After MRCA - IAF new deal would be for more than 31 billion +

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by A.V., Apr 28, 2011.

  1. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    31 billion is the price quoted for the 200 FGFA fighters and the 50 single seater pakfa variants are still under wraps ,the process has been speeded up with paperworks and official formalities being done at breakneck speed so that there is no further delay in this major deal come to the end of mrca and we have a even bigger carrot dangling.

    The US should learn a bit of respect for indian concerns and stiop arming and supporting pakistan because they are losing big time contracts.

    the quoted price is a bit less over stretched considering price escalation during development.
     
  2.  
  3. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    31 billion? I think that is way too high. I think the figure thrown around was lesser. Whatever it is, the bird should be in Indian skies at the earliest.
     
  4. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Location:
    Bangalore
    A.V., while I agree with most of what you have written, I don't think India is too much concerned about pakistan now, the main reason I see for kicking out the US from MRCA is that they are not sworn enemy of China, was they were of SU at the times of cold war. Imagine at times of war, US pulling strings to create problem for us
     
  5. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    Guys 31 billion is the figure quoted in the official paper i can bet my little left $$$ on that , while the MRCA was a long drawn drama this is one on one the total cost over a period of time can escalate to 50 billions for this deal which includes training , integration and overhead costs.

    I HAVE A FEELING THIS DEAL IS DONE TO KEEP THE MRCA LOSS NOT BE AFFECTED expect soemthing big order coming US way too
     
  6. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Cost of 250 (PAKFA + FGFA) will be 37.5 Bill (250 * 150 Mill) plus developmental cost. It will reach more than 40 billion.
     
  7. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    Bill Sweetman


    Within a year, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter team expects to make firm offers to its eight partner nations: the U.K., Italy, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Turkey. In exchange for a commitment by all eight to aircraft numbers and delivery dates, they will get a firm price, several years before that would normally be possible under U.S. procurement rules.


    Commonality has diminished during the development of JSF. The F-35C has a takeoff weight of 70,000 lb.—almost as heavy as an F-14D—and a 668-sq.-ft. wing.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN CONCEPT

    The move is necessary because competitors are offering fixed prices, and because some partners need many of their aircraft from early production batches, which normally carry a high price.

    Those commitments will be backed up by sanctions. “Partners who do not buy according to the program of record will cover the costs incurred by other partners,” says the Program Office director, Maj. Gen. Charles Davis.

    Davis says the final price is the subject of intense discussions within the team, but numbers in the $58-63-million realm—flyaway prices in current dollars—have been mentioned. Given that total acquisition unit costs in export sales tend to be about twice the flyaway cost, this places the JSF unit cost close to that of Typhoon.

    The partners should be clear about what they are getting for the money. At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.”

    The F-35 is not optimized for air-to-air combat. JSF is neither fast nor agile enough to choose whether to shoot or scoot against an adversary like the Su-30. It either carries a maximum of four AIM-120 missiles—the capability is little publicized, although Davis confirms that it will be part of the systems development and demonstration program—or operates with compromised stealth. (A reduced-signature pylon for the outboard wing stations, designed to carry AIM-9X or Asraam missiles, is being developed.) Success in air combat depends on stealth, but although the F-35 should detect targets at long range before being detected, it will have to close to shorter distances to achieve an acceptable kill probability with the AIM-120C7, particularly against an agile target using jamming and decoys. The U.S. acknowledged this by developing the AIM-120D, designed to be compatible with new active electronically scanned array radars, but it will not be available for export in the foreseeable future.

    Moreover, there is no longer any serious doubt that not all F-35s will be equal in stealth. Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.”

    The partner countries so far show signs of being able to live with the aircraft’s performance and the stealth capabilities they have been offered. The main exceptions are the U.K. and Italy, which will use the Typhoon as their primary air-to-air fighter.

