U.S. May Allow India to Join JSF Effort

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
You must be kidding!?!?! As with the current world economy. Many JSF partner would love to postpone there F-35 Orders. Plus, nobody would have to postpone their entire order.


In short a small number of aircarft from different partners spread over several years. Hardly an issue at all...............
No I am not kidding , dude ! I said it will begin from this decade and go on beyond 2030, actually till 2038 ! Here's the link :

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-46157.aspx

Its old, if you can find any updated link similar to this, please do so.

Anyway, I won't be surprised if more partners postpone their F-35 orders considering as you said the bad state of economy in most of these countries.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
Well, that piece of news nails the fact. Good decision on part of GOI and IAF !! As to everyone else, please read that the price of our FGFA will be cheaper than the F-35, no point in wasting money, plus we have full control over this program along with Russia since we are the co-designer, funder and developer.
 

wild goose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
245
Likes
46
USAF Officials Worry JSF Costs May Soar



Senior Air Force leaders are growing increasingly concerned that Joint Strike Fighter maintenance and operating costs will rise far above previous estimates.

A source familiar with the issue said that the Air Force believes a study performed by the Navy one year ago looks increasingly accurate, based on preliminary data the service has compiled. Buzz readers will remember that the Navy study found the F-35 would cost between 30 percent and 40 percent more per plane than does the current F/A-18 fleet. Since one of the primary goals of the F-35 program, with its web of international partners, was to lower maintenance costs by achieving economies of scale through large program buys by a significant number of countries this would call into question one of the fundamental goals of the program. Another key to achieving those savings was an international PBL contract (Performance Based Logistics). It would spread work share throughout the JSF allies and guarantee greater economies of scale than the U.S. could achieve on its own.

Here's how Lockheed Martin described a PBL in a briefing on PBL: "An alternative logistics support solutions that transfers traditional DoD/MoD inventory, supply chain and technical support functions to the supplier for a guaranteed level of performance at the same or reduced cost at the Platform level." That briefing has graphics showing operation and sustainment costs actually coming down over time for the JSF program, compared to the usual steady spiral upwards.

But the Gates Pentagon has veered sharply away from the idea of PBLs. Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute recently offered this capsule summary of the arguments for and against PBLs:

"DoD executives have repeatedly asserted that contractor logistics support (CLS) and performance-based logistics (PBL) contracts are too expensive and that the government could do the same work for less.

"These kinds of assertions fly in the face of available evidence. Data available to DoD officials clearly demonstrates that private sector support is generally less costly than the same work done by the organic or government sustainment system. The Air Force's own data shows that the average annual cost growth for aircraft programs supported solely from the organic industrial base was greater than that for aircraft programs under either PBL or CLS arrangements. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has identified a set of PBL contracts which collectively have saved the government more than $1.5 billion."

But a source close to the program believes the Air Force is creating its own cost problem by insisting on manning levels based on the F-16. This source said the Air Force is, instead of considering the impact of a PBL when combined with the advanced parts management systems built into the F-35, modeling O and S costs on the F-16 program. Because of the predictive parts monitoring built into the JSF, it should need significantly fewer people to maintain it. The much older F-16 requires many more people to perform maintenance than should the JSF, this source argues. And those people are very expensive, especially over time. So the new model's costs are much higher.

The source familiar with the Air Force position said the service wanted to front-load the early phases of the plane's deployment with government workers instead of, as has happened with most past programs, of relying on substantial contractor support. Since a PBL relies on contractor support that approach would seem to rule out a PBL

http://dailyairforce.com/565/USAF-Officials-Worry-JSF-Costs-May-Soar.html
 

Crusader53

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
772
Likes
38
Yeah.. but what about $ 132 million apiece and still going up? For US this would not be a problem but what was expected to be $80-85 million apiece is now way beyond its expectation. Don't you think that is going to put a strain on rest of the member countries?

Just the usual total misinformation...........
 

Crusader53

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
772
Likes
38
NEW DELHI: India has no plans as of now to either join the US-led joint strike fighter (JSF) programme or buy the F-35 `Lightning-II' fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) when it finally becomes operational.

"We cannot have two types of FGFA. We have already launched preliminary work for our FGFA after inking the $295 million preliminary design contract (PDC) with Russia last month,'' said a top defence ministry official on Friday.

