U.S. May Allow India to Join JSF Effort

[thecoolone]

Wrong fit in the cockpit
The best fighter jet in the world might not be what Canada needs.

Dateline: Monday, February 14, 2011

by John Corbett

You may have noticed recent headlines about the sole-sourced contract signed for Canada's 65 fifth generation stealth fighter jets — the F35 Lightning IIs, meant to replace our aging CF18 Hornets. In fact, the contract has received much more attention than, say, the actual merits of the F35 compared to other fighter jets.

Remember, the CF18s we now have were selected after a protracted national debate on what kind of plane we needed — a debate that has not occurred around the F35.


The F35 is a stealth jet, but the point of sovereignty patrolling is to let the other guy know you're there.

Too bad, because the F35 is a truly remarkable aircraft, by any stretch of the imagination, and can do things we couldn't even imagine when we bought our CF18s in 1986. Since the cancellation of its more costly big brother, the F22 Raptor, it is truly the best jet fighter in the world.

The question is, however, does Canada require the best jet fighter in the world, or one we can actually use?

The contract is not exactly a sole-sourced manoeuvre by the Conservative government to sidestep normal procurement channels. It was the Paul Martin government which initially involved Canada in the F35 program, then known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project.

We paid $100 million, along with most of our other NATO allies, to join the club of countries allowed to bid on development and manufacture of what was intended to be a state-of-the-art low-cost replacement for a whole host of other fighter jets being used by the various NATO allies.

This plan made eminent good sense then, and still does. It's far more efficient to have all the NATO air forces flying the same planes, from an operational and a maintenance perspective. It makes joint operations much easier. Economies of scale allow more aircraft to be built at a lower per-unit cost.

Still, we haven't signed a purchase order, neither have any of our NATO allies.

Among the planes the F35 was intended to replace in the US arsenal were:

the A10 Warthog, a low and slow ground attack aircraft armoured like a tank and bristling with machine guns;
the F18 Hornet (our current jet), a high-altitude, long-range interceptor and carrier aircraft;
the F16 Falcon, a small, fast and agile strike fighter and bomber suitable for penetrating enemy airspace;
the famed AV8 Harrier Jump Jet; and
the EA6B Prowler, an ancient electronics counter-measures aircraft.
These are all very different airplanes, all designed for very different missions. It may be impossible for one aircraft to not only replace them all, but to improve on them, which is the F35's mandate.

None of these is a stealth aircraft, which the F35 is, so it has that in its favour. It also has a bigger payload than any other modern fighter. It's faster and carries more than the A10, it' carries more than the F18 (but doesn't have the range), it's not as fast as the F16, but more expensive, bigger and carries more, it has far more range, speed and payload than the tiny Harrier, but it can't jump (yet) and it's faster but doesn't have the range of the EA6B.

In order to cope with all these demands, the F35 was designed to fit the missions most commonly being fought today by the US — low altitude, counter-insurgency missions in hot countries. As such, the F35 is, true to its name, a "strike fighter", optimized to carry a payload into a contested airspace and drop or shoot it at defended targets.

And it's a stealth jet. It's called a fifth generation fighter because it can do all this while appearing to be the size of a golf ball to a radar scope.

This is not what Canada's air resources are called on to do. We have an enormous — mostly Arctic — airspace to patrol, and a polar border with Russia. Our mission demands long-range, high-altitude interceptors that can chase intruding bombers from our shores and (regrettably) shoot down hijacked airliners. We are never likely to have a ground target to strike.

A US Navy study showed the F35 would be 30 percent to 40 percent more expensive to maintain than current jets. Technical problems with the US Marine Corps' short take off, vertical landing version have put the whole project behind schedule and over-budget, and this variant has been shelved.

The Danes, Dutch and Norwegians have either delayed or scaled back their planned purchases of the F35. A prominent US aerospace consultant has described the F35 program as "too big to fail"

Recently, it was disclosed that the F35 can't land on some of our short Arctic runways. This can be fixed with addition of a drag chute (at additional cost), but some pilots say drag chutes are dangerous in high Arctic winds.

