India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 12:31
by jessmo111
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 26657.html


India is keen to consider Boeing's offer to supply F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets to the Indian Air Force (IAF).

Sources said that New Delhi will take a hard look at the proposal in April when a high-level delegation will engage the Indian officials on the construct of the offer. US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter will be in India on April 10 in a visit that is expected to take lift cooperation to a new level.

Boeing has offered F/A-18 Super Hornets under the "Make in India" framework of the Indian government. Sources said the proposal is worth considering as IAF is facing acute shortage of fighter jets. The IAF has already made it clear that the 36 Rafale fighter jets that are being negotiated with France are inadequate to meet its operational requirement

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 13:47
by KamenRiderBlade
I really wish Boeing and other companies would just say, "Buy in my country", no make in yours.

You want Super Hornet, ok! but made in USA or no dice.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 15:09
by mixelflick
Talk about a mixed fleet!

SU-30MKI
Rafael
Super Hornet
Mig 29's too?

Sounds like a logistics nightmare...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 15:42
by bigjku
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I really wish Boeing and other companies would just say, "Buy in my country", no make in yours.

You want Super Hornet, ok! but made in USA or no dice.


There is no production future in the US for the Hornet. Boeing would be selling them an asset that has no practical value to them any longer. Indias interest is tied to being able to build in India. Boeing can't keep the US line going much longer. That is the reality of things.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 19:19
by KamenRiderBlade
If India was going to buy Hornets anyway, than it should be made in the USA, no production line move to India.

The US government can mandate that.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2016, 19:26
by bigjku
KamenRiderBlade wrote:If India was going to buy Hornets anyway, than it should be made in the USA, no production line move to India.

The US government can mandate that.


There are two outcomes.

India doesn't buy Hornets at all

India buys them but builds them in India.

That would be the only reason they are looking at doing this. You can mandate till the cows come home. The result will either be that Boeing gets some money or none. The government could mandate that Boeing can't sell them the design and help them setup the line, but that just means Boeing gets nothing.

You clearly don't understand the decisions in place here.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 03:00
by madrat
Only one outcome possible:

India doesn't buy Hornets at all

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 03:59
by XanderCrews
Moving American jobs to India?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 04:22
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 05:18
by jessmo111
What about a compromise?
What about a FACO plant in India, or 1/2 the order in the states and 1/2 in India?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 12:28
by bigjku
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.


There will be no jobs building the hornet in the us period in 5 years or so. That is what you don't seem to get.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 18:08
by KamenRiderBlade
bigjku wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.


There will be no jobs building the hornet in the us period in 5 years or so. That is what you don't seem to get.

A big buy from India would extend the life of the factory for just a little bit longer.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 20:06
by bigjku
India doesn't want the aircraft. They already picked the French. What they want is tech transfer and domestic production. They have zero desire for foreign assembled 4th generation aircraft at this point. If they did they would just buy more Rafale.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2016, 20:46
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Moving American jobs to India?

I don't want that to happen.

If foreign countries want to buy the F-15 / F-16 / F-18 and they are on our approved list of countries. They should be able to buy those airplanes, but it has to be built in the USA.

Simple as that. Keep the friggin jobs in the USA.


There will be no jobs building the hornet in the us period in 5 years or so. That is what you don't seem to get.


I'm pointing out that Boeing "winning" an Indian contract where the aircraft must be built in India, will be perceived as moving jobs overseas. Is that really the case? No. But will it be taken that way? Hell yes. You don't get that the St Louis job holders aren't going to take this good naturedly. Good news! Building more hornets! Bad news, they are built in India now. Here is your pink slip, unemployment office is that way.

"We'll shucks guys we had a good run, fair play india, fair play" lol come on. They are going to take it out on those elected officials boeing owns, they will wonder why any order anywhere wasn't coming to their factory and blame the people that failed to bring the orders to STL failed period

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2016, 00:05
by arian
XanderCrews wrote:I'm pointing out that Boeing "winning" an Indian contract where the aircraft must be built in India, will be perceived as moving jobs overseas. Is that really the case? No. But will it be taken that way? Hell yes. You don't get that the St Louis job holders aren't going to take this good naturedly. Good news! Building more hornets! Bad news, they are built in India now. Here is your pink slip, unemployment office is that way.

"We'll shucks guys we had a good run, fair play india, fair play" lol come on. They are going to take it out on those elected officials boeing owns, they will wonder why any order anywhere wasn't coming to their factory and blame the people that failed to bring the orders to STL failed period


American planes are and have been "build" in other countries for decades. Lots of locally "build" F-16s and F-104s and F-35s even. Build in parentheses because they're not mostly build there, but assembled there.

This is nothing new, nor does it mean moving jobs anywhere. Without the local assembly contract, there'd be no orders in the first place. Second, these are assembly plants. It doesn't mean everything is build in Italy or Japan or Turkey or India. Parts come from all over the world, most of them from the US, and are assembled locally. Production of an aircraft is not an activity that takes place all in one place.

So even with this potential (hypothetical) Indian assembled F/A-18, most of the parts, if not all, will be build by Boeing anyway or dozens of their contractors, and just shipped to India for assembly. The same thing happens with China: most of the components are build all over the world, and just final assembly takes place in China. Ie, the lowest value-added activities.

Loss (not really) of some assembly jobs means gain (or continuation) of many parts manufacturing jobs for both Boeing and its contractors. How does one make that trade-off? Companies make that trade-off every day. Either way, this isn't likely to go through since India is only interested in technology transfer, which will likely not be allowed by the US Congress anyway.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2016, 15:29
by dirtcatcher
Ever since HAL got their hands on an F414 for Tejas, it is not surprisine that they'd be looking closer at the SH after all of the reliability woes they've had with both indigenous and Russian engines.

As has already been mentioned, it seems more likely than not that the technology transfer/partnership would be of greater importance to India than the Super Hornets themselves.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2016, 17:50
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I'm pointing out that Boeing "winning" an Indian contract where the aircraft must be built in India, will be perceived as moving jobs overseas. Is that really the case? No. But will it be taken that way? Hell yes. You don't get that the St Louis job holders aren't going to take this good naturedly. Good news! Building more hornets! Bad news, they are built in India now. Here is your pink slip, unemployment office is that way.

"We'll shucks guys we had a good run, fair play india, fair play" lol come on. They are going to take it out on those elected officials boeing owns, they will wonder why any order anywhere wasn't coming to their factory and blame the people that failed to bring the orders to STL failed period


American planes are and have been "build" in other countries for decades. Lots of locally "build" F-16s and F-104s and F-35s even. Build in parentheses because they're not mostly build there, but assembled there.

This is nothing new, nor does it mean moving jobs anywhere. Without the local assembly contract, there'd be no orders in the first place. Second, these are assembly plants. It doesn't mean everything is build in Italy or Japan or Turkey or India. Parts come from all over the world, most of them from the US, and are assembled locally. Production of an aircraft is not an activity that takes place all in one place.

So even with this potential (hypothetical) Indian assembled F/A-18, most of the parts, if not all, will be build by Boeing anyway or dozens of their contractors, and just shipped to India for assembly. The same thing happens with China: most of the components are build all over the world, and just final assembly takes place in China. Ie, the lowest value-added activities.

Loss (not really) of some assembly jobs means gain (or continuation) of many parts manufacturing jobs for both Boeing and its contractors. How does one make that trade-off? Companies make that trade-off every day. Either way, this isn't likely to go through since India is only interested in technology transfer, which will likely not be allowed by the US Congress anyway.



Logically that could have been done with Rafale right? And india wouldn't have it

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2016, 03:45
by arian
XanderCrews wrote:Logically that could have been done with Rafale right? And india wouldn't have it


Rafales will also be partially "build" in India, along with other offsets in other areas offered to India. In the end, they got what they wanted from Dassault which was R&D. But they need more than 36 planes as they have over 500 obsolete aircraft in need of replacement.

Dassault could never support the production of the number of planes India would need, even if they build assembly lines in India, they couldn't build enough parts for them fast enough. Boeing builds as many F/A-18s in 1 years as Dassault can build Rafales in 5 years.

Where else would India be able to get 200+ planes in short order? The only other option is Sukhoi, and they've already gotten everything they could out of them, and the result seems less then spectacular, especially for multi-role or air-ground purposes. The only other manufacturers would be the Eurofighter consortium or Boeing.

But Boeing is still likely to manufacture 80% of the parts that go into it, and all the pricey parts too.

PS: One has to be amazed at how bad India's aerospace industry is, despite decades of technology transfer and licence productions of all sorts of planes, they have yet to develop a decent product of their own. Quite amazing.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2016, 12:34
by JetTest
Without question, the single most important factor in this competition is "make in India", not assemble, not build, but make, as in manufacture, and as much of the complete weapon system as possible, not just airframe or engine, not necessarily the absolute best performer, if there really is a definitive technical winner. They are looking at it from that perspective.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2016, 14:03
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Logically that could have been done with Rafale right? And india wouldn't have it


Rafales will also be partially "build" in India, along with other offsets in other areas offered to India. In the end, they got what they wanted from Dassault which was R&D.