This comes in the wake of comments made by a top Pentagon official, undersecretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics Ashton Carter, in Washington that the US was open to Indian participation in its JSF project.

Interestingly, the comments came during a function where an aggressive sales pitch was made for India to select either the American F/A-18 `Super Hornet' ( Boeing) or F-16 `Falcon' ( Lockheed Martin) over their European rivals in the ongoing IAF's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest.

The other 4.5-generation fighters in the hotly-contested race to bag the $10.4 billion MMRCA project, under which 18 jets will be bought off-the-shelf and another 108 will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology, are Eurofighter Typhoon, Swedish Gripen (Saab), French Rafale (Dassault) and Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation).

The IAF force matrix for the coming years revolves around the 270 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion, the 126 MMRCA and 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, apart from upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s.

In the decades ahead, the advanced stealth FGFA to be developed with Russia will be the mainstay of India's combat fleet. "Our FGFA will be cheaper than the F-35. Moreover, the intellectual property rights of the FGFA will equally and jointly vest on both India and Russia, with full access to the source code and the like,'' said another senior official.

With a potent mix of super-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, the "swing-role'' FGFA will of course not come cheap. The cost of designing, infrastructure build-up, prototype development and flight testing has been pegged at around $11 billion, with India and Russia chipping in with $5.5 billion each.

Over and above this, each of the 250-300 FGFA India hopes to begin inducting from 2020 onwards will cost around $100 million each. In all, India will spend upwards of $35 billion over the next two decades in its biggest-ever defence project till now.

The Indian FGFA will primarily be based on the single-seater Sukhoi T-50, the prototype of which is already flying in Russia, but will include a twin-seater version and a more powerful engine with greater thrust.

"Its complete design will be frozen by the end of the 18-month PDC. Six to seven of its prototypes should be flying by 2017. After that, there will be 2,500 hours of flight-testing over 25 months before the series production begins in 2019,'' he said.

SOURCE: TOI

Would you care to provide a link to the source???
 

Crusader53

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
772
Likes
38
Well, that piece of news nails the fact. Good decision on part of GOI and IAF !! As to everyone else, please read that the price of our FGFA will be cheaper than the F-35, no point in wasting money, plus we have full control over this program along with Russia since we are the co-designer, funder and developer.
The PAK-FA will very likely cost more than the F-35. Plus, it will be vast more expensive to operate. In addition if history has anything to do with it. It will also have lower Servicability Rates too!
 

Crusader53

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
772
Likes
38
USAF Officials Worry JSF Costs May Soar



Senior Air Force leaders are growing increasingly concerned that Joint Strike Fighter maintenance and operating costs will rise far above previous estimates.

A source familiar with the issue said that the Air Force believes a study performed by the Navy one year ago looks increasingly accurate, based on preliminary data the service has compiled. Buzz readers will remember that the Navy study found the F-35 would cost between 30 percent and 40 percent more per plane than does the current F/A-18 fleet. Since one of the primary goals of the F-35 program, with its web of international partners, was to lower maintenance costs by achieving economies of scale through large program buys by a significant number of countries this would call into question one of the fundamental goals of the program. Another key to achieving those savings was an international PBL contract (Performance Based Logistics). It would spread work share throughout the JSF allies and guarantee greater economies of scale than the U.S. could achieve on its own.

Here's how Lockheed Martin described a PBL in a briefing on PBL: "An alternative logistics support solutions that transfers traditional DoD/MoD inventory, supply chain and technical support functions to the supplier for a guaranteed level of performance at the same or reduced cost at the Platform level." That briefing has graphics showing operation and sustainment costs actually coming down over time for the JSF program, compared to the usual steady spiral upwards.

But the Gates Pentagon has veered sharply away from the idea of PBLs. Dan Goure of the Lexington Institute recently offered this capsule summary of the arguments for and against PBLs:

"DoD executives have repeatedly asserted that contractor logistics support (CLS) and performance-based logistics (PBL) contracts are too expensive and that the government could do the same work for less.