In addition, the US Air Force variant of the F35, which Canada has ordered, uses a different mid-air refueling system than we do. This rules out long Arctic patrols and international missions. We can install the Navy refueling nozzle on our planes (which we use), of course, but at an additional cost.

What are the alternatives? It makes sense for Canada to buy US-built military hardware. They are our neighbours, our partners. The US does make other planes which might suit our needs.

While the small, light, relatively inexpensive F16 is being phased out of US service, many variants are still being built for export. Our current jet, the CF18 Hornet, has been updated and improved into a faster, larger, heavier version called the Super Hornet, which still costs less than the F35.

Looking abroad, the best option appears to be the Swedish JAS39 Gripen. During the Cold War, rather than become enmeshed in the superpower armaments market, Sweden built its own military industry to retain its independence. They have been producing state-of-the-art aircraft ever since, and the Saab Gripen is the latest.

Optimized for Arctic performance, as befits an Arctic nation, the Gripen is designed to land on back country roads and be serviced and fueled in ten minutes by five men and a truck. It can take off and land in 500 feet. Finally, it's not really foreign. Its avionics, weapons and engine, all the important bits, are all US- made.

Here's a quick comparison of the F35 with the Gripen:

While it is faster and has more range than the F35, the Gripen is not a stealth aircraft — it is not fifth generation. It does not carry the huge load of armaments the F35 does. However, it is a good, fast, long-range northern interceptor, optimized to land in out-of-the-way places, and it may be just what Canada needs.

So, do we need the best jet fighter in the world? For that's what the F35 is trying to be, if it can ever get out of the development stage. Or are we better off saving money by buying an updated version of a proven aircraft, perhaps the one we already own and fly? Or should we look abroad, to a country similar to ours, the same scale, and with many of the same global aspirations and responsibilities? Perhaps they know something about aircraft we don't.

After all, in what deserts will Canada be fighting its wars? What ground targets are we ever going to find ourselves striking? And why do we want a stealthy aircraft, when the point of sovereignty patrolling is to let the other guy know you're there?

Costs for 65 F35s, including pilot training and 20 years of maintenance and spare parts, are estimated at $16 billion total. Sweden has offered the same number of Gripens for $12 billion total. The $4 billion we could save by buying a jet fighter uniquely suited to Canada's needs could pay for — well, take your pick:

a national day care program;
a national home care training program;
a down payment on a national pharmacare program;
an increase in the GIS/OAS; or...
... well, $4 billion is a lot of money wherever we spend it.

No, Canada probably doesn't need the best fighter jet in the world.

Source: http://www.straightgoods.ca/2011/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=134&Cookies=yes

 

[Parthy]

JSF Likely Far More Expensive Than Aircraft They're Replacing


This morning, veteran defense aerospace reporter Bill Sweetman took a look at the different unit costs of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) variants in the new fiscal year 2012 budget request.

His findings suggest that the JSF fighters will be far more expensive—even more than previously believed—than the aircraft they are set to replace, which include the F/A-18, F-15, F-16, A-10, AV-8B and other planes. The budget request, unveiled yesterday, is "the first to fully reflect the major changes in the F-35 program that started early last year," Sweetman wrote.

Sweetman found the following average per-unit costs, or APUCs:

* F-35A: $110 million ($7.7 billion for 70 aircraft)
* F-35B: $150 million ($2.71 billion, for 18 aircraft)
* F-35C: $139.5 million ($2.79 billion for 20 aircraft)

In contrast, the U.S. is buying 28 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for an APUC of $86 million—around 60% of the APUC of the F-35C. The F-35C is the JSF variant that is supposed to replace the Navy Super Hornet. Super Hornets are being purchased now because the JSF program is behind schedule and the Navy is hedging its bets because there could still be more delays.

There are, as always, caveats to these figures. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-35, may (and probably will) argue that these costs could come down over time because of the "learning curve." Lockheed will also likely argue that the per-unit price will come down as the U.S. and other customers buy larger amounts of aircraft in the future, creating economies of scale. However, it remains to be seen how much more the F-35 will benefit from economies of scale. As Sweetman noted, the F-35A alone will be rolling off the line in higher quantities than the Super Hornet.