There must have been something lost in translation between India and France

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2016, 20:38
by icemaverick
As it stands now, India plans to buy 36 Rafales in "flyaway condition" i.e. manufactured in and imported from France. When they did do the MMRCA competition, they originally wanted to purchase 126 jets with a lot of the work being done in India but those negotiations broke down. Even this off the shelf deal hasn't been finalized yet.

If India indeed is looking into the Super Hornet, this might mean the negotiations with a assault/France aren't going so well. If -and it's a big if- Boeing could land the India deal and Canada, that could leave their production line open for a few more years. Kuwait is also looking into the Super Hornet.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2016, 22:44
by popcorn
Don't forget SAAB and the EF Typhoon Consortium are also in play offering ToT and production partnership deals. The IAF Chief recently flew in a Gripen to check it out. LM seems out of consideration though.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2016, 23:14
by neurotech
JetTest wrote:Without question, the single most important factor in this competition is "make in India", not assemble, not build, but make, as in manufacture, and as much of the complete weapon system as possible, not just airframe or engine, not necessarily the absolute best performer, if there really is a definitive technical winner. They are looking at it from that perspective.

India already has access and partial ToT for the F414 engines, used in both the later HAL Teja and the (Advanced) Super Hornet. Some of the avionics would be too sensitive for ToT, such as the AESA radar and EW/ELINT systems. The basic airframe is somewhat typical of a 4++ gen fighter. A slicked-off "airshow" SuperBug has a surprisingly low RCS, compared to other 4th gen fighters.

One reason why India might want the SuperBug is that there is some chatter about the Growler lite version, with SEAD/SAM suppression as a capability. I don't think the Rafale or Typhoon will have proper SEAD capability anytime soon.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 02:14
by JetTest
Yes, Super Hornets are but one of several that they are looking at closely.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 03:55
by jessmo111
arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Logically that could have been done with Rafale right? And india wouldn't have it


Rafales will also be partially "build" in India, along with other offsets in other areas offered to India. In the end, they got what they wanted from Dassault which was R&D. But they need more than 36 planes as they have over 500 obsolete aircraft in need of replacement.

Dassault could never support the production of the number of planes India would need, even if they build assembly lines in India, they couldn't build enough parts for them fast enough. Boeing builds as many F/A-18s in 1 years as Dassault can build Rafales in 5 years.

Where else would India be able to get 200+ planes in short order? The only other option is Sukhoi, and they've already gotten everything they could out of them, and the result seems less then spectacular, especially for multi-role or air-ground purposes. The only other manufacturers would be the Eurofighter consortium or Boeing.

But Boeing is still likely to manufacture 80% of the parts that go into it, and all the pricey parts too.

PS: One has to be amazed at how bad India's aerospace industry is, despite decades of technology transfer and licence productions of all sorts of planes, they have yet to develop a decent product of their own. Quite amazing.



Omg the only logical choice that fits, technology, can be manufactured in emass, and can fulfill, nearly every role is the F-35. This isn't rocket science.India, wake up.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 04:30
by bigjku
The us isn't selling India the F-35.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 04:37
by weasel1962
More like India can't afford the F-35 and the full cost rafale, nor imho the SH. The most logical option is the Indonesia F-16 route where 36 from the boneyard can be inducted in 2 years max for under $1.5b. There aren't any SH in the boneyard but there are f-16s or older f-18s (as the USMC is also doing).

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 04:38
by jessmo111
It will be a shame if they dont.
A 200 plane order would push the price below 80 million.
India, should be leery of leaking F-35 tech to Russia.
It will end up in Chinese hands.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 07:47
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:More like India can't afford the F-35 and the full cost rafale, nor imho the SH. The most logical option is the Indonesia F-16 route where 36 from the boneyard can be inducted in 2 years max for under $1.5b. There aren't any SH in the boneyard but there are f-16s or older f-18s (as the USMC is also doing).


The Super Hornet is a very good option for India and available at a very reasonable price. Honestly, if India was smart they would cancel the Rafale Deal and instead order 36 Super Hornets directly from the St Louis Production Line. Which, would be followed by another 100 + to be manufactured in India.

Also, to sweeten the deal Boeing could offer the Advance Super Hornet and/or Growler as a option!

Lastly, India needs help in co-developing the AMCA. So, why not enlist Boeing as the perfect partner???

Such a deal would be in the interest of both the US and India. In short a WIN-WIN......


5588-10241_zpsbfbe3eb3.jpg

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 12:06
by jessmo111
But, didn't we discover that the F-35 was cheaper?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 12:30
by botsing
bigjku wrote:The us isn't selling India the F-35.

^ this jessmo111

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 13:40
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:The Super Hornet is a very good option for India and available at a very reasonable price. Honestly, if India was smart they would cancel the Rafale Deal and instead order 36 Super Hornets directly from the St Louis Production Line. Which, would be followed by another 100 + to be manufactured in India.

Also, to sweeten the deal Boeing could offer the Advance Super Hornet and/or Growler as a option!

Lastly, India needs help in co-developing the AMCA. So, why not enlist Boeing as the perfect partner???

Such a deal would be in the interest of both the US and India. In short a WIN-WIN......


The Super Hornet is only used by the USN & Australia (12 units). That puts India squarely in US control over technology i.e. sanction power. Despite all the promises about full ToT, I can't see the USN ever consenting to full ToT to a foreign nation over an aircraft that they will still be using 30 years from now.

The F-16 on the other hand, is used by a whole gamut of nations other than the US, including many users like Singapore whose local industry has the ability to keep the aircraft flying and due to the widespread use can probably source for parts easily. The aircraft can use AAM munitions like the Israeli Derby & Python which is already in Indian service, hence less US control. The Israelis may even have better EW fitted to their F-16s and that could be an option for the IAF. Even the latest F-16 variants probably share more commonality with older variants compared to the Hornet/Super Hornet.

The F-16 will probably fly for another 30 years in USAF service but with a signficant difference. The USAF will not only have the F-35 but already have F-35s as well as upgraded F-15Es. So ToT of F-16 tech is less sensitive to USAF than Hornet tech is to USN whose only replacement is the F-35C (and that is moving at a snail's pace).

The F-16 is the most logical choice for the IAF. However, logic is never a consideration when Pakistan is a factor. Doesn't matter when the neighbors happen to use the F-16 in small numbers, non-AESA, old block, non-latest AAM etc or that the F-16 is most cost-effective option.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2016, 15:45
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:More like India can't afford the F-35 and the full cost rafale, nor imho the SH. The most logical option is the Indonesia F-16 route where 36 from the boneyard can be inducted in 2 years max for under $1.5b. There aren't any SH in the boneyard but there are f-16s or older f-18s (as the USMC is also doing).


The Super Hornet is a very good option for India and available at a very reasonable price. Honestly, if India was smart they would cancel the Rafale Deal and instead order 36 Super Hornets directly from the St Louis Production Line. Which, would be followed by another 100 + to be manufactured in India.

Also, to sweeten the deal Boeing could offer the Advance Super Hornet and/or Growler as a option!

Lastly, India needs help in co-developing the AMCA. So, why not enlist Boeing as the perfect partner???

Such a deal would be in the interest of both the US and India. In short a WIN-WIN......


5588-10241_zpsbfbe3eb3.jpg



IIRC the advanced super hornet was first offered to india under the "international roadmap" moniker. India was why they invented it, then they changed the name hoping for bites. It's billions to develop the ASH and even boeing has water down their plans for it.

It's india. They seem completely illogical MMRCA is/was a total dumpster fire. Still buying a handfull of Rafales anyway? Why? Their military must be frustrated to no end. Logistical nightmares everywhere too

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 00:42
by popcorn
It remains to be seen if India will be given access to key tech transfers. Recall that South Korea could not pry AESA, IRST, RFJamming and Electro Optical Targeting Pod tech for KF-X.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 01:25
by arian
icemaverick wrote:As it stands now, India plans to buy 36 Rafales in "flyaway condition" i.e. manufactured in and imported from France.


I read it was with a 50% offset, of which some 20% were parts "manufactured" in India, and the rest R&D.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83221878/

Refusing to give details, the French Embassy source said, "Thirty percent offsets will be embarked for future military aviation research and development (R&D) programs and the remaining 20 percent will be with Indian [defense] industries making components for Rafale."



JetTest wrote:Without question, the single most important factor in this competition is "make in India", not assemble, not build, but make, as in manufacture, and as much of the complete weapon system as possible, not just airframe or engine, not necessarily the absolute best performer, if there really is a definitive technical winner. They are looking at it from that perspective.


The "made in India" is just a slogan to get politicians to buy in. It does not mean made in India. It doesn't even mean assembled in India. Boeing's original offer to India which also said "made in India" did not mention anything about assembly in India. It talked about partnerships and JVs with Indian companies. The assembled/manufactured in India talk is recent from 2016, but the slogan of made in India is the same.