"These kinds of assertions fly in the face of available evidence. Data available to DoD officials clearly demonstrates that private sector support is generally less costly than the same work done by the organic or government sustainment system. The Air Force's own data shows that the average annual cost growth for aircraft programs supported solely from the organic industrial base was greater than that for aircraft programs under either PBL or CLS arrangements. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has identified a set of PBL contracts which collectively have saved the government more than $1.5 billion."

But a source close to the program believes the Air Force is creating its own cost problem by insisting on manning levels based on the F-16. This source said the Air Force is, instead of considering the impact of a PBL when combined with the advanced parts management systems built into the F-35, modeling O and S costs on the F-16 program. Because of the predictive parts monitoring built into the JSF, it should need significantly fewer people to maintain it. The much older F-16 requires many more people to perform maintenance than should the JSF, this source argues. And those people are very expensive, especially over time. So the new model's costs are much higher.

The source familiar with the Air Force position said the service wanted to front-load the early phases of the plane's deployment with government workers instead of, as has happened with most past programs, of relying on substantial contractor support. Since a PBL relies on contractor support that approach would seem to rule out a PBL

http://dailyairforce.com/565/USAF-Officials-Worry-JSF-Costs-May-Soar.html

We've heard many reports from such unofficial reports for years. With most not being true at all............
 

Crusader53

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
772
Likes
38
No I am not kidding , dude ! I said it will begin from this decade and go on beyond 2030, actually till 2038 ! Here's the link :

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-46157.aspx

Its old, if you can find any updated link similar to this, please do so.

Anyway, I won't be surprised if more partners postpone their F-35 orders considering as you said the bad state of economy in most of these countries.

Doubtful.......even if some did others are ready to step in! (Japan, South Korea, etc.)


BTW Israel has already placed an order......
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
The PAK-FA will very likely cost more than the F-35. Plus, it will be vast more expensive to operate. In addition if history has anything to do with it. It will also have lower Servicability Rates too!
Well that's your opinion ! Everybody is free to have one. The expected price of the PAKFA will be 100 million dollars according to government sources, which is still quite less than the 132 million dollars projected cost of the F-35, I can bet on my two cents that it won't come cheaper than a $100 million anyhow. And as you said, if history has anything to do, we all know that all Russian aircrafts are cheaper than equivalent American platforms. And please don't crib about that poor serviceability thing every time, if you can't find anything worthwhile to add. We had serviceability problems with the Migs, but that was in the past. There were hardly any problems with the Su-30s, since it was a relatively new platform as compared to other Russian origin aircraft in our inventory. Something that is 30-40 years old is bound to have serviceability and quality issues, no matter how hard you try. This is a new platform that we are jointly developing with the Russians. The gains here are immense as compared to buying something off the shelf from another nation.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
With own 5G jet plan, India 'rejects' US offer

NEW DELHI: India has no plans as of now to either join the US-led joint strike fighter (JSF) programme or buy the F-35 `Lightning-II' fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) when it finally becomes operational.

"We cannot have two types of FGFA. We have already launched preliminary work for our FGFA after inking the $295 million preliminary design contract (PDC) with Russia last month,'' said a top defence ministry official on Friday.

This comes in the wake of comments made by a top Pentagon official, undersecretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics Ashton Carter, in Washington that the US was open to Indian participation in its JSF project.

Interestingly, the comments came during a function where an aggressive sales pitch was made for India to select either the American F/A-18 `Super Hornet' ( Boeing) or F-16 `Falcon' ( Lockheed Martin) over their European rivals in the ongoing IAF's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest.

The other 4.5-generation fighters in the hotly-contested race to bag the $10.4 billion MMRCA project, under which 18 jets will be bought off-the-shelf and another 108 will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology, are Eurofighter Typhoon, Swedish Gripen (Saab), French Rafale (Dassault) and Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation).

The IAF force matrix for the coming years revolves around the 270 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion, the 126 MMRCA and 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, apart from upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s.

In the decades ahead, the advanced stealth FGFA to be developed with Russia will be the mainstay of India's combat fleet. "Our FGFA will be cheaper than the F-35. Moreover, the intellectual property rights of the FGFA will equally and jointly vest on both India and Russia, with full access to the source code and the like,'' said another senior official.

