacing a single vendor situation on one end and an arms embargo on the other, I don’t see how it had much choice in the matter.
Both Japan & China faced single vendor situation for there arm industry for whatever historical reason but they made best use of it. You see Melco Radar , complete avionics suite, MHI composite wing and Japanese missiles on F-2 from the start and maximum freedom with F-15J.
China went one step ahead and built J-10/J-11B/J-15.
As opposed to? Breaking off diplomatic relations?
No one is breaking relations with China for making things more than original license. Infact more projects are offered to China for there excellent work both from West & Russia.
http://china.org.cn/business/2011-11/08/content_23851389.htm
China Daily, November 8, 201
A major helicopter maker in China is in talks with its Russian counterpart to jointly develop a 33-ton heavy-lift helicopter, a senior manager said.
HAL is building the aircraft from the raw material stage which is what it had set out to do. And yes, plenty of critical components are imported.
That stage hasnt been reached. Infact the Hawk ordered in 2010 still has more than 80% british content based on Value. so it is reasonable to assume that current Hawk is just assembling with minimal local input. Infact you havent given any link of how many Hawks are actuall delivered after 8 years.
This thing is very poorly implemented for essentially 1970s technology.
What did you expect? Reverse engineering of the aircraft?
There is no question of reverse engineering. It is 100% license with all associated training and technology.
Also, you’re confusing the contract value with profit. For one, 30% of its value is dedicated as direct offsets. Also, it accounts for HAL’s operations including labor, materials and parts sourced from domestically, setting an independent supply chain which will end up serving other present and future programs as well.
I know 30% value goes back but that 30% would include licensing cost. or you put zero value on Documentation, training, transfer of know how?
Are you sober?
Yup that is true. for the same reason A400 a military product will be as expensive as A350 (despite it being larger and more advanced) because Military products are in low volume and more customized. so you dont need widely dispersed firms and large subcontractors.
I have no doubt Rafale will be cheaper for France than EF for UK. for same reason JSF is going to end up cost more than F-22 despite much higher rate of production per year.
Military products are built best built under single firm and this approach is not going to work for India.as the volume are not the there from the start.
JSRSo OEMs are ‘strict’ with small customers and ‘lenient’ with large customers?
That seem to be the case. Look at Japan F-15/F-2 example. Japan was land of rising sun in 1970s/80s. It gave them leverage of maximum modification. but Japan stalled and China moved on to full independence on license projects.
I take it the Russians were satisfied with the results of ‘leveraging’ as well. Good business all around?
Looks to me satisfied with large customer as they are trying to offer more projects not to mention keep supplying to current products.
HAL is producing about 12 Hawk trainers annually, all domestically not from kits.
There is no evidence of that. There is follow up deal in 2010 for 57. BAE will get $800m and RR will get $312m.
It means that for each Hawk built there is $20m worth of British monetary value and that is for future delivery. so i highly doubt current Hawk has anything more than $5m worth of Indian content.
http://business-standard.com/india/news/bae-rolls-royce-ink-india-hawk-jet-deal/402855/
😮 The rate of production is proportional to complexity? As of now the UK builds twice as many EFs annually as France does Rafales. Can we infer from that the Rafale is twice as complex as the EF?
UK is assembling more EF. It doesnot have same level of domestic content. thats why it cost so much UK to buy EF despite much higher production rate.
EF does not has Naval version or electronic scanning radar. All these things contribute to slower production.
More advance electronic & multi-role version slows down considerably final assembly. Compare Su-34 to Su-30 production rate.
Su-30 production rate shows that India has gain confidence after 12 years so it would be better to continue this path and not deal with firms that dont own all IPs across complex supply chain in Europe/US.
JSRAgain what ‘new project’ are you talking of. The Russians would never agree for foreign involvement on core systems of their aircraft. So the G.E engines on a Sukhoi remains a very long pipe dream. The projects you talk about are already happening with the LCA and the proposed AMCA.
why would Russians be involved. r they involved in J-11B project?. India is not small country in terms of manpower and certain level of money that you have to compare with tiny countries who only afford small modifications and buying in small quantities so OEM is more strict with them.
very is leverage of large quantities?. China has successfully used that leverage in past.
There has to be clear end result of license manufacturing as it is very costly exercise interms of licensing fees, manpower training and slow induction.
8 years has passed since BAE Hwak trainer signed. How many trainers per year India is able to produce now and what is domestic content.
so what make you thing that EF that is 10 times more complex with suppliers across EU/US will be faster than that.
JSRyou can dismiss me as much as you like, but one of us has actually done this for a job and one us has actually worked with sub builders, one of us has actually had some involvement with a Kilo user.