Either way, there's no way the SH can be entirely made in India. Major components, and all the pricey ones, will still be made in the US. And final assembly may well be done by Boeing itself in its Boeing India subsidiary. Nothing new here since this is how F-16s have been build all over the world before as well. But even at their best, European made F-16s had only 50% of their parts made in Europe (only Turkey has reached a higher component, and this only recently)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 01:32
by sferrin
arian wrote:But even at their best, European made F-16s had only 50% of their parts made in Europe (only Turkey has reached a higher component, and this only recently)


IIRC Japanese F-15s had quite a bit of made-in-Japan content, including portions of the engine.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 02:04
by arian
sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:But even at their best, European made F-16s had only 50% of their parts made in Europe (only Turkey has reached a higher component, and this only recently)


IIRC Japanese F-15s had quite a bit of made-in-Japan content, including portions of the engine.


It was about 55% for Japanese made F-15s. Of course, over time the content increases in almost all of these license-produced deals. % content, I'm assuming is number of parts, not necessarily value of parts. So it's a pretty meaningless number anyway.

By comparison, even the license produced Su-30MKIs in India only have about 40% Indian content. The BAE Hawk under license to HAL are reportedly 30% Indian content. I doubt an Indian "build" SH would have even 20-30% Indian content.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 02:39
by jonsalazaar
India has choices(F18s, F16s, Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, Russian crap etc), we don't. The whole world knows our production lines are closing in a couple of years.

As a wise man once said a good percentage of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Plus, think of it this way, these lines need to be running somewhere for spares for our planes. Boeing ain't gonna keep it running in St. Louis for spares.

KamenRiderBlade wrote:If India was going to buy Hornets anyway, than it should be made in the USA, no production line move to India.

The US government can mandate that.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 03:46
by arian
jonsalazaar wrote:Plus, think of it this way, these lines need to be running somewhere for spares for our planes. Boeing ain't gonna keep it running in St. Louis for spares.


Assembly lines are not the same thing as parts production. Just because the assembly line may shut down doesn't mean the rest of the manufacturing and support does. There are nearly 1,500 Hornets, Super Hornets and Growlers around, and will be around for a few more decades to come. Of course Boeing will continue parts production for them.

St Louis isn't going to shut down. If anything, they are expanding it now by moving some composite manufacturing for the 777x to St Louis.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 06:44
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
The Super Hornet is only used by the USN & Australia (12 units). That puts India squarely in US control over technology i.e. sanction power. Despite all the promises about full ToT, I can't see the USN ever consenting to full ToT to a foreign nation over an aircraft that they will still be using 30 years from now
.

Sorry, no such thing as full ToT. Nonetheless, did France provide it when it won the MMRCA???? (LOL)

The F-16 on the other hand, is used by a whole gamut of nations other than the US, including many users like Singapore whose local industry has the ability to keep the aircraft flying and due to the widespread use can probably source for parts easily. The aircraft can use AAM munitions like the Israeli Derby & Python which is already in Indian service, hence less US control. The Israelis may even have better EW fitted to their F-16s and that could be an option for the IAF. Even the latest F-16 variants probably share more commonality with older variants compared to the Hornet/Super Hornet.

The F-16 will probably fly for another 30 years in USAF service but with a signficant difference. The USAF will not only have the F-35 but already have F-35s as well as upgraded F-15Es. So ToT of F-16 tech is less sensitive to USAF than Hornet tech is to USN whose only replacement is the F-35C (and that is moving at a snail's pace).

The F-16 is the most logical choice for the IAF. However, logic is never a consideration when Pakistan is a factor. Doesn't matter when the neighbors happen to use the F-16 in small numbers, non-AESA, old block, non-latest AAM etc or that the F-16 is most cost-effective option.


Totally irrelevant as India won't purchase the F-16 under any conditions. (i.e. Pakistan)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 07:04
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I don't see a better case than the Super Hornet for India.

Gripen: NEVER (Similar LCA MK II under development!)

Rafale: To Expensive...

Typhoon: To Expensive...

Mig-35: Prefer Western Technology...

F-16: NEVER (Pakistan already operates it!)

On the other hand the Super Hornet has a respectable price and is available now! It also offers considerable number of Advance Technologies and is available in a number of Models. Including Single, Twin Seat, Naval, Tanker and EW. (i.e. Growler)

Lastly, the Super Hornet also shares the same engine (GE/F414) with India's forthcoming LCA MKII.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 10:00
by madrat
/insert fanboy comment

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a specialized F-16 model. Since F-16XL isn't realistic, how about an F-16 AGILE offshoot? Big wing. Heavy hardpoints. Big mouth, big engine. Would give them counter to both Pakistan Blk50, but also to Chinese J-10. And the Israelis, their prime partners for everything technical, would be right at home supporting them...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 11:38
by JetTest
arian wrote:
icemaverick wrote:As it stands now, India plans to buy 36 Rafales in "flyaway condition" i.e. manufactured in and imported from France.


I read it was with a 50% offset, of which some 20% were parts "manufactured" in India, and the rest R&D.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83221878/

Refusing to give details, the French Embassy source said, "Thirty percent offsets will be embarked for future military aviation research and development (R&D) programs and the remaining 20 percent will be with Indian [defense] industries making components for Rafale."



JetTest wrote:Without question, the single most important factor in this competition is "make in India", not assemble, not build, but make, as in manufacture, and as much of the complete weapon system as possible, not just airframe or engine, not necessarily the absolute best performer, if there really is a definitive technical winner. They are looking at it from that perspective.


The "made in India" is just a slogan to get politicians to buy in. It does not mean made in India. It doesn't even mean assembled in India. Boeing's original offer to India which also said "made in India" did not mention anything about assembly in India. It talked about partnerships and JVs with Indian companies. The assembled/manufactured in India talk is recent from 2016, but the slogan of made in India is the same.

Either way, there's no way the SH can be entirely made in India. Major components, and all the pricey ones, will still be made in the US. And final assembly may well be done by Boeing itself in its Boeing India subsidiary. Nothing new here since this is how F-16s have been build all over the world before as well. But even at their best, European made F-16s had only 50% of their parts made in Europe (only Turkey has reached a higher component, and this only recently)


Spoken by a true "program insider", I'm sure....I think time will tell how much of a political slogan it is.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 11:43
by JetTest
madrat wrote:/insert fanboy comment

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a specialized F-16 model. Since F-16XL isn't realistic, how about an F-16 AGILE offshoot? Big wing. Heavy hardpoints. Big mouth, big engine. Would give them counter to both Pakistan Blk50, but also to Chinese J-10. And the Israelis, their prime partners for everything technical, would be right at home supporting them...


I agree there are stronger chances for an F16 than most people may think, just not too sure how specialized of a variant it could be considering all of the global requirements. If it did prevail I would not count on any major redesign, that would make the learning curve gigantic.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 15:28
by sferrin
madrat wrote:/insert fanboy comment

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a specialized F-16 model. Since F-16XL isn't realistic, how about an F-16 AGILE offshoot? Big wing. Heavy hardpoints. Big mouth, big engine. Would give them counter to both Pakistan Blk50, but also to Chinese J-10. And the Israelis, their prime partners for everything technical, would be right at home supporting them...



They could call it the F-2.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2016, 18:47
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:/insert fanboy comment

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a specialized F-16 model. Since F-16XL isn't realistic, how about an F-16 AGILE offshoot? Big wing. Heavy hardpoints. Big mouth, big engine. Would give them counter to both Pakistan Blk50, but also to Chinese J-10. And the Israelis, their prime partners for everything technical, would be right at home supporting them...



They could call it the F-2.


Lol died. I'm going to use that one for all the geogens out there

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 00:32
by arian
JetTest wrote:Spoken by a true "program insider", I'm sure....I think time will tell how much of a political slogan it is.


I don't need to be a "program insider" to see what's going on. India has been pushing this "made in India" slogan for a while with several programs, and we can see the result. For the Rafale they wanted 50% offset, of which they could ONLY find about 20% of that in parts made in India (the rest was re-investments in R&D by Dassault in Indian companies). For the BAE Hawk, again we saw the same slogan and ONLY 30% parts made in India. We saw the same thing with the P-8 sale to India BTW. Boeing had to throw some bones at HAL in making some parts for P-8, while also investing in training HAL employees.

We've seen this play out in numerous other countries on numerous other aircraft. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is never such a thing as 100% made anywhere, especially not when talking about a highly advanced aircraft in India.

20-30% "made in India" for a SH would be a miracle. Of course, the actual offset may well be 50% or higher, but it will be in other activities that Boeing may undertake in India, rather than actual parts made in India.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 02:29
by madrat
JetTest wrote:
madrat wrote:/insert fanboy comment

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a specialized F-16 model. Since F-16XL isn't realistic, how about an F-16 AGILE offshoot? Big wing. Heavy hardpoints. Big mouth, big engine. Would give them counter to both Pakistan Blk50, but also to Chinese J-10. And the Israelis, their prime partners for everything technical, would be right at home supporting them...