    Another major advantage of the JSF is the potential for spreading through-life upgrade and support costs over a large fleet of aircraft. This depends, however, on keeping numbers at their planned level, including 730 aircraft for partner nations, which means overcoming three obstacles.

    The first is direct competition. Norway and Denmark are evaluating the JSF against other aircraft, mainly Saab’s Gripen Next Generation (NG). In May, the Netherlands government, under pressure from its Labor coalition partner, agreed to carry out a final assessment of other aircraft, including Gripen NG, Typhoon and Rafale, before making a commitment. Canada also intends to conduct a competition.

    The second is budget concerns in the U.K. and Italy, where JSF procurement will be weighed against the final batch of Typhoon fighters unless money can be found for both types.


    Doors, serrated and edge-treated to maintain stealth, open so the F-35B’s powered lift system can operate.Credit: LOCKHEED MARTIN

    Third, U.S. numbers are shaky. Senior Air Force officers have stated that the service can afford only 48 JSFs per year rather than the 80 that the current program envisions, unless it gets more topline funding in the defense budget. The Navy and Marine Corps told the Government Accountability Office that they expect to buy 35 JSFs per year, versus 50 in the current plan. Davis says the JSF office “is waiting for the POM (program objective memorandum) process to see those numbers get adjusted.”

    Technical risk is another factor. Later this year, the project office is expected to confirm a slip of 9-12 months in the completion of operational testing, with a consequent increase in development costs.

    Davis minimizes its impact, saying it reflects the fact that early low-rate initial production (LRIP) batches have been reduced in size (12 aircraft on contract in 2008, for instance, versus 18 envisioned earlier), and observing that it is “at the discretion of the combatant commander” when to declare initial operational capability. Davis makes much of the flight of the first F-35B, on June 11, within the schedule planned in August 2006. “People said the program couldn’t make it, but this shows that we’re capable of performing to schedule.”

    More important, though, is the Stovl (short takeoff and vertical landing) testing of the F-35B, which is, by Davis’s count, three months behind schedule. In the first quarter of 2009, the F-35B will start a series of 20 sorties at Fort Worth, Tex., in which the jet progressively slows down, leading to a slow landing. BF-1 will then be ferried to the Navy’s flight-test center at Patuxent River, Md., for tests leading to a vertical landing. The time*scale for that is not certain, but a vertical landing doesn’t look likely until well into the second quarter.

    The U.K. has voiced concerns about vertical landings. Added to F-35B testing under a U.K. initiative is a new flight mode, shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL), in which the aircraft approaches the ship with about 60 kt. airspeed and 25 kt. wind-over-deck—the maximum design speed of the Royal Navy’s new carriers (see story, p. 51)—for a 35-kt. relative deck speed. Davis characterizes SRVL as a means to improve hot-day performance. The U.K. National Audit Office, in a November 2007 report, linked the move to SRVL to “weight challenges and propulsion integration issues.”

    SRVL trials were carried out in May 2007, using the fly-by-wire Harrier operated by Qinetiq on the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. Challenges include the fact that the aircraft has to stop using wheelbrakes alone—37,000 lb. of aircraft at 35 kt. represents a lot of energy—on a deck that will likely be wet. A classic “bolter” will not be possible because power has to be reduced on touchdown to put the airplane’s weight on its wheels.

    Vertical landing tests depend on the successful resolution of problems with the low-pressure turbine of the F135 engine, whose unusually large blades are designed to deliver power to the lift fan. A number of changes have been implemented, and tests continue to pin down the exact combination of circumstances where failures occur.

    Two milestones are coming up: further analysis should lead to a limited clearance of the existing engine for inflight vectoring in October; and a modified, fully cleared engine should be ready to fly by late 2008.

    The other main challenge in the JSF program will be ramping-up LRIP. Davis told an Aviation Week conference in early 2008 that he was “worried about getting the manufacturing lines down the learning curves.” Some problems stem from the weight-reduction redesign in 2004-05—the wing, for example, is harder than expected to assemble. These issues have to be sorted out by 2010: in 2011, production starts a steep acceleration, from 47 aircraft ordered in 2011 to 205 in 2014.