When was that Kilo actuall built. It is like deducing Su-35 built quality from 1980s era Su-27. The most recent example is of Kilo to Vietnam/Algeria. that is close to $400m a piece. Kilos exported to China are $200m a piece. You see there is wide variation in prices just in last 10 years for same submarine.
It is not same standard communist souce. It is pointless to even comment about 885.
JSRLicense does not give you the ability to change the configuration of a project. The Russians need the Chinese but they also try to keep a distance between them.
I never mentioned change current project but start a new project based on learning experiance of current MKI.
New subcontractors for design team/ engine/radar/weopon/materials/software
Russia has also offered a joint development of heavy lift copter and wide body passenger airplane to China because they understand that Chinese have the money, certain technical capability and political will to pour money on new risky projects.
You basically gave over importance to the term reserves engineering.
I don’t see the point in comparing India with the Saudis, who can negotiate deals and also drop them at the drop of a hat. Both the Typhoon and Rafale production units have a low production rate given the numbers on offer, not because of limited facilities.
Point is pretty valid. Sauid bought F-15/Tornado/EF when production line was near at its peak with standard product so the best prices and delivery time could be achived. (why do you think it takes 10 years to upgrade M2K for India with very basic upgrade It is not like Su-27SM upgrade with new FBW/Engine etc)
There is no way that can be replicated in current time interms of price and delivery time and there will be no willingness from OEM and subcontractors to go beyond standard upgrades. and why would they even obey transfer of technology clause for such low volume when these highly skilled and paid workers can do some other projects.
I would think when Rafale/EF were developed in 1990s the OEM and subcontractors have certain level of production volume in mind and that may included optimistic forecasts for volume and new R&D money but those forecasts not fullfilled and that was best of times relative to current.
Look at very slow development of Meteor and its miserly production volume.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-report-exposes-fresh-cost-increase-to-nimrod-mra4-delay-on-meteor-missile-320294/
In addition to the delay, a decision to also cut the UK’s planned purchase of Meteor weapons to the minimum contractual level possible has resulted in a doubling of the weapon’s original expected unit cost, to £2 million.
JSRWhen you don’t have much to argue with, resort to the personal touch at the end!! You talk about Chinese reverse engineering having no effects on ties. So what’s all the fuzz about Russia not selling arrester gear for the Varyag? Or withholding assistance on the Su-33, which the Chinese subsequently have been able to produce. If Chinese actions had no impact on ties, were all these news items invented?
There is several hundred Russian engines on order for J-11/J-10/JF-17/IL-76 and even L-15 engine has Russian content. There hundreds of choppers/missiles sold even after after appearance of J-11B. It is just business common sense that Russia wont sell small quantities for evaluation. and China is developed enough that it doesn not need to buy large quantities. so middle ground is difficult to achieve.
The only thing more unworkable and expensive than India’s procurement system that you talk about is the fancy idea to use a hodgepodge of western and Russian technology. Again why in the world would the US or anyone else agree to supply engines or radars for a Russia origin fighter when they have competing products to offer. The last place it came close to happening was in China in the 80s.
The whole point of license is to get 100% manufacturing ability at some point. no one mentioned mixing Russian and Western systems into same platform. It is running completely separate factories on completely separate industrial chain. No need to pay again to get another license for another airframe.
The Saudi Eurofighter decision has nothing to do with India. For one it was the Saudi government which has essentially instituted a freeze for reasons best known to them. And by the way, 12 aircraft an year is really not a bad number for a medium size airforce like the RSAF.
so India can induct aircrafts faster than Saudi who Inducted F-15/Tornados/AWACS decades ago ahead of India.
EF/Rafale has already reached the peak of production volume per year. it Will decrease with time which will give less incentive to subcontractors for investments and they will have to either raise the prices or foldup into different business.
It is pretty much given M2K and Tornado production retired with out getting big boost in engines or radars. and neither could India afford M2K upgrade beside the standard upgrade which was available since early 1990s. and that was best of times.
so what makes you think EF/Rafale upgrades 20 year down the road will be better than standard upgrade from OEM.
what is yearly volume of Meteor production as the same thing can happened to primary weopon.
JSRVery very unlikely. If communications are lost, the UAV will fly to secondary locations to reestablish comms in a friendly location. No landing. No crashing. Some people are really under estimating the intelligence of the people making the control systems on the UAVs!
you are underestimating the intelligence of people who are working against UAVs. (see China anti-satellite weopon test). see China biggest Gas & pipeline deal in Turkminstan. right accross the border with western afghanistan.
Chinese and Russian have hard currency and assets in this region that will keep watch on ISAF drones and communications for years and they may extent this favor to Iran.
JSRChina has been reverse engineering aircraft for 50 years so you can’t expect the same results with India. And It’s not like the J-11B was quickly developed. If internet reports are to be believed, it did encounter teething trouble. Integrating G.E engines and what not on an Indo-Flanker is easier said than done and would raise costs significantly. The only way India could do that was to cut off all ties with Russia and that won’t happen.
I dont think J-11b is reverse engineering alone. They got license and they change subsystems with time which is alway intention of license manufacturing.and it has no effect on defence ties let alone all ties.
Since India cannot develop all the subsystems it need to sign codevelopment agreement for engine, radar, weopons development with Western firms.
India method of increasing numbers is too slow , too expensive and at the end may become unworkable.
Only 24 RSAF EF are delivered after 4 years of agreement signing. and there is no decision yet on license manufacturing. .
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-12/fighter-jet-competitions-still-air-dubai-2011
what makes you think they can deliver faster AESA developed EF to India. and why it would be cheaper than 2007 prices when EF supply chain were producing more numbers per year.
by the time India makes decision. The production numbers per year of EF will be very low. that will have effect on subcontractors pricing. There is not much common sense.
JSRRisk mitigation is one of the reasons that the Japanese were not interested in having the F-15SE as a contender for the F-4E replacement program. They contended that if a major issue grounded the F-15J fleet then the F-15SE too may be grounded, leaving them with no other fighter apart from the F-2, to deal with any situation that arises during that period. India cannot or at least should not, buy any more than the 270 Su-30MKIs it has contracted for as of now. If at a later date some major issues arise that cause it to be grounded, it would nearly paralyse the IAF.
Regarding the MiG-29 and MiG-21 experience in the IAF, FlightGlobal has many articles that illustrate your point. And a recent report in Parliament also illustrated this, where they said that the Russians are very secretive about issues with the MiG-29 and aren’t forthcoming with help for existing issues.
why would F-15J grounding have any relevance to F-15SE grounding? Did USAF F-15E grounded due to F-15C grounding?
F-15SE is suppose to use completely new engine, avionics and industrial supply chain. It is like comparing salut powered Su-34 to saturn power Su-35. Engines/radar/factories are not shared.
India need to create industrial redundancy. and this can only be created if you know already how to built it same product at mulitple location. so better create anotherer factory for Flankers and built 100% with different supply chain. for example built it with GE engines/Israeli radar/Hexcel composites. if things cannot be developed in India. This what China did with J-11B. This is faster and less costly option.
The other of MMRCA has huge implementation/financial hurdles.
JSRYeah right, if it was a MiG-35 selected & the cost had gone up, you’d have been the first to claim how justified it was. 😀
[/url]
sure there is no cost escalation, upgrades & delay with French projects that are customized for India.
secondly all your enumeration of things are worth less than $6b when you consider 30% offset.
MMRCA is too huge for EADS/Dassualt to offer the 50% offsets and India to pay to the cost of TOT.
who will blink first that will be entertaining.
JSRVictor Komardin, deputy director of Russia’s arms export agency Rosoboronexport believes that the MRCA deal will be cancelled due to the extremely high cost associated with both the Rafale and Typhoon.
He calls it a waste of money. One can bet that wouldn’t be something he’d be saying if the MiG-35 was in the running..and the last claim, that the MiG-35 was “withdrawn” from the tender before the short list was decided sounds bogus considering what we’ve heard from MiG earlier about the IAF giving reasons as to why the MiG-35 wasn’t shortlisted.
And I don’t think that he needs to tell us whether or not India faces a threat to its sovereignty. One could use that logic to question why India has other deals going on with Russia. Why spend $1 billion on an Akula lease? Why spend $2-3 billion more for the Super-30 upgrades? Why spend $35 billion or thereabouts on the FGFA? The list is long..
MIG-35 was no show at AeroIndia when all others were there. Real MIG-35 was not created. more like trials of MIG-29K. so alteast for a year i think they gave up.
$20b on 4th genertation figher is considered waste of manpower (To train expensive pilots). and there is no commonality with existing fleet. There is no unique capability about adding another 4 generation fighter.
JSRIn that case so will EF, Rafale and all other 4th gen.
All 4/5th generation fighters are in same bucket against mobile SAMs unless you can saturate them.
It is more funciton of continuity of R&D and production. EU government and firms are not united around single product. 3 fighters with 3 different engines. ( Remember it is far cheaper to improve a missile engine than an aircraft engine). Two more factories being built for increasing S-300 type missiles production.
Chinese are pretty strong in Microwave and missile technology and they were still taking delivery untill 2010 of S-300PMU-2. which is essentially late 1990s s capability. and there is so much publicity regarding Iran.
Gripen is luxury that Sweden can ill afford. Most of the airforce is unupgraded anyway and size of airforce is drastically cut with no corresponding increase in fighter ability to increase coverage. There is no CFT/engines upgrade or electronic scanning radars for current gripens.
Sign In