I agree there are stronger chances for an F16 than most people may think, just not too sure how specialized of a variant it could be considering all of the global requirements. If it did prevail I would not count on any major redesign, that would make the learning curve gigantic.


The F-16 really makes the best sense, because the support chain is worldwide. Going with the basic F-16 allows them to integrate so many off the shelf weapons, many already in inventory. Perhaps a customized tape would allow for other weapons like Kh-31. I suggested F-16AGILE (aka F-2A) because you can carry wingtip AAMs, two underwing drop tanks, a centerline droptank, and two standoff weapons without hindering the hanging of an existing COTS targeting pod. And it's not like the wing building technology isn't worthwhile. Bonus is they come with a COTS cannon, too. And regardless if they chose PW229 or GE132, they both are way better than Al-31's they already use. So even though my fanboy comment was meant for levity, there is a certain amount of truth to it.

Super Hornet would be severely restricted, because it would have to be somewhat neutered compared to what the manufacturer has sold in the past. F-16AGILE in an exportable form already has been done. The Super Hornet exports were to allies with little restriction to what could or could not be integrated.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 06:49
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:
JetTest wrote:
madrat wrote:/insert fanboy comment

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a specialized F-16 model. Since F-16XL isn't realistic, how about an F-16 AGILE offshoot? Big wing. Heavy hardpoints. Big mouth, big engine. Would give them counter to both Pakistan Blk50, but also to Chinese J-10. And the Israelis, their prime partners for everything technical, would be right at home supporting them...


I agree there are stronger chances for an F16 than most people may think, just not too sure how specialized of a variant it could be considering all of the global requirements. If it did prevail I would not count on any major redesign, that would make the learning curve gigantic.


The F-16 really makes the best sense, because the support chain is worldwide. Going with the basic F-16 allows them to integrate so many off the shelf weapons, many already in inventory. Perhaps a customized tape would allow for other weapons like Kh-31. I suggested F-16AGILE (aka F-2A) because you can carry wingtip AAMs, two underwing drop tanks, a centerline droptank, and two standoff weapons without hindering the hanging of an existing COTS targeting pod. And it's not like the wing building technology isn't worthwhile. Bonus is they come with a COTS cannon, too. And regardless if they chose PW229 or GE132, they both are way better than Al-31's they already use. So even though my fanboy comment was meant for levity, there is a certain amount of truth to it.

Super Hornet would be severely restricted, because it would have to be somewhat neutered compared to what the manufacturer has sold in the past. F-16AGILE in an exportable form already has been done. The Super Hornet exports were to allies with little restriction to what could or could not be integrated.


Laughable India will never buy the F-16 because Pakistan already operates it. Sure it purely political but it is the truth! As for the Super Hornet he has no restriction for export to India. Honestly, do you just make this stuff up???

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 13:00
by madrat
You know the variant that gets exported has to be approved. The US government doesn't make it standard business to transfer products in exactly identical versions to what it currently operates. You don't honestly believe India can just buy the latest greatest Super Hornet free of some sort of restrictions. Look at Japan, they had to develop their own flight control software for F-2 because the U.S. doesn't export sensitive source codes. The Block 60 has a way for customers to add threat libraries to its automated electronic warfare system for the same reason. The Turks have their own customized software addons for their in house products. The U.S. just doesn't sell anything without retaining some control. Don't be so snide, Corsair1963.

India is looking for a medium fighter that can perform air to air on the cheap. That is farcical, because heavier fighters have traditionally dominated lighter fighters. It makes more sense to get a medium fighter that is functional first, then affordable second. F-16 does this far better than Rafale, considering it already allows customization. And because it is used worldwide the support is there. And they need technology for internal programs like AMCA. The technology to build F-2A's wings found its way into the F-35A. The Indian government probably benefits more overall from this program than Rafale due to the nature of what they truly need to build their own future fighter.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 20:09
by mrigdon
India considers Pakistan their greatest threat (for good reason, they've fought wars). No matter how good the F-16 may be, you don't want to go into combat against an enemy that flies the same plane you do. If a war broke out, Pakistan could shut off IFF, now you can't know for certain which side that F-16 size radar return is flying for. Unless you're goign to pull a Ramsey Bolton, you have to change your ROE so that visual ID is required before firing on fighters. So much for all those fancy missiles you paid for.

And imagine if Pakistan decided to paint their F-16s to look like the Indian ones. What? Would a military that provides material support to terrorists in order to destabilize bordering areas do something that underhanded? :roll:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 23:09
by vilters
I do not understand India.

They are running around like chicken with their heads cut off.

Monday's they want the Pak-FA
By midweek they buy Rafales
When W-End comes they are looking to the USA?

They'll have wild collection of logistical nightmares.

Just look at bolt sizes. And then I am just and simply talking Imperial and metric bolt sizes.

Russian, Frensh, and US engines? Avionix? Connections? Ground support? Maintenance training?

Man, man, man, give them a cup of coffee to relax.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2016, 23:15
by botsing
vilters wrote:I do not understand India.

They are running around like chicken with their heads cut off.

Monday's they want the Pak-FA
By midweek they buy Rafales
When W-End comes they are looking to the USA?

They'll have wild collection of logistical nightmares.

Just look at bolt sizes. And then I am just and simply talking Imperial and metric bolt sizes.

Russian, Frensh, and US engines? Avionix? Connections? Ground support? Maintenance training?

Man, man, man, give them a cup of coffee to relax.

All it shows is that their internal market and policies are not one yet and that they are quite diverse as a country.

Do not mix up western ways with other cultural ways and expect them to be western too.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 01:00
by arian
botsing wrote:All it shows is that their internal market and policies are not one yet and that they are quite diverse as a country.

Do not mix up western ways with other cultural ways and expect them to be western too.


I don't think it has anything to do with culture or politics. They just want technological access and manufacturing know-how. They've gotten what they could from the Russians, now they want more and better and will buy it from whoever is willing to sell it.

They're not going to get what they need from Russia. Dassault can't support what they need. So the US is the only other option. This seems quite logical to me.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 08:46
by weasel1962
mrigdon wrote:India considers Pakistan their greatest threat (for good reason, they've fought wars). No matter how good the F-16 may be, you don't want to go into combat against an enemy that flies the same plane you do. If a war broke out, Pakistan could shut off IFF, now you can't know for certain which side that F-16 size radar return is flying for. Unless you're goign to pull a Ramsey Bolton, you have to change your ROE so that visual ID is required before firing on fighters. So much for all those fancy missiles you paid for.

And imagine if Pakistan decided to paint their F-16s to look like the Indian ones. What? Would a military that provides material support to terrorists in order to destabilize bordering areas do something that underhanded? :roll:


1) with iaf iff on, the iaf would know when the opposing party is not friendly. iaf would actually know where their f-16s are based as well and where any iaf f-16 should not be.
2) pakistan is not the only adversary. iaf already stations valuable sqns facing china. iaf uses su-30s to face the plaaf suks incl su-30s. might as well use f-16s and let those suks match paf f-16s.
3) we are talking about 6 sqns of f-16s, not 40 sqns.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 13:26
by vilters
When you want to attack in silence, the FIRST thing you put OFF is the IFF.

Stealth attack is about NOT sending anything out.

You do not exist.
You come in, as a ghost.
Preferably, LOW and SLOW, not to give anything away.

You sneak in, you crawl, you keep your head down, and shut up completely.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 16:16
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:When you want to attack in silence, the FIRST thing you put OFF is the IFF.

Stealth attack is about NOT sending anything out.

You do not exist.
You come in, as a ghost.
Preferably, LOW and SLOW, not to give anything away.

You sneak in, you crawl, you keep your head down, and shut up completely.


You lost me at "low and slow" come to think of it the rest is pretty stupid too.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 22:58
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
vilters wrote:When you want to attack in silence, the FIRST thing you put OFF is the IFF.

Stealth attack is about NOT sending anything out.

You do not exist.
You come in, as a ghost.
Preferably, LOW and SLOW, not to give anything away.

You sneak in, you crawl, you keep your head down, and shut up completely.


You lost me at "low and slow" come to think of it the rest is pretty stupid too.

It's called "Cessna Mode". :wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2016, 23:57
by sferrin
"Don't shoot 'til you see the whites of their eyes!"

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2016, 02:16
by madrat
XanderCrews wrote:You lost me at "low and slow" come to think of it the rest is pretty stupid too.