There is also reason to doubt the learning curve argument, argues Winslow Wheeler, a defense expert at the Center for Defense Information. Last year, Wheeler wrote that projections that the learning curve will bring per-unit F-35 costs down should be viewed with suspicion:

"The last 50 years of actual DOD aircraft cost history, especially of "stealth" aircraft, do not treat the Carter-Fox estimates, and the prevailing conventional wisdom, very politely, however. The absence of any such progressive "learning curve" in unit cost has been thoroughly demonstrated by the analysis of Chuck Spinney, using actual procurement data.

These APUCs also do not reflect development costs—and the U.S. is spending more to develop the F-35 than was originally estimated. APUCs also do not reflect the life cycle costs, on a per-unit basis, of the aircraft. This is no small matter and has grave implications for the fiscal sustainability of American tactical aviation.

Keep in mind that the development and production phases of the F-35 program could cost a total of $382 billion, according to one Pentagon estimate. But compare that with life cycle costs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in 2008 that, including life cycle costs, the F-35 program will cost more than $950 billion. The lion's share of life cycle costs is the cost of both operating and maintaining the aircraft. If the operations and maintenance costs are substantially higher than the GAO estimated, the program easily may have moved well beyond the $1 trillion mark.

It looks like that may be the case. Recently the Air Force indicated that it agrees with the Navy's assessment that F-35 aircraft could cost 30 to 40 percent more to maintain and operate over the course of the program's lifespan than the aircraft it is replacing. This is a big problem because the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper to operate and maintain than the legacy aircraft it is supposed to replace. According to DoD Buzz:

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.



Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/jsf-like...ircraft-theyre-replacing-32105/#ixzz1EE5cunnB

 

[Tshering22]

and the U.S. is spending more to develop the F-35 than was originally estimated.

This is because it won't anyone else spend in billions since anyone single-handedly willing to put $10-15 billion in it will ask for significant development work like say, BAE of UK. This means LM has to share some 'secrets'. But if they keep limiting their allies in the program just for the fear of keeping core technology to themselves, then the cost will really go up big time.

Wrong fit in the cockpit
The best fighter jet in the world might not be what Canada needs.

The other day I was talking to a Canadian former colleague of mine and he seemed to be mentioning the same thing. Canada's best option is Gripen (NG) since Sweden is a country of similar terrain and weather characteristics and Gripens are built to handle Arctic weathers easily compared to other aircraft that require modifications with additional overall costs.

 

[ace009]

I can easily see how Canada does NOT need the F-35. But I am wondering if India needs the Gripen for cross Himalayan sorties against the PLAAF.

 

[Crusader53]

JSF Likely Far More Expensive Than Aircraft They're Replacing


This morning, veteran defense aerospace reporter Bill Sweetman took a look at the different unit costs of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) variants in the new fiscal year 2012 budget request.

His findings suggest that the JSF fighters will be far more expensive—even more than previously believed—than the aircraft they are set to replace, which include the F/A-18, F-15, F-16, A-10, AV-8B and other planes. The budget request, unveiled yesterday, is "the first to fully reflect the major changes in the F-35 program that started early last year," Sweetman wrote.

Sweetman found the following average per-unit costs, or APUCs:

* F-35A: $110 million ($7.7 billion for 70 aircraft)
* F-35B: $150 million ($2.71 billion, for 18 aircraft)
* F-35C: $139.5 million ($2.79 billion for 20 aircraft)

In contrast, the U.S. is buying 28 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for an APUC of $86 million—around 60% of the APUC of the F-35C. The F-35C is the JSF variant that is supposed to replace the Navy Super Hornet. Super Hornets are being purchased now because the JSF program is behind schedule and the Navy is hedging its bets because there could still be more delays.

There are, as always, caveats to these figures. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-35, may (and probably will) argue that these costs could come down over time because of the "learning curve." Lockheed will also likely argue that the per-unit price will come down as the U.S. and other customers buy larger amounts of aircraft in the future, creating economies of scale. However, it remains to be seen how much more the F-35 will benefit from economies of scale. As Sweetman noted, the F-35A alone will be rolling off the line in higher quantities than the Super Hornet.