With a potent mix of super-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, the "swing-role'' FGFA will of course not come cheap. The cost of designing, infrastructure build-up, prototype development and flight testing has been pegged at around $11 billion, with India and Russia chipping in with $5.5 billion each.

Over and above this, each of the 250-300 FGFA India hopes to begin inducting from 2020 onwards will cost around $100 million each. In all, India will spend upwards of $35 billion over the next two decades in its biggest-ever defence project till now.

The Indian FGFA will primarily be based on the single-seater Sukhoi T-50, the prototype of which is already flying in Russia, but will include a twin-seater version and a more powerful engine with greater thrust.

"Its complete design will be frozen by the end of the 18-month PDC. Six to seven of its prototypes should be flying by 2017. After that, there will be 2,500 hours of flight-testing over 25 months before the series production begins in 2019,'' he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ndia-rejects-US-offer/articleshow/7380551.cms
 

Parthy

Air Warrior
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,314
Likes
149
JSF Costs Key To 2011 Global Fighter Market

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program took up a lot of real estate in the national and international press and trade media in 2010, and the critical attention will continue into 2011. The sheer size of the program to supply the U.S. military and partner nations with a stealthy and relatively affordable strike fighter, coupled with questions about prime contractor Lockheed Martin's ability to stick to the schedule and meet cost targets, makes it the No. 1 target of industry speculation.

The JSF program, currently in its system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, includes three different variants: the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A to replace U.S. Air Force F-16s and A-10s; the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) F-35B to replace the U.S. Marine Corps' AV-8Bs and F/A-18s; and the F-35C carrier variant for the U.S. Navy. The program is in the early stages of flight testing, and, typical of development programs, not everything is going to plan.

Restructuring of the program in February 2010, and again in January 2011 because of final-assembly flight-test delays, has pushed completion of SDD to mid-2016 from late 2013, and added $8.4 billion to the cost of development. The additional $4.6 billion needed in Fiscal 2012-16 to complete development will be found by cutting planned procurement by 124 aircraft, to 325. This will slow the ramp-up of production and make it more difficult to drive down unit costs.


In an effort to restore affordability to the program, the Pentagon struck agreements with Lockheed Martin and engine supplier Pratt & Whitney to buy the fourth low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch of 31 aircraft and 37 engines under fixed-price incentive contracts rather than continue with cost-plus procurement as originally planned. This places the risk of cost overruns largely on the contractors' shoulders. Lockheed Martin said at the time the transition to fixed-price contracting was made two years ahead of schedule to counter concerns of escalating program costs.

Keeping the F-35 within targets is of critical concern to both the industry team and the Pentagon. The total program requirement across all partner nations currently amounts to 2,443 aircraft. While that figure is almost certain to be reduced in coming years as national deficits curtail defense spending, unit cost has always been a major concern for the Pentagon because of the large fleets of legacy aircraft that must be replaced. Even a small increase in unit cost can have a large impact on procurement budgets, and independent estimates say the price of the F-35 has roughly doubled since 2001.

Estimates for the price of a production aircraft vary widely, ranging from above $100 million on down. Lockheed Martin asserts the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F-35A will eventually drop to around $60 million in 2010 dollars, and argues this would put the cost of acquiring a CTOL F-35 on par with buying a Block 60 F-16 or Block 2 F/A-18E/F. For Lockheed Martin, meeting that cost goal depends heavily on the number of F-35s it will sell to international customers, and the number of F-35s is can sell abroad depends heavily on meeting its price target.

Repeating the success of the F-16 on the international market is part of Lockheed Martin's vision for the JSF program. The F-35 is viewed as an aircraft that will allow friendly nations to buy a fighter with a high level of stealth, but without the high level of technical secrecy surrounding the U.S. Air Force's F-22 Raptor. The F-35's design also emphasizes the air-to-ground mission, an important feature in the modern security environment. For the U.S. military and its allies, it is more likely the highest threat in an air campaign will come from surface-to-air missiles rather than enemy fighters. Also, a fighter is far more likely to spend its time supporting ground forces and acting as a node in the wider command-sensor network.