Don't think he's mad, he actually makes sense if you follow history. But then again vilters seems to be far from just a history buff. You might want to actually read what he said with an open mind and you'll learn some serious lessons. He just speaks in cryptic language.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2016, 15:35
by weasel1962
What's pretty stupid is that an Air Force will need an aircraft first before making an attack of any kind. No MMRCA yet.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2016, 00:35
by zerion
Lockheed expected to offer F-35 to India after India shows little interest in F-16
http://m.indiatvnews.com/news/india-ind ... .bing.com/

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2016, 08:59
by madrat
F-35B to the Indian navy in 2030 isn't exactly now.

India just doesn't want to buy aircraft to fill the perceived need. They don't even spend to increase LCA procurement.

It's almost like buying things takes food off the table of bureaucrats

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2016, 23:02
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:Lockheed expected to offer F-35 to India after India shows little interest in F-16
http://m.indiatvnews.com/news/india-ind ... .bing.com/



Wow

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 02:33
by sferrin
Hopefully Uncle Sugar will put the brakes on that.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 10:27
by Corsair1963
XanderCrews wrote:
zerion wrote:Lockheed expected to offer F-35 to India after India shows little interest in F-16
http://m.indiatvnews.com/news/india-ind ... .bing.com/



Wow


The Super Hornet while a good option today. Will be totally outclassed by future Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters in the next decade. So, why should India even consider a 4.5 Generation Fighter in the first place???
:doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 10:48
by vilters
Agreed. The Russians and Chinese are better at airshows.

The SH will serve the indians more then enough for more then the next 2-3-4 decades.
Against "what" from the Russians and Chinese? Paperware?

But if they are Smart?
They'd buy F-16's.
The F-16 production line ending, they can be had cheap. (Just to keep the line open.)

The F-35 for India is an absolute NO-NO.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2016, 03:56
by Corsair1963
vilters wrote:Agreed. The Russians and Chinese are better at airshows.

The SH will serve the indians more then enough for more then the next 2-3-4 decades.
Against "what" from the Russians and Chinese? Paperware?

But if they are Smart?
They'd buy F-16's.
The F-16 production line ending, they can be had cheap. (Just to keep the line open.)

The F-35 for India is an absolute NO-NO.


Sorry, F-35 is the only real viable option for India. In addition it's in the interests of the US and her Allies for India to acquire it.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2016, 13:27
by vilters
NO, not a single F-35 for India.
Hey, it would be on Putins table before the delivery pilot finishes his shower.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2016, 15:12
by bigjku
Corsair1963 wrote:
vilters wrote:Agreed. The Russians and Chinese are better at airshows.

The SH will serve the indians more then enough for more then the next 2-3-4 decades.
Against "what" from the Russians and Chinese? Paperware?

But if they are Smart?
They'd buy F-16's.
The F-16 production line ending, they can be had cheap. (Just to keep the line open.)

The F-35 for India is an absolute NO-NO.


Sorry, F-35 is the only real viable option for India. In addition it's in the interests of the US and her Allies for India to acquire it.


If India wants to cut defense ties with Russia and enter into a formal defense arrangement (presuming the US wants to do so) then sure. Short of that I don't really see the need when compared to the risk. 15 years from now when the next generation is about our the door sure. Just not today.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 06:40
by Corsair1963
bigjku wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
vilters wrote:Agreed. The Russians and Chinese are better at airshows.

The SH will serve the indians more then enough for more then the next 2-3-4 decades.
Against "what" from the Russians and Chinese? Paperware?

But if they are Smart?
They'd buy F-16's.
The F-16 production line ending, they can be had cheap. (Just to keep the line open.)

The F-35 for India is an absolute NO-NO.


Sorry, F-35 is the only real viable option for India. In addition it's in the interests of the US and her Allies for India to acquire it.


If India wants to cut defense ties with Russia and enter into a formal defense arrangement (presuming the US wants to do so) then sure. Short of that I don't really see the need when compared to the risk. 15 years from now when the next generation is about our the door sure. Just not today.


India is the largest democracy on the planet and is the perfect partner to counter an ever expanding China! She is wealthy and every year has purchased more and more American Military Hardware. (Apache Attack Helicopters, M777 Howitzers, C-130's, C-17's, P-8I's, etc. etc.) So, to insult them by making demands like who they can trade with or calling them unworthy. Would be the biggest blunder the US could ever make in Foreign Policy!

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2016, 02:03
by aaam
On one of my sadly tooinfrequent visits here, I thought I'd offer some thoughts, FWIW.

It's instructive to remember India's conclusions when they did the MMRCA competition. Even though they were impressed with the SH's AESA to the point that they changed the requirements of the competition to mandate an AESA, they then eliminated the SH because of its performance capabilities relative to the other competitors. This has come up elsewhere and is one of the reasons the SH has yet to win a competition (There was no competition held in the only export to Australia. They set out to buy the SH to tide them over until their F-35s would arrive because they thought It would be an easy interim fix given they already had Classic Hornets). F-16 fared better, but when loaded up with all the things India wanted including CFTs, its performance also kicked it out.

Rafale "won", but India is not the easiest country to deal with. The negotiations to "finalize" took so long and India added so many new demands, the deal collapsed. The final straw came when India added the demand that ALL Rafales had to warranted by Dassault. This included all Rafales built from India-sourced components in factories in India by Indian personnel. No company in its right mind would agree to that. Although a new agreement was announced a while ago to just get 36 French-built Rafales, it's worthy of note that that contract has not actually been signed yet.

India wants tech transfer to jumpstart their industry. They've been working on Tejas for 33 years now and still haven't delivered a truly production-representative aircraft (SP1, 2 & 3 are not) and are years away from delivering a truly combat capable one that meets IAF needs (Mk1A). Further, although it was supposed to be 70% indigenous it is turning out to be only 35% so.

So India needs not only a new aircraft, but one that represents the leading edge of current generation aircraft. And, they want the tech knowledge on how to do this successfully on their own and built in India. I'm not sure the SH or F-16 will give them that, and significant redesigns needed (new engines, new versions) of those aircraft may make them unaffordable relative to the competition, even if the tech transfer issues get resolved. Then, of course there is the issue of whether India will be more flexible than before. At some

BTW, before anyone brings up the C-17 and P-8, in those cases we are only talking about a few airframes and there really wasn't any choice competition. Even there, though, I believe I read that India actually expressed an intention to acquire more C-17s, but by the time they got around to making a decision and were ready to enter serious negotiations, so much time ha elapsed that Boeing had already sold the airplanes.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2016, 11:11
by vilters
If I was the States?

I'd keep the F-35 in my pocket. Certainly not sell it to Turkey OR India.
Neither is stable enough to keep the technology under Western control for the next 30 years or so.

And honestly? ? ? ?
Does India know what it wants? ? ?
In a few months the wind will turn again in that region.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2016, 17:55
by aaam
vilters wrote:If I was the States?

I'd keep the F-35 in my pocket. Certainly not sell it to Turkey OR India.
Neither is stable enough to keep the technology under Western control for the next 30 years or so.

And honestly? ? ? ?
Does India know what it wants? ? ?
In a few months the wind will turn again in that region.


Regardless of how one feels about the F-35 as an aircraft, the matter remains that the program strongly needs more export orders and production in the near future in order to achieve the cost reductions that are being touted. Those cost figures are based on achieving a certain production rate. Under the law the F-35 has not yet met the requirements for the US to make a bulk (sometimes called block) buy, in fact I'm not sure they've agreed on a firm price for lots 9 & 10. anyone heard? So, the US is trying to convince counties that have said they're going to buy F-35s to make a bulk buy on their own, with the US hopefully joining in in later years with its own bulk buy. So they're in a kind of Catch 22. To achieve the kind of price reduction they want, they need to reach a certain production rate. But countries who would make up the customers to achieve that production rate are waiting to firm up their orders until the price comes down. Point of that is that desire for that production rate may outweigh concerns about where the technology is going.

Now, first Lockheed is going to need US Gov't permission to offer the F-35 to India. Would that be forthcoming? For example, Lockheed would love to offer the aircraft to certain nations in the Middle East, but US policy is that the plane won't be sold there except to Israel (how well Israel may protect the technology is a question for another time). From India's point of view, the F-35 may not be desirable anyway. Sure, it is quite capable and would confer status on India as an operator, but it's not likely that they would get the tech transfer they want and certainly would not meet their "Make in India" requirement

Then of course there are the protracted negotiations that would ensue. .

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2016, 03:21
by weasel1962
The mistake that the IAF made was conducting the tender without consideration of budget first but second. When it became apparent that the IAF could not afford either the Rafale or the Typhoon, they shot themselves in the foot.

The f-16 plan is a smart one but politics prevents its selection.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2016, 20:33
by madrat
People seem to have missed LockMart forcing all or nothing motivations on the Indians when it comes to F-16IN. Either they take over ALL future F-16 production, or none at all. LockMart controls the exports - presumably meant to include Pakistan as a future customer - while India takes over all the risk and cost escalations as it develops.

It's not that India won't use the same aircraft Pakistan uses. They do not want to make aircraft for Pakistan, and presumably any allies of Pakistan.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2016, 06:45
by aaam
weasel1962 wrote:The mistake that the IAF made was conducting the tender without consideration of budget first but second. When it became apparent that the IAF could not afford either the Rafale or the Typhoon, they shot themselves in the foot.