There is also reason to doubt the learning curve argument, argues Winslow Wheeler, a defense expert at the Center for Defense Information. Last year, Wheeler wrote that projections that the learning curve will bring per-unit F-35 costs down should be viewed with suspicion:

"The last 50 years of actual DOD aircraft cost history, especially of "stealth" aircraft, do not treat the Carter-Fox estimates, and the prevailing conventional wisdom, very politely, however. The absence of any such progressive "learning curve" in unit cost has been thoroughly demonstrated by the analysis of Chuck Spinney, using actual procurement data.

These APUCs also do not reflect development costs—and the U.S. is spending more to develop the F-35 than was originally estimated. APUCs also do not reflect the life cycle costs, on a per-unit basis, of the aircraft. This is no small matter and has grave implications for the fiscal sustainability of American tactical aviation.

Keep in mind that the development and production phases of the F-35 program could cost a total of $382 billion, according to one Pentagon estimate. But compare that with life cycle costs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in 2008 that, including life cycle costs, the F-35 program will cost more than $950 billion. The lion's share of life cycle costs is the cost of both operating and maintaining the aircraft. If the operations and maintenance costs are substantially higher than the GAO estimated, the program easily may have moved well beyond the $1 trillion mark.

It looks like that may be the case. Recently the Air Force indicated that it agrees with the Navy's assessment that F-35 aircraft could cost 30 to 40 percent more to maintain and operate over the course of the program's lifespan than the aircraft it is replacing. This is a big problem because the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper to operate and maintain than the legacy aircraft it is supposed to replace. According to DoD Buzz:

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.



Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/jsf-like...ircraft-theyre-replacing-32105/#ixzz1EE5cunnB

You may as well qoute Dr. Kopp........

 

[civfanatic]

I can easily see how Canada does NOT need the F-35. But I am wondering if India needs the Gripen for cross Himalayan sorties against the PLAAF.

That sort of mission (which is extremely unlikely in the first place) would most likely be carried out by heavy fighters like the Su-30 and future FGFA.

Light aircraft like the Gripen and LCA will be used for CAP and CAS, essentially replacing the MiG-21s and MiG-27s in their roles.

 

[ace009]

And not in point defense or as interceptors?

 

[wild goose]

U.S. House Votes to Kill F-35 Second From GE and Rolls


The U.S. House of Representatives today voted to kill funding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter backup engine made by General Electric Co. and Rolls Royce Group Plc.

By a vote of 233-198, the House voted to cut $450 million for the engine from legislation funding the Pentagon for the remainder of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

It is the first time in more than four years of votes that the House has come out against the GE-Rolls Royce engine for the F-35, the stealth fighter made by Lockheed Martin Corp. In May, 2010, the House voted 231-193 to continue the program.

President Barack Obama has singled out the engine as wasteful spending. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today the alternate engine "would be a waste of nearly $3 billion."

Republicans won control of the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate in November with candidates who promised to cut spending and reduce the federal deficit.

Backers of the amendment defied House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, who supports the alternate engine. GE has about 1,000 employees working on the engine in a facility near Cincinnati.

The primary engine for the F-35 is built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

GE fell 2 cents to $21.44 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, while Hartford, Connecticut-based United Technologies rose 56 cents to $85.06.

'Always Another Day'

Representative Tom Rooney, Republican of Florida, offered the amendment to eliminate funding. It was co-sponsored by Representatives Lynn Westmoreland, Republican of Georgia, John Larson, Democrat of Connecticut, and Chellie Pingree, Democrat of Maine. Both Democrats have constituents working for United Technologies on the primary engine.

Among those who voted to eliminate funding for the GE-Rolls Royce engine were 123 Democrats and 110 Republicans. In favor of keeping the $450 million in the Pentagon bill were 130 Republicans and 68 Democrats.

"Today's vote sends a message to the American people that Congress heard their call to eliminate wasteful spending and put an end to business as usual," Rooney said in a statement.

The amendment is part of a spending bill that will go next to the Senate if the House approves it.