    If the JSF program succeeds in locking up its international partners, the project could be within reach of its goal of an F-16-like, mid-four-digit production run and a near-monopoly of the fighter business outside Russia and China. The only other Western program with a long-term future will be whichever team wins India’s 126-aircraft order. But if JSF falls short of its goals—as almost every major military aircraft program has in the past 25 years—it will throw the re-equipment plans of a dozen air arms into disarray.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    31 or 50 billion for FGFA ! It is too much . I think better buy some F 35 . May be that will end up at the price of ET . ( I am posting this report again--- first in MRCA news thread ) This may give some guide about price . Buy some F 35 and join with some other partner , may be there are few trying to start their 5 th gen A/C development .
     
  8. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    FGFA Is a co-developed project not a buy sell one so no question of JSF

    then 31 billion is for 200 fgfa only the 50 pakfa prices are undisclosed
     
  9. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    /\/\/\/\ This figure is only for price of planes or for weapons as well?
     
  10. i think that if pak-fa would have been inducted at present we would have required 250 fighters.but it will be inducted in the time frame of 2017-2030 so our requirement would be much larger than what it is presently may be 750.given the size of plaaf(about 3 times our iaf) even that would not be a good no. and we may induct a similar no.of amca and aura by then.also by 2030 our economy might touch 10 trillion dollars so we need not worry about the price of these fighters.
     
  11. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    The entire FGFA project for 40 years will be over $120Billion for India alone. Bringing Brazil into the picture during development stage will be good for us. We will end up being the largest operator for the FGFA.

    The MRCA will be over $30Billion for 40 years if we stick to the initial numbers of 7 squadrons. Rafales and EF-2000s cost as much as the PAKFA now. We may end up being the largest operator for either aircraft.

    We will reach that mark much before 2030.
     
  12. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,009
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    This price is for A/C only .
     
  13. SATISH

    SATISH DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    228
    Well the initial design allowance of the FGFA is $592 mil I wont be surprised if FGFA costs $31 bil altogether. The Russians have also hinted the FGFA will be "based" on existing PAKFA. So there are lots of speculations going around.
     
  14. SATISH

    SATISH DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    228
    Well the F 35 seems to be one underpowered aircraft. It is not suitable for Indian doctrine. We rather stick with the MCA. Both are in the same class...so F 35 is not a valid option for India.
     
  15. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    6,565
    Are we working with Novator on any joint missile development for PAKFA??
     
  16. Dark Sorrow

    Dark Sorrow Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Some key questions are yet to answered. Will we get ToT for AL-41(most important question)>
    Who is developing the radar, E Suite?
    What about the material used for chassis of the bird?
    and many more
     
  17. Illusive

    Illusive Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    31 billion is a lot of money but it still good for a 5th gen aircraft, but more importantly its necessary to induct them in time, well before f-35 and J20. I wouldn't be surprised if US has plans to give predator drones in the next few years cause India doesn't want F35 neither F18 or F16, cause once India masters drone technology i dodn't think there would be much left cause India is already doing well in other sectors of defence.
     
  18. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    3,891
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    31 billion is a little high to blow up. Rather, I would spend another 11 billion on another 128 MMRCA fighters to give some quantitative edge and increase the IAF's Freedom of Operations, and spend 20 billion on procuring 129 fifth generation fighters.
     
  19. JAISWAL

    JAISWAL Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    1,016
    Location:
    ghaziabad
    why most members here are so upset at price tag of 31bil. for fgfa. Its a nice deal which required as well as nessesity for INDIA to counter the growing theath of our north-eastern naibour
     
  20. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    PAKFA export will compensate development cost till some extent.

    We might not come to know the fragmentation of quoted price any sooner.

    --

    In any case, IAF would like to operate PAKFAs before alleged 5th gen birds from far east are in market.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011

Share This Page