The eight nations participating in the F-35 SDD phase—the U.K., Italy, Australia, Turkey, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark and Norway—all typically engage in military operations beyond their borders through collective security arrangements and coalitions. Two of them—the U.K. and Italy—are also Eurofighter Typhoon operators and already possess a fighter designed for the air superiority role. For the remaining partner nations, that any of them will find themselves in a solo campaign against a peer competitor seems fanciful. The argument for purchasing the F-35 to operate within a multinational security framework is underpinned by Lockheed Martin's strategy of distributing industrial work among the participating nations.

While it is likely the JSF partners will order fewer aircraft than initially planned to save money—the U.K. deciding to jettison its planned purchase of 138 Stovl F-35Bs for a lower number of carrier-capable F-35Cs—they have yet to signal an intent to acquire a different aircraft instead. Denmark and the Netherlands have delayed final decisions, but elsewhere the procurement of F-35s has already received government and/or parliamentary approval, with only the timing and size of initial orders to be determined.

The result of Lockheed Martin's global supply-chain approach is a European fighter market in which many of the promising customers have a financial interest in the F-35 via local industry involvement in production. Looking around the rest of the European fighter market, Germany and Spain are partners in the Eurofighter program and France is off the table because of its own domestic fighter program, the Dassault Rafale. Left up for grabs in Europe are primarily the smaller nations with modest requirements for combat aircraft, and it is hard to keep a fighter program alive over the long term by making small sales to nations like Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia.



There are still a few countries capable of funding several billion dollars' worth of fighter orders left in Europe—Belgium, Finland, Greece, Poland and Switzerland among them—but defense funding is under pressure across the continent, and each of these nations is in a position to defer funding for new fighters for an extended period. The reality of the security situation is that, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the continued existence of NATO, there is little urgency in European capitals to replace fighter fleets. In fact, fleet shrinkage remains a popular tactic in Europe for dealing with budget pressures, a situation that will not change any time soon.

With Europe now mostly out of play, there is more pressure to make deals in the Middle East/North Africa region and in Asia. For Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter and Saab, securing sales in these markets will be key to the continued survival of their fighter production lines into the next decade. Sales in Latin America will not be enough to keep those lines going. While Chile and Venezuela are recent buyers of new F-16s and Sukhoi Su-27s, respectively, and Brazil is conducting a much-talked-about competition for 36-plus new fighters, the Latin American market remains dominated by sales or donations of used aircraft rather than new purchases.

The difficulty for European industry is that the Middle East market is now largely dominated by U.S. manufacturers. Dassault was formerly a big player in the region, but has been attempting to close a deal for Rafales for years without success. British defense contractor BAE Systems sold 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis turned back to the U.S. in 2010 with an agreement to purchase 84 F-15s and upgrade 70 more. There has been talk of an Omani purchase of used British Typhoons, and the United Arab Emirates has seemed close to ordering Rafales, but closing deals is turning out to be harder than expected for European manufacturers.

The fighter market is growing in Asia, meanwhile, primarily because of rising wealth and concerns over the Chinese military's modernization efforts. China itself is not yet at the point where it can build fighters that are competitive with the best the West has to offer, with engine development being a major stumbling block. Chengdu has developed the FC-1 lightweight fighter for the export market and the multirole J-10 for China's own needs. Both are relatively low-cost single-engine modern fighters that are a little behind the latest versions of the F-16 and Gripen. But China is acquiring large numbers of J-10s and has developed the J-11, its own improved version of the Su-27. A large stealthy fighter, the J-20, entered flight test in January, but when it will enter service is not known. Add into the mix an unpredictable North Korea, and Indonesia's interest in growing its fleet of Su-27/-30s to 180 aircraft, and the result is a number of nations seeing a threat and looking to replace aging models with newer aircraft with the latest in sensors and weapons.

As in the Middle East, the importance of U.S. military power to regional stability gives a major push to offerings by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. South Korea and Singapore are both building fleets of F-15s. Australia has ordered F/A-18F Super Hornets and plans to order a larger number of F-35s. Japan looks likely to select the F-35 to replace its fleet of aging F-4EJs under its F-X program. The Japanese government wanted the F-22 to fill the requirement, but the Raptor cannot be exported without a change in U.S. law. The refusal to sell the Raptor has led the Japanese to flirt with Eurofighter and examine the possibility of developing its own stealthy aircraft, but ultimately the Japanese will stick with tradition and buy American.