Today's House vote "would make it harder for the Senate" to support the engine, Pingree said in a telephone interview. "There is always another day and another fight around the corner. This was an important victory today and it makes it much harder for the other side to bring it up."

Senate Next

Two House Republican freshmen, Tim Griffin of Arkansas and Robert Dold of Illinois, this week also pressed their colleagues to support the elimination of the GE engine.

"I am sure that we will now join the House to end this wasteful, unnecessary program once and for all," said Senator Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, where Pratt & Whitney builds the primary F-35 engine.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has insisted repeatedly that the Pentagon is comfortable with one supplier of engines for the F-35 fleet.

"We are pleased the House of Representatives voted to eliminate funding for the extra engine," Stephanie Duvall, a spokeswoman for Pratt & Whitney, said in a statement. "Their courageous vote confirms the president's and Secretary Gates's unwavering trust and confidence in the proven performance" in Pratt's engine.

GE's Fighter Future

"We will continue to press the case for competition," said Rick Kennedy, a spokesman for GE Aviation. GE will focus on the Senate after the House approves legislation to fund the government for the remainder of the current fiscal year and the fiscal 2012 year which starts Oct. 1, according to Kennedy.

The defeat, if sustained, may mean GE's eventual exit from the fighter engine business because the F-35 is designed to replace all manned U.S. fighter aircraft. The market has been estimated as high as $100 billion over the life of the F-35, including parts and service.

GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, in October reported spending $8.2 million starting in mid-2009 to urge Congress to fund the alternate engine.

About 2,500 jobs, including in Ohio, Massachusetts and South Carolina, are tied to the development of the engine with employment forecast to swell to as much as 4,000 if GE and Rolls-Royce had reached their projected peak production, according to Kennedy.

Gates 'Gratified'

Gates was "gratified" by the House vote, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "He understands this afternoon's vote is but one step although a very important one, on the path to ensuring that we stop spending limited dollars on unwanted and unneeded defense programs."

The $382 billion F-35 program is the most expensive in U.S. history.

For two years in a row, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee didn't include money for the additional engine in the Pentagon spending and policy bills. The chairmen of those two panels, Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, and Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, both back the second engine. They decided against including funding because the Senate has enough votes to strip funding from the defense bills.

"It is doubtful that the alternate engine would have a better fate" in the Senate, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan group in Washington. "The House has really carried the water on the alternate engine. It is really hard to see the Senate ginning up the support to fight both the House and the administration over the alternate engine in this budget environment

http://dailyairforce.com/591/US-House-Votes-to-Kill-F35-Second-From-GE-and-Rolls.html

 

[Crusader53]

The F136 deal is far from over..........Though, it odds aren't good considering something has to be cut. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if General Electric pulls out further funding.

 

[Crusader53]

That money can be better utilized on our FGFA and AMCA projects.

Hardly! The FGFA will never be produced in vast numbers and the AMCA is decades off! So, what is India to do???

 

[Crusader53]

If F35 cuts half of its price, then you are right.
Maybe J20 will be cheaper than F35, Lockheed Martin has a serious problem than they can't work without burning money.

Hardly the case at all...............Would you care to provide a source to support your claim????

 

[Crusader53]

Well, other than those ancient Migs (21, 23, 27), no Russian weaponry has had serious under performance issues ever. Look at the T-72, T-90, Smerch MLRS, the Kilo subs, the IGLA (SA-18) SAM, the Su-30 MKI, Mi-25 and Mi-35 gunships, the Brahmos missile, AK-630 CIWS, the Talwar class stealth frigates, Ka-28 and Ka-31 choppers etc. They are many more such examples, they perform with very high standards and have a price tag we can afford.

LOL..........please. I think you need to cut back on the coolaid.

 

[p2prada]

Hardly! The FGFA will never be produced in vast numbers and the AMCA is decades off! So, what is India to do???

1000 FGFA is a vast number. 187 Raptors isn't.

F-35 has officially been rebuffed within a week of thread starter's announcement. So, there is nothing left to discuss here.

 

[ace009]

JSF Likely Far More Expensive Than Aircraft They're Replacing


This morning, veteran defense aerospace reporter Bill Sweetman took a look at the different unit costs of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) variants in the new fiscal year 2012 budget request.