The f-16 plan is a smart one but politics prevents its selection.


There may be a bit more going on. It's possible that India also thought that with the size of their order they thought they could beat the winner down the price they wanted. However, at a certain point the vendor ecides to dig in in their heels and makes it clear that if that's what you're willing to pay, then the order just isn't worth it. It can also not just be price, but other demands that bring it to a halt.

F-16IN still had some performance and risk issues (Typhoon and Rafale already operational in configs close to their proposed India versions). Who knows, Lockheed may have ended up walking away as well.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2016, 07:00
by aaam
madrat wrote:People seem to have missed LockMart forcing all or nothing motivations on the Indians when it comes to F-16IN. Either they take over ALL future F-16 production, or none at all. LockMart controls the exports - presumably meant to include Pakistan as a future customer - while India takes over all the risk and cost escalations as it develops.

It's not that India won't use the same aircraft Pakistan uses. They do not want to make aircraft for Pakistan, and presumably any allies of Pakistan.


Pleas explain. Are you saying that Lockheed was demanding that India had to build F-16s for whoever Lockheed sold to? Also, USG controls exports since the plane was developed with US money. Lockheed actually doesn't own the F-16 design. Don't forget it wasn't Lockheed that blocked delivery of already built, bought and paid for F-16s to Pakistan for years. For the longest time, Pakistan couldn't even get its money back!

USG: "We don't have the money, we gave it to Lockheed to build the planes".

Lockheed: "We don't have the money, we used it to build your planes. They're sitting here ready for you. But we aren't allowed to deliver them to you. Go talk to who's stopping you from picking them up".

USG: "Sorry, no money's available because we provided the money to the manufacturer to build the planes. Maybe they can sell them to someone we'll allow to get them".

Lockheed: "Looks like they've been sitting too long and they're aren't a lot of customers for this older configuration".

USN?USAF: "Hey! New adversary aircraft"?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2016, 09:13
by weasel1962
No way in hell will PAF buy an Indian built plane. One wrong installation "unintentional" = crash. LM and the IAF knows that.

F-16IN performance issues are total bullocks. The Israelis, Taiwanese and even the PAF use them to counter Suks and will do so for he next 2 decades at least. 126 f-16s vs 36 rafales, I'd take the f-16s any day.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2016, 18:30
by aaam
weasel1962 wrote:No way in hell will PAF buy an Indian built plane. One wrong installation "unintentional" = crash. LM and the IAF knows that.

F-16IN performance issues are total bullocks. The Israelis, Taiwanese and even the PAF use them to counter Suks and will do so for he next 2 decades at least. 126 f-16s vs 36 rafales, I'd take the f-16s any day.


But none of those F-16s have all the mods and extra weight that was proposed to meet India's specifications. Even the UAE's Block 60 F-16E/F didn't have everything necessary to meet India's requirements (as an aside, if Lockheed had proposed and sold the F-16E/F to India, they'd have to pay royalties to the UAE). India prioritized maneuverability in their evaluation. Although the F-16IN would use the F110-GE-132 like the F-16E, India felt that the tradeoffs in acceleration and handling were such that it wouldn't meet their needs.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2016, 23:28
by weasel1962
The Israeli F-16s and many of the upgrade users have cfts that contribute most to weight and consequently acceleration. The usaf did not adopt the cfts because they have a huge fleet of tankers. The laughable bit is that the lca which has half the performance is ok but the f-16 is not? Put the same fuel load onthe rafale and you'd reach the same performance at the same thrust. That's physics.

The CFTs are removable but most users don't for obvious reasons. Same reasons why the F-35 ended up with the same fuel loads and weights internally. Its ironic because the tender would have also eliminated the F-35 on the same basis.

Why the IAF chose to structure the tender the way they did was pretty obvious to eliminate a plane whom they already knew the performance and that the rafale/typhoon could never compete on in price. Same reason why the IAF still doesn't have an mmrca til today.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2016, 01:58
by aaam
The LCA (Officially "Light Combat Aircraft", but was supposedly also a "Lower Cost Aircraft", although some wags call it a "Lower Capability Aircraft") was supposed to help India develop its aircraft industry. It was never intended to be able to fulfill the role of the MMCRA. Although It hasn't yet met the full requirements that the IAF wanted, it is a source of national pride and so is "protected".

I don't think India set up the tender in such a way as to deliberately exclude the F-16. If they wanted that, all they'd have to do is say, "twin engines only". I just think they wanted so much and wanted to "give" so unrealistically little, that the program was predestined to founder.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2016, 23:13
by popcorn

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2016, 00:39
by SpudmanWP
For the whole program price (Flyaway, Mods, training, infrastructure, parts, weapons, service, etc, etc, etc), sure..

Flyaway is $106.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2016, 00:55
by popcorn
Yup, costs a pretty penny in either case.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2016, 06:10
by mrigdon
So the Rafale is the $250 Million dollar plane.

Or, if we want to use the same nomenclature that F-35 critics employ, the Rafale is the $8 Billion Dollar plane.

I'll just throw this out there: if you divide 1.5 Trillion by 8 Billion, you come up with 187.5. Just sayin'

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2016, 16:41
by mixelflick
That 225 Million is outrageous. For that price and within the acquisition window you could afford what, at least 2 F-35's for every Rafael?!

India is in a precarious position because it won't be long before China is fielding her own stealth birds. And if PAK-FA's stealth really isn't up to snuff, the F-35 is their only option. Dunno if we'd sell to them, but if we don't - they're going to be flying targets in the coming years.

The Super Hornet would be no different...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2016, 20:51
by SpudmanWP
mixelflick wrote:That 225 Million is outrageous. For that price and within the acquisition window you could afford what, at least 2 F-35's for every Rafael?!


No, that would be an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The $225 is for EVERYTHING in the sale (planes, training, weapons, support, modifications, base upgrades, etc)

The Rafale itself (think flyaway cost) is $106 mil while an F-35A in the same timeframe is $95-99 mil.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2016, 15:53
by weasel1962
US has far cheaper weapons thru sheer economies of scale. SDB, Ljdams are as cheap as it gets and India can't afford to win a war with just scalps. The rafale is a good fighter but the Indians have budget constraints as it is. 36 is just a stopgap measure.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2016, 19:13
by SpudmanWP
I think that LZuni could be a great CAS weapon for the F-35... twice the Hellfire warhead size, supersonic weapon, laser guided, cheaper than dirt (think APKWS's big brother with 4x the warhead).

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2016, 03:53
by weasel1962
Might see a revival if the LAS proposal takes off but not popular w fast jets.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2016, 06:39
by Corsair1963
India just purchased 36 Rafales. So, why would she even consider the Super Hornet or any other 4.5 Generation Fighter??? :doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2016, 07:59
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:India just purchased 36 Rafales. So, why would she even consider the Super Hornet or any other 4.5 Generation Fighter??? :doh:


The original tender was for 126 units which was split into 36 flyaway and 90 local production. After the nightmare negotiations in the original tender, the GOI split the tender and went with direct G-G contracting for the rafales for the flyaway portion. The expectation is that the local production portion would be re-bidded hence Ashton carter witb the LM and Boeing teams have been visiting India to re-pitch the F-16s and F-18s. So have the other bidders.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2016, 03:49
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:India just purchased 36 Rafales. So, why would she even consider the Super Hornet or any other 4.5 Generation Fighter??? :doh:


The original tender was for 126 units which was split into 36 flyaway and 90 local production. After the nightmare negotiations in the original tender, the GOI split the tender and went with direct G-G contracting for the rafales for the flyaway portion. The expectation is that the local production portion would be re-bidded hence Ashton carter witb the LM and Boeing teams have been visiting India to re-pitch the F-16s and F-18s. So have the other bidders.


India can't afford to purchase 36 very expensive Rafales directly from France. Then turn around and build 90 of another totally different type in country. That would be ludicrous.......... :doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2016, 12:32
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:India can't afford to purchase 36 very expensive Rafales directly from France. Then turn around and build 90 of another totally different type in country. That would be ludicrous.......... :doh:

Budget wise, it will take some years before a decision is made so there will some buffer to absorb the rafales first.
Seen the IAF inventory? multiple types aren't really a hurdle. Having said that, I've mentioned many times before, re opening this is just a tactic to pressure the French. The rafale is stil imho the frontrunner for the local production contract. The IAF have already invested enough time on the aircraft.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2016, 15:55
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:India can't afford to purchase 36 very expensive Rafales directly from France. Then turn around and build 90 of another totally different type in country. That would be ludicrous.......... :doh:

Budget wise, it will take some years before a decision is made so there will some buffer to absorb the rafales first.
Seen the IAF inventory? multiple types aren't really a hurdle. Having said that, I've mentioned many times before, re opening this is just a tactic to pressure the French. The rafale is stil imho the frontrunner for the local production contract. The IAF have already invested enough time on the aircraft.