With the U.S. dominating sales to big customers in the Middle East and Asia, the Indian air force's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program has become hugely important to the future shape of the fighter market. The contest involves six aircraft: the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16IN, RAC MiG-35 and Saab Gripen NG. All of these aircraft are at risk of going out of production at some point during the next decade unless a new major order can be secured. What makes the contest interesting is that a good case can be made for betting on any of the horses in the race. The Indian government has tended to buy Russian fighters over the years, but also owns a fleet of French-made Mirage 2000Hs. The rumor mill is working overtime; at one point the Rafale was reported to be out of the running, then the Indian air force was said to be so unhappy with maintenance costs on its MiG-29s that it had no interest in the upgraded MiG-35. A decision is expected in 2011 but may slip.

The initial requirement under the MMRCA program is 126 aircraft, with an option for an additional 74. That is a huge contract in today's market. Unlike other nations that are looking to cut costs by rationalizing fighter fleets around one or two models, India is building a mixed fleet that will eventually include not just Su-30s, MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s, but the indigenously designed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and a version of *Sukhoi's T-50 stealth fighter. Buying so many dissimilar types is not a rational approach from a cost or operational standpoint, but India's procurement system has often centered more on building technical know-how and creating jobs for its own defense industry than on efficiency or economy in operations.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...sts Key To 2011 Global Fighter Market&next=10
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,236
Country flag
Doubtful.......even if some did others are ready to step in! (Japan, South Korea, etc.)


BTW Israel has already placed an order......
Buddy, Japan is undecided and is being pressured by US right now to consider. But Japanese economy is not exactly in good shape to afford spanking new fighters in large numbers (they are still rich but they would prefer using that money to re-start their economic growth). Plus, the no-WAR conditions you have tied them with for the past 6 decades is a bummer since wars now and then are important tools of growth and innovation. You might have to do one of the two things:

1- Remove their No-War obligations and allow them independent military pursuit (this might have a strong chance of new participant in JSF program)
2- Step in and do something about their economy

South Korea is going for the KF-X program with Indonesia and possibly Turkey. It is unlikely that it would sacrifice domestic production for a rather secretive stealth program. You do know that even UK is facing hell in not getting access to sensitive tech, do you? That puts most people off when they themselves are having a strong industrial base.

F-35 is good but it has some elements that need to be streamlined in order to earn it strong customers. For example, you folks had a good chance initially to loosen up the we-won't-give-you-access-to-tech thinking a bit and could have involved us and Brazil and even Koreans and Japanese.

Israel has placed an order for 20 JSF which is down from 75 they had initially planned (55 less is pretty big)-- because LM is not allowing them to use their sub-systems onboard and also the unceremonious kicking out they got sometime back for arms sales to China (its good for us but from their POV, its not).

What we are saying is that JSF is not failure but LM and US Congress has to lighten up a bit if it has to adjust to the new industrial order post CW. You can needlessly avoid all these backtracking by allowing the member nations more access and more participation where their own industries can learn more as well. TAI, BAE etc are pretty good aerospace firms themselves. They have potential to be given a much more sizable workload that they expect.

With Chinese stepping in, your hold on markets will weaken. Weaken for previous generation fighters since they are offering pretty much similar and more affordable stuff with virtually no strings attached to African, Southeast Asian and possibly Latin American countries; 3 main regions for strong customers.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
you don't think J 20 is best thing that happened to the US , in terms of sales in that region. Japan is not going to wait on some other 5th gen aircraft.
 

neo29

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
1,284
Likes
30
With already escalating costs in the project, it seems US and NATO need a new partner for funding. Who else better than India ??
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,236
Country flag
you don't think J 20 is best thing that happened to the US , in terms of sales in that region. Japan is not going to wait on some other 5th gen aircraft.
Yeah if you look at it that way' but there is something called stability. Neither JSF nor Japan are having right now in terms of economy and costs. Japanese are an all time low right now and the JSF is already shooting through the roof in costs.
 

youngindian

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,365
Likes
77
Country flag
U.S. may sell stealth fighters to India

Feb. 1, 2011

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- The United States may allow India to buy its fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighter as part of its Joint Strike Fighter program, military officials in Washington said.