These numbers look like too inflated - especially due to perceived small production run numbers. According to different sources, the total production run of the JSF would be 3000 units! If that is true, then the per unit cost should be well below $80 million mark.

 

[ace009]

Well, other than those ancient Migs (21, 23, 27), no Russian weaponry has had serious under performance issues ever. Look at the T-72, T-90, Smerch MLRS, the Kilo subs, the IGLA (SA-18) SAM, the Su-30 MKI, Mi-25 and Mi-35 gunships, the Brahmos missile, AK-630 CIWS, the Talwar class stealth frigates, Ka-28 and Ka-31 choppers etc. They are many more such examples, they perform with very high standards and have a price tag we can afford.

Actually, as I have posted in other places, the Mig-29s were an unmitigated disaster for India (CAG reports from 1993 and 1999). Even the MKI would have been a disaster if the IAF and HAL had not "Indianized" the Su-30 on offer. The life time maintenance costs for Russian made products are actually higher (again CAG reports) than their western counterparts. It is only because Indian Netas and Babus are interested in short term money savings that we keep on buying Russian stuff (that, and the fact that there is established "good channel" for bribes between Russian exporters and Indian Babus/ Netas).

 

[Tshering22]

1000 FGFA is a vast number. 187 Raptors isn't.

F-35 has officially been rebuffed within a week of thread starter's announcement. So, there is nothing left to discuss here.

Who told you 1000 FGFAs? The total committed number is somewhere around 550 or something combined India and Russia. And most likely that they won't be selling something so spanking new into the open market. Maybe an F-15 type Silent Flanker modification for the Su-35 BM but not FGFA before IAF and VVS fill up their inventory.

 

[ace009]

Who told you 1000 FGFAs? The total committed number is somewhere around 550 or something combined India and Russia. And most likely that they won't be selling something so spanking new into the open market. Maybe an F-15 type Silent Flanker modification for the Su-35 BM but not FGFA before IAF and VVS fill up their inventory.

Actually Russia is already looking to sell the PAK-FA T50 to China (rejected by Chinese), Brazil, Greece and Israel! The Russian aerospace industry is in dire need of funds and they are looking for more and more customers.

 

[Crusader53]

Actually Russia is already looking to sell the PAK-FA T50 to China (rejected by Chinese), Brazil, Greece and Israel! The Russian aerospace industry is in dire need of funds and they are looking for more and more customers.

Russia can look all it wants. Yet, that hardly makes a sale! Of your list forget about Greece and Israel as they're firmly in the Western Camp. Then consider Brazil has rejected Russia Equipment recently and has deals with France and wants to improve ties with the US. So, that leaves China that you claim has already refused the PAK-FA.


Really, my bet is Russia will sell a handful to such countries as Syria, Venezuela, or possibly Iran. (to name a few)

 

[Crusader53]

1000 FGFA is a vast number. 187 Raptors isn't.

F-35 has officially been rebuffed within a week of thread starter's announcement. So, there is nothing left to discuss here.

I doubt you will see more that 600 PAK-FA's and that would be over the life of the program. The F-35 on the otherhand will be constructed in the thousands!

 

[p2prada]

Who told you 1000 FGFAs? The total committed number is somewhere around 550 or something combined India and Russia. And most likely that they won't be selling something so spanking new into the open market. Maybe an F-15 type Silent Flanker modification for the Su-35 BM but not FGFA before IAF and VVS fill up their inventory.

Both India and Russia have a requirement for a possible 600 FGFAs. Then we have Algeria, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Uganda, Indonesia which already operate Su-30s and are possible customers for FGFA. Then we have Angola, Belarus, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Khazaksthan, Uzbeikistan and possibly Ukraine which operate Su-27 and are possible buyers of FGFA. These countries already operate around 250-300 Flankers between them.

Future potential customers could include Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. Israel is another big potential customer.

Let's not discount current Eagle operators who would go for a true fifth gen aircraft like FGFA over the Silent Eagle or the F-35 which is not capable of air superiority missions.

FGFA will obviously be offered up front to anybody willing to buy as soon as Indian and Russian orders are dealt with first.