Watching the Indians work, budget seems to be the least if their worries. I've seen better organization after yelling fire in a crowded theater

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2016, 02:34
by zerion
India Unlikely To Buy Additional Rafale Fighter Jets, MoD Source Says

...
"Although there could be a future need for more fighters, Cowshish said: "It seems unlikely that the entire requirement will be made up by acquiring Rafale aircraft, for had that been the intention India would not have gone in for acquisition of just two squadrons at this stage...

"With no clear indication as of now that additional Rafale would be bought, a window is open wide for the acquisition of another type of fighter," another MoD source said.

Daljit Singh, a retired IAF air marshal and defense analyst said: "IAF requirement was for 126 aircraft and that requirement still holds. Also, the defence minister has announced that the government would earmark one fighter by the end of the year that would be manufactured in India. Whether it would be Rafale or not is not clear as yet."

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... ource-says

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2016, 11:47
by madrat
Seems to be this current order is the door stopper to hold the portal open for future orders. The bureaucracy held up MRCA, but this did an end run around that bureaucracy. Once infrastructure is in place and IAF has units in operations, it makes it all the more easy to put a fork in the MRCA budget siphoning machine. The only thing MRCA did was to create an environment for lining pockets with gold in the government and IAF.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2016, 11:57
by XanderCrews
Maybe they will go with the "sampler" ...36 of everything!

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2016, 14:54
by mixelflick
XanderCrews wrote:Maybe they will go with the "sampler" ...36 of everything!


Nice... :)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 05:56
by popcorn
nteresting.


http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 638_1.html

IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters

A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India.

Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday to fighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity.

The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen ..

Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 06:43
by KamenRiderBlade
Am I the only one who gets confused by the Acronym IAF if it's not explicitly spelled out?

IAF could mean:
Israeli Air Force
Indian Air Force
Indonesian Air Force
Iraqi Air Force
Italian Air Force
Iranian Air Force

Isn't that confusing for us using the English language?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 07:31
by popcorn
Looking at the thread title should give a clue.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 13:07
by basher54321
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Am I the only one who gets confused by the Acronym IAF if it's not explicitly spelled out?

Isn't that confusing for us using the English language?



They are normally distinguished in English reading literature - you pick them up after a while but generally you know from the context anyway e.g.

Israel = IDF or IDF/AF
Iraq = Commonly IrAF - less so IQAF
Iran = IRIAF

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 08:19
by hythelday
popcorn wrote:it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.


Pump your brakes, business-standart.com, who ever said US would even want to "seize" the opportunity to offer JSF to India? With the ridiculous demands from the Indian side regarding tech transfer and local production I would say that chances of India getting such an offer remains... very theoretical.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 10:39
by jessmo111
boeing-x32-jsf.jpg
popcorn wrote:nteresting.


http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 638_1.html

IAF kicks off contest to make single-engine fighters

A global contest has restarted for supplying India a medium, multi-role fighter, with the Indian Air Force (IAF) inviting top international fighter jet manufacturers to set up a production facility in India.

Business Standard has learned that Indian embassies in Washington, Moscow and Stockholm wrote on Friday to fighter jet manufacturers in these countries to confirm whether they would partner an Indian company in building a medium, single-engine fighter, with significant transfer of technology to the Indian entity.

The confidential document sent by the embassies is not technically a “Request for Information” (RFI), which is a precursor to a “Request for Proposals” (also known as a tender). However, it serves the same purpose, which is to determine which vendors are interested and what they are willing to offer.

By specifying that the IAF requires a single-engine fighter, the latest letter differs from an earlier tender, issued in 2007, for 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). The MMRCA tender, which had no such stipulation, saw six vendors fielding four twin-engine and two single-engine fighters. The twin-engine offerings included Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter GmbH’s Typhoon, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and RAC MiG’s MiG-35. The single-engine fighters offered were Lockheed Martin’s F-16IN Super Viper and Saab’s Gripen ..

Air Headquarters insiders say there is little chance of India buying the F-16, a significantly advanced version of the Block 50/52 that the Pakistan Air Force operates. Since Washington is aware of this important bias, it remains to be seen whether the US seizes this opportunity to offer India the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter.


Common India and Boeing! DO IT!

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 15:26
by mixelflick
I don't see them buying the SH...

Their fleet must be a logistical nightmare. Older Soviet and French designs couple with newer versions (SU-30MKI's, Mig-29K's and now, small numbers of Rafael's) would be bad enough. Now add in the F/A-18E/F... nightmare. Spare parts from 3 different countries, training pilots to fly on them etc.. It just doesn't make sense.

At a time when China is beginning to field 5th gen aircraft, they'll be flying a mish mash of 4th, 4+ designs and be at a distinct dis-advantage vs. those stealth platforms. Sure, they plan to acquire PAK-FA. But the Russians only plan on having full capability circa 2025 (i.e. engines fitting for super-cruise) and the "stealth" is admittedly frontal low observable, no Very Low Observable. They'll be new bugs in their version, and that'll need to be factored in as well.

When you add it all up, the Indians are in a very, very tight spot. The F-35 would be an ideal solution, but politically - it's never going to happen..

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 17:07
by talkitron
India is a particularly inefficient democracy and air force procurement is subject to all sorts of bureaucratic and political interference. I am sure the state owned company HAL has the same issues with its internal operations. No one knows what will happen.

My guess is that the Rafales were bought primarily for the nuclear strike role and secondly for precision conventional strikes. As others have argued in other threads, Russian precision strike capabilities are behind those of Western nations.

If my goal was to procure lots of air frames to maintain or even increase the number of squadrons, I would go Russian. Russian planes are cheap.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 17:22
by XanderCrews
So they made it single engine to deliberately disqualify the Rafale eh?

BTW

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachme ... 1114339478

This is one of the original concepts, before it got beat with an ugly stick

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 17:23
by XanderCrews
talkitron wrote:
If my goal was to procure lots of air frames to maintain or even increase the number of squadrons, I would go Russian. Russian planes are cheap.


They just aren't any kind of reliable...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2016, 00:52
by madrat
Why wouldn't Kfir qualify in this single-engine race?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2016, 04:59
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Why wouldn't Kfir qualify in this single-engine race?


Same reason an F-104 wouldn't.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 00:46
by madrat
Can anyone deliver 60 F-104's all of one standard in 24 months?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 06:05
by weasel1962
The US can take 60 of any fighter type in the boneyard, refurbish them and get it combat fit in under 12 months.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 11:56
by madrat
The ability to get 60 from the boneyard isn't the same as 60 of a model built to use current ordnance and fitted with modernized electronics. What out of the boneyard could possibly fit this competition? F-16 already offered as new builds, so pretty much eliminates that option. They are looking at single-holers with technology transfer and operational in a short timeframe. Sounds like they really had something specific in mind already.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 13:14
by popcorn
Interesting to contemplate the prospect of supporting 60 jets from boneyard spares for the next 4 or 5 decades. :D

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 15:14
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:They are looking at single-holers with technology transfer and operational in a short timeframe. Sounds like they really had something specific in mind already.


That could be the F-16... however that sounds like Gripen NG more. The issue with NG is it still years away, however, the speed at which India moves that's practically tomorrow lol

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 16:51
by neurotech
weasel1962 wrote:The US can take 60 of any fighter type in the boneyard, refurbish them and get it combat fit in under 12 months.

Don't think they have 60 Super Hornets in the boneyard, only a few EMD models. Depot might have 60 jets they'd swap for new ones from Boeing. With the glacial pace of Indian procurement, they might find 60 Super Hornets from early lots in the boneyard, by the time they actually confirm the order.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 16:58
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Can anyone deliver 60 F-104's all of one standard in 24 months?


Wouldn't matter. The Kfir would lose, just like the F-104 if it could be delivered, because it's old and outclassed.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2016, 18:10
by neurotech
sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:Can anyone deliver 60 F-104's all of one standard in 24 months?


Wouldn't matter. The Kfir would lose, just like the F-104 if it could be delivered, because it's old and outclassed.

They are looking for a "Medium" fighter. If they wanted a light fighter, they have HAL Tejas in development, including with the upgraded F414 engine. I'm not sure the Gripen has any major strategic advantage for India.

The Super Hornet is one of the finest strike fighters available. It has capability not found on other jets, except the F-35 and maybe F-16 Block 60. Assuming they don't want advanced F-16s, and can't get the F-35, then the SuperBug makes sense. The Bug has been dropping precision weapons in combat since the Gulf War in 91, and SuperBug since late 2002.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2016, 09:49
by Corsair1963
neurotech wrote:
sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:Can anyone deliver 60 F-104's all of one standard in 24 months?


Wouldn't matter. The Kfir would lose, just like the F-104 if it could be delivered, because it's old and outclassed.