U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Ashton Carter, head of acquisitions at the Pentagon, hinted at the possibility saying that there was "nothing on our side, no principle that bar Indian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program."

"Right now," he added, "they're focused on these aircraft which are top-of-the-line fourth-generation fighters."

Speaking in response to a report by Carnegie Endowment's Ashley Tellis on India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, Carter clarified, however, the decision would be "India's alone."

Determined to increase its defenses and become a regional superpower, India plans to spend up to $30 billion on its military by 2012. In recent months, it inducted a long-range, nuclear-tipped missile into its armed forces, unveiling a defense spending budget spiked by 24 percent since last year.

The moves have Pakistan fretting, with leading officials billing India's drive a "massive militarization."

The United States' consideration of offering the F-35 to India isn't new.

In 2007, Lockheed Martin briefed Indian air force officials on the stealth aircraft but plans for a sale were subsequently blocked by Washington.

India's interest, though, remains.

Lockheed Martin Vice President Orville Prins recently confirmed that the company had received an official interest request by the Indian navy. The request concerned naval variants of the F-35, including the F-35B STOVL and F-35C.

"We are going to offer our aircraft to them," he was quoted saying by the Defense Update Web site.

Citing the Tellis report, Defense News said India was eyeing the purchase of 126 fighters, valued at more than $10 billion. Competitors are said to include the Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab JAS-39 Gripen and the Mikoyan MiG-35.

The possible release of Joint Strike Fighter program technology to India marks a significant shift in policy toward New Delhi, a change resulting from growing concern over the military growth of China.

Also, if the United States holds out on its initial reservations, it may lose a potential client to Russia.

India is considering buying 250 T-50 fifth-generation fighters from Russia in an ambitious joint development project with Sukhoi.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...rs-to-India/UPI-35011296570416/#ixzz1CipuMJFf


http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...stealth-fighters-to-India/UPI-35011296570416/
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Let's offer FGFA to the US and her allies and have them stop F-35 development. *roll eyes*
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
Let's offer FGFA to the US and her allies and have them stop F-35 development. *roll eyes*
Good point, mate ! :) Especially regarding to the price that we would offer, it will be a very good deal.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
227
With already escalating costs in the project, it seems US and NATO need a new partner for funding. Who else better than India ??
That money can be better utilized on our FGFA and AMCA projects.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,236
Country flag
US will have to offer India generous terms to seal combat aircraft deal: Expert

http://idrw.org/?p=2583

If the United States is keen to win the race for supplying new medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) to the Indian Air Force, it will need to offer generous terms on the transfer of technology, assure India access to fifth-generation U.S. combat aircraft, and provide strong support for India's strategic ambitions -to counter the perception that the older U.S. designs in the MMRCA race are less combat effective.

Expressing this view in an article for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, senior associate Ashley J. Tellis said that in making its decision, the Indian Government must keep the Indian Air Force's interests consistently front and center to ensure that its ultimate choice of aircraft is the best one for the service.

"This will not only help India to strengthen its combat capabilities in the coming years, but also position it as a rising global power worthy of respect far into the future," Tellis opines.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is entering the final stages of selecting 126 new medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) at a cost of about 10 billion dollars.

This is the largest Indian fighter tender in years. Eight countries and six companies eagerly await the outcome of the selection process, which has garnered high-profile attention for its sheer size, its international political implications, and its impact on the viability of key aircraft manufacturers.

The winner will obtain a long and lucrative association with India, a rising power and secure a toehold into other parts of India's rapidly modernizing strategic industries.

Once selected, the aircraft will play an essential role in India's military modernization as the country transitions from a regional power to a global giant.

Tellis says that ever since the 1971 war against Pakistan, India's defense strategy has relied on maintaining superior airpower relative to both China and Pakistan.

And therefore, in the event of a regional conflict, Indian air power would serve as the country's critical war-fighting instrument of first resort.

He reveals that India's force levels have reached an all-time low of 29 squadrons due to delays in its defense procurement process as well as accidents and retirements of older fighter aircraft, and that the IAF is not expected to reach the currently authorized force levels of 39.5 squadrons before 2017.

He says in his article titled "Dogfight! India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision" that with India's neighbors aggressively modernizing their own air forces, India's need to expand its combat aircraft inventories becomes all the more urgent.

