halloweeneYES! To compensate for Brexit -> one word: JAPENTER!!:very_drunk:
Remind me where shin shin protoype tested its RCS?
halloweeneRFP specifies that first four aircraft, all internal systems installed, must be delivered 2023. This is too soon for Gripen E or Rafale F4.
Scenarios have JF-17! Did NATO just rat out its plan on who to invade next? 🙂
Read it again (see above) van be retrofitted until 2030
halloweene7 x A400M to replace 11 x C-130? That´s a pretty large transport fleet isn´t it? Considering Belgium´s small territory and the fact that Belgium doesn´t seem to engage that much in international operations, why do they need 11 C-130?
They participate to a european common transport fleet
halloweene2023 is also a timeframe Lockheed could offer block 4 as a standard option depending upon the plan that could be approved as early as next month.
Anw, it is specified in Rfp that plnas can be retrofitted until FOC (last date 2029-12-31) as far as all planes are at the same standard te day of FOC.
halloweeneThere currently aren’t any plans to equip the F-35 with NGJ. The USAF is studying a PEA capability for the late 2020’s. NGJ will be fielded with Mid-band capability only with low band added in increment 2.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014/PSAR/Croxson.pdf
TY
halloweeneI’m confused on one hand some ppl praise the electronick attack capability of APG 81, but on the other side NGJ should equip F-35…
halloweeneBecause the F-35A is only offered to a group of nations that are allied (or pretty much alligned) with the USA, and at least for now, delivering that particular aircraft to an airforce who happens to work with some chaps called “Sukhoi” is a big “no-no”?
Cheers
Hmmm i thought some expected to offer it to India?
halloweeneBy the time Malaysia will introduce new a/c, F-35 will be fully operational.
That is absolutely possible.
halloweeneIndustrial requirements, perhaps.
Given how long the competition has been kicking around, the list of contenders could simply not have been updated to reflect the likely availability of F-35 in the required timeframe, i.e. post-2020.
Or maybe US doesn’t trust Malaysia. You certainly don’t hear much rhetoric from Washington about its valued ally in Kuala Lumpur. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
Or maybe they want a really operational aircraft?
halloweeneDassault Aviation, NDUM sign MOU to set up ICP
halloweeneCanada does not have economy so there is nothing to compare. Canadian have practically lost all skills to built stuff except for assembly line work. They are now closer to hand out distribution economics of Saudi Arabia. Plus Canadian political system is always under pressure from different minority groups like Ukranians and Chinese that led to even further stupid decisions.
Compare average lifestyle of canadian and russian? And THINK!
halloweeneHas India canceled the acquisition of the 36 Rafale F3?
If India did not send an RFI to France it is because there is no need this, since it was the Rafale F3 that won the MMRCA program, although the program has been suspended so far, India has chosen to buy 36 Rafale F3.
During the 2000s there were several criticisms that MMRCA program from India, once it had not been included the STOBAR fighters from IN to equip its new aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya.
The basic idea should be chosen a fighter even in different versions that could have been equipped both IAF and IN.
For several reasons as schedule and political, the IN has been chosen the MiG 29K, and thus the IAF could have been moving with more freedom to choice among the candidates available without to opt for candidates that has been already developed maritime versions (F/A 18E/F, Rafale M and MiG 35) at this time.
Coincidentally, the Rafale F3 won the MMRCA program, and at the same time rumors had been surfaced that the Rafale M would be acquired in the future to equip a new aircraft carrier from India.
India has done their homework about the failures of the MMRCA program, as well as the emphasis on Make in India has not been applied only with IAF, but for IN as well, so anyone that has not developed such maritime version for India untill 2021, probably will not win in India either with IAF and IN.
If SAAB could have not been removed the Gripen M from the never land until 2021, it certainly will not be India that will taken out the Gripen M from never land with all risks , after all the Rafale F3/M still in the leadership and the F/A 18 E/F has been follow in second place both with IAF e IN, even taking out the F 35A/B/C, the Gripen E and F 16 should have been competing for the 4th place even with IAF.
I just mean that i know there wasn’t any RFI sent to France for the single engine fighter deal. I just kind of remember (if i’m not wrong) that “unsollicited offers” arrived from LM and SAAB to India before anyone ever heard about a RFI noone ever saw…
halloweeneIn fact, India has not been shown such highly interest in the Gripen E, since the Gripen E were rejected in the MMRCA program, as well as India has been sending RFI for several countries like France and Russia that doesn’t produce fighters with a single engine like the Gripen E or F 16.
Nope, no RFI to France (and not sure there ever was a RFI…)
That was less the IAF and more the MoD with its ‘Make-in-India’ directives for which the ‘free’ F-16 assembly line was a particularly attractive idea. With the defence minister Parrikar gone, and no formal process initiated, it remains to whether the plan will see light of day.
Agree. This whole story since MMRCA cancellation smells rivalry between Parrikar and Modi.
Didn’t IN specify they want a twin-engined fighter, so that rules out both F-35 and Gripen Maritime? Did it change again?
India is sensed to have specified a single engine for IAF, but Boeing pitched its F-18…
halloweeneSee this is the problem. You accuse the JPO of something you have absolutely no proof that you offer to back that up. Did you hear back from them? If so did you ask someone in the US to file a FOIA request to get details? No..most of this was not done but I guess its much easy to google stuff up and make accusations while at the same time claiming some sort of neutrality as far as research is concerned. I am personally aware of at least one editor of a major aerospace and defense publication who plans to file a FOIA request for LRIP-10 contract break-down (JPO reported cost figures) once all the formalities are completed. Probably a lot of others have too.
There is irony in the fact that an article that attempts to do a deep dive on the program cost, concluding the *obvious* (that there are various reported program cost data), itself gets cost data wrong..and not some hard to find, hard to compute data..but something one can simply dig up by spending 5 minutes on google. It was also quite amusing that once pointed the author went back and changed the data but replaced it with yet another faulty figure.
There isn’t any data wrong. Interpretation can be surely not the data. And the faulty figure was not faulty. exactly from the link you gave (and from which first figures were extracted) + cost of an engine added (17 million dollars, average cost from engine contract LRIP7). So you can disregard the calculation of changed data, not the data themselves. The author is not in cause, I am responsible and take the blame from firstly announced advertised costs. The whole idea was to show the difference between the costs advertised to public tax payers nad the effectively paid money (and that only, mentioned in the article). Cost analysis would come further. Now I am not US, so i cannot fill a FOIA request (i damn do not know what it is).
Check all forumers loudly claiming that F-35 is cheaper than Rafale for example, citing JPO costs on one hand, and Rafale export contracts on the other… Never saw you telling them hey you cant compare apples and “oranges”. Wondering why.
halloweeneRight, and what is the point of repeating this? Is this an atypical contracting mechanism within the DOD Acquisition system? Do you claim it to be, if so based on how much experience within the US DOD acquisition system? As I said earlier find out whether this is an appropriate contracting vehicle or not..for that you would either have to rapidly acquire familiarity and experience with the US DOD acquisition practices, or find someone that has. The absurdity was that the author took something known to be for LRIP-11 (it said as much in the description) and added it up in LRIP-7 unit cost just because that was the contracting vehicle used.
Art? What art? Sorry to repeat this but this was a half a$$ed job at trying to find something out and later falling back on excuses, admitting mistakes and asking questions on forums about the data being reported in the report itself. Lets not try to pass it off as some sort of professionally done analysis done by a reputable organization that has done reporting based on sources and exchange of data with those in the know or those that actually signed the contracts. I wouldn’t expect most folks to know details (unless they live in these sort of acquisition data) but most would reach out to those that do, and get an official on the record position when it comes to stuff they don’t know.
Atypical or not was not the point. The article was not a cost analysis (and it is mentioned inside), but sumed every cent spent under LRIP7 umbrella. µYou know what? I’d bet that JPO will NOT compute that into LRIP11 costs. I admited ONE mistake (and only one) and as i’m responsible it is my bad. So? Never saw larger mistakes in many articles of reknown journos? Exchange with those in the now? Had some questions (particularly about engines upgrades). Never answered…
Sign In