They are looking for a "Medium" fighter. If they wanted a light fighter, they have HAL Tejas in development, including with the upgraded F414 engine. I'm not sure the Gripen has any major strategic advantage for India.

The Super Hornet is one of the finest strike fighters available. It has capability not found on other jets, except the F-35 and maybe F-16 Block 60. Assuming they don't want advanced F-16s, and can't get the F-35, then the SuperBug makes sense. The Bug has been dropping precision weapons in combat since the Gulf War in 91, and SuperBug since late 2002.


If, India purchases the Gripen. It all but admits the LCA is a total failure! Honestly, don't see that happening..... :wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2016, 13:24
by madrat
And no Gripen is a medium class fighter unless something significantly smaller becomes mainstream

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2016, 21:13
by neurotech
Corsair1963 wrote:
neurotech wrote:They are looking for a "Medium" fighter. If they wanted a light fighter, they have HAL Tejas in development, including with the upgraded F414 engine. I'm not sure the Gripen has any major strategic advantage for India.

The Super Hornet is one of the finest strike fighters available. It has capability not found on other jets, except the F-35 and maybe F-16 Block 60. Assuming they don't want advanced F-16s, and can't get the F-35, then the SuperBug makes sense. The Bug has been dropping precision weapons in combat since the Gulf War in 91, and SuperBug since late 2002.


If, India purchases the Gripen. It all but admits the LCA is a total failure! Honestly, don't see that happening..... :wink:

Yes. It would practically admit that LCA is a failure. I made a few typos earlier

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 12:13
by jakobs
neurotech wrote:If they wanted a light fighter, they have HAL Tejas in development, including with the upgraded F414 engine. I'm not sure the Gripen has any major strategic advantage for India.


Gripen or Viper makes perfect sense for India. HAL will not be able to ramp up production for Tejas any time soon for the numbers that will be needed. There is definitely a need for another production line of something that works.

neurotech wrote:The Super Hornet is one of the finest strike fighters available. It has capability not found on other jets, except the F-35 and maybe F-16 Block 60. Assuming they don't want advanced F-16s, and can't get the F-35, then the SuperBug makes sense. The Bug has been dropping precision weapons in combat since the Gulf War in 91, and SuperBug since late 2002.


The problem is it will be expensive. They have cancelled the Rafale, there is no reason in my mind to think they could afford the Super Hornet instead. Viper or Gripen makes the most sense for the world of confusion that is Indian fighter procurement.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 15:49
by XanderCrews
jakobs wrote:The problem is it will be expensive. They have cancelled the Rafale, there is no reason in my mind to think they could afford the Super Hornet instead. Viper or Gripen makes the most sense for the world of confusion that is Indian fighter procurement.



The rafale is like 2-3 times more costly than the super hornet.

I don't disagree with anyone on the Tejas vs gripen argument, but if the f-16 is a no go because Pakistan, and the Gripen is a no go, what other single engine medium is there?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2016, 16:14
by zerion
India to buy 200-300 fighters if built in India.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india ... SKCN12T05M

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2016, 22:07
by popcorn
Wasn't the deal breaker for MMRCA the requirement for France to assume responsibility for any shortcomings of the local Indian partner over which it would have no control over under Indian labor laws? How will that concern be addressed in any new contract?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2016, 22:31
by arian
popcorn wrote:Wasn'g deal breaker for MMRCA was the requirement for France to assume responsibility for any shortcomings of the local Indian partner over which it would have no control over under Indian labor laws. How will that concern be addressed in any new contract?


Boeing can build an assembly facility in India and run it itself.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 02:22
by 35_aoa
XanderCrews wrote:The rafale is like 2-3 times more costly than the super hornet.


Sweet jesus, how much do they cost? A lot 37 Super Hornet is approaching $70-80 million a copy.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 03:02
by arian
35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The rafale is like 2-3 times more costly than the super hornet.


Sweet jesus, how much do they cost? A lot 37 Super Hornet is approaching $70-80 million a copy.


Fly-away costs for Rafale were well over twice that of a SH before 2014. Now that the Euro has collapsed relative to the dollar, they are "only" ~60% more expensive than SH.

Although that's just fly-away costs. Total costs per plane for India were said to be $200 million for the Rafale. For Australia in 2007, it was about $100 million per SH. Economies of scale.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 04:40
by 35_aoa
arian wrote:
35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The rafale is like 2-3 times more costly than the super hornet.


Sweet jesus, how much do they cost? A lot 37 Super Hornet is approaching $70-80 million a copy.


Fly-away costs for Rafale were well over twice that of a SH before 2014. Now that the Euro has collapsed relative to the dollar, they are "only" ~60% more expensive than SH.

Although that's just fly-away costs. Total costs per plane for India were said to be $200 million for the Rafale. For Australia in 2007, it was about $100 million per SH. Economies of scale.


bizarre……not worth it at all. A high lot Super Hornet is 1000 times more airplane than a Rafale.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 12:46
by hornetfinn
35_aoa wrote:
arian wrote:
35_aoa wrote:Sweet jesus, how much do they cost? A lot 37 Super Hornet is approaching $70-80 million a copy.


Fly-away costs for Rafale were well over twice that of a SH before 2014. Now that the Euro has collapsed relative to the dollar, they are "only" ~60% more expensive than SH.

Although that's just fly-away costs. Total costs per plane for India were said to be $200 million for the Rafale. For Australia in 2007, it was about $100 million per SH. Economies of scale.


bizarre……not worth it at all. A high lot Super Hornet is 1000 times more airplane than a Rafale.


Interesting, care to elaborate why you think so?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 20:49
by neurotech
hornetfinn wrote:
35_aoa wrote:bizarre……not worth it at all. A high lot Super Hornet is 1000 times more airplane than a Rafale.


Interesting, care to elaborate why you think so?

There are capabilities in the SH not found on other jets (except maybe F-35 with Block 3F) and new pods allow limited sensor fusion for A/G targeting. The details involve sensitive data, so not sure how much is public. The full targeting capability, and advanced datalink options, is mind-blowing compared to the rafale.

Apart from the higher unit cost of the Rafale, there have been serious issues with maintaining newer Mirage 2000-5 jets operated by foreign customers. Parts availability for countries like Taiwan was an ongoing issue. With the lower number of rafale jets in service, getting parts would likely be an issue. The superbug can be maintained as well as the checkbook and squadron parts supply allows.

The high lot superbug has minimal issues with DMS (Diminishing Manufacturing Sources) and even early lot jets are easier to maintain than comparable legacy hornets. Early lot jets have some parts common with legacy jets, and that results in some DMS issues.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 22:39
by XanderCrews
35_aoa wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The rafale is like 2-3 times more costly than the super hornet.


Sweet jesus, how much do they cost? A lot 37 Super Hornet is approaching $70-80 million a copy.



Yes, sir. the Indian Flyaway cost was hitting around 130 million (flyaway) IIRC (I aplogize my google fu is not finding it) The rate is like 11 built a year, its been in production since 2000 and there are already more F-35s made and flying. There are only like 150 Rafales of all marks in the whole world, and they are locked into the French logistics, support, and ordnance pipelines. The French version of the JDAM costs like 10 times what a US JDAM does. Its ridiculous and thats one of the reasons why this Indian deal went south. the cost just magically skyrocketed after Dassault promised them the moon, and then underbid the contract. Boeing was out fast in India because its illegal to sell the Super Hornet at a rate lower than what the US Government pays. Boeing basically had a bottom line, and once Dassault underbid Boeing was "well it was nice meeting you, thanks for the tea! and good luck!!" Knowing Dassault could not actually follow through on it, and lo and behold they were right. This is also why I laugh at Canadians who favor the Rafale. "But Dassault says..." and I just turn my brain off and think about bewbs.


They are pretty looking planes but they are rare, and they are not cheap. Its the problem that all the european fighters face. Small numbers, high prices, and fiscally constrained governments when it comes to the military. Its the perfect storm. In the meantime you can buy a super hornet, and know you have full support from Uncle Sugar who has hundreds of them in service and is serious about keeping them up to date and sharp. even if the Rafale was cheaper, I would pay more to get the bigger fleet with the country that cares.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 10:37
by hornetfinn
All very true. AFAIK, there are over 700 Super Hornets around (with current target being something like 740) when calculating both F/A-18E/Fs and Growlers together. That's several times more than number of Rafales and clearly brings the economies of scale. What I don't get is the cost of Eurofighter Typhoon as it still has pretty limited avionics systems like MSA radar, there are about 500 of them delivered (with target being similar to Super Hornet) and is still so expensive.

I think Rafale is very nice jet, although clearly pretty expensive and is also clearly less capable in air-to-ground operations than Super Hornet. Current targeting pod is pretty limited compared to ones used in SH and it seems that current upgrades to SH will keep it more than competitive.

I was interested how 35_aoa sees the comparison as he really knows what Super Hornet is capable of.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 17:01
by geforcerfx
35_aoa wrote:
bizarre……not worth it at all. A high lot Super