In choosing an aircraft, India must employ a speedy decision process that is focused on the right metrics, taking both technical and political considerations into account, Tellis says.

"The IAF has already evaluated the six MMRCA competitors against 660 technical benchmarks and has provided its recommendations to the Ministry of Defense. While the IAF has paid special attention to the fighters' sensors and avionics, weapons, aerodynamic effectiveness, and mission performance, India's civilian security managers are certain to emphasize technology transfer as well as costs when making their decision," he adds.

"In fact, the winning aircraft for the IAF ought to be chosen on the triangular criteria of technical merit, relative cost, and optimal fit within the IAF's evolving force architecture. Political considerations, however, will be key in the selection process," he states further.

"In choosing the winning platform, Indian policymakers will seek to: minimize the country's vulnerability to supply cutoff s in wartime, improve its larger military capacity through a substantial technology infusion, and forge new transformative geopolitical partnerships that promise to accelerate the growth of Indian power globally," Tellis says.

Given the technical and political considerations, New Delhi should conclude the MMRCA competition expeditiously, avoid splitting the purchase between competitors, and buy the "best" aircraft to help India to effectively prepare for possible conflict in Southern Asia, he adds.

Because of the dramatic transformations in combat aviation technology currently underway, the Indian Government should select the least expensive, mature, combat-proven fourth generation fighter for the IAF as a bridge toward procuring more advanced stealth aircraft in the future.

Under this criterion, the European aircraft are technically superb, but the U.S. entrants prove to be formidable "best buys" Tellis says.

From the summer of 2009 to the summer 2010, the IAF supervised flight trials of the American Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper, the French Dassault Aviation Rafale, the Russian RSK MiG's MiG-35, the European Eurofi ghter Consortium's Typhoon, and the Swedish Saab Gripen NG (Next Generation).

Besides the extensive demonstrations conducted in the home countries of these manufacturers, the IAF also directed grueling fl y-off s in three different Indian locations – Bangalore, Jaisalmer, and Leh-to test the comparative performance of the aircraft under conditions of extreme humidity, intense heat, and high field elevations, respectively.

These field trials constituted just the fourth of the eight stages called for by India's defense procurement procedures for major purchases.

Tellis says that the Indian Request for Proposals (RFP) requires that 60 percent of the aircraft's technology be transferred to India in four phases, with different percentages of technology transfer occurring in each phase.

This conveyance is intended to underwrite both the indigenous manufacture of the selected aircraft and its subsequent maintenance and support, with 50 percent of the foreign exchange component of the purchase costs being defrayed through direct off sets within the Indian aerospace sector.

Given the IAF's weakening force structure, it is a distinct possibility that the eventual Indian MMRCA buy will exceed the initial 126 aircraft.

"The fact that India's civilian security managers in the Ministry of Defense and, ultimately, its political leaders who man the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), will make the final decision about which aircraft will be procured, underscores one critical reality about the prospective MMRCA countdown.

Tellis says that his report on India's MMRCA competition has three broad objectives:

First, it elucidates the kind of combat aircraft that would be necessary for India, given the operational environment that the IAF is likely to confront. Political considerations are likely to influence which aircraft is eventually selected.

Second, it illuminates the difficult tradeoff s that India would be confronted with as it chooses among six excellent airplanes on the triangular criteria of technical merit, relative cost, and force structure integrity.

Third, it seeks to achieve the foregoing aims by advancing three specific injunctions that policymakers in New Delhi should take to heart as they make their fi nal decision: (1) conclude the MMRCA competition expeditiously; (2) do not split the MMRCA purchase; and, (3) buy the "best" aircraft for the mission.

Tellis concludes by saying that the MMRCA bid has been one of the hottest recent aviation procurements not just in India, but internationally, too.

Eight countries and six companies eagerly await the outcome of this contest.

"This has turned into such a sizzling affair not only because of the size of the contract. Indeed, there are bigger procurement battles raging internationally. Rather, this procurement bid has been incandescent because it involves geopolitics, the economic fortunes of major aerospace companies, complex transitions in combat aviation technology, and the evolving character of the IAF itself," he says.

__________________

Funny how come France is not showing half this desperation despite not having sold even 1 Rafale to any other country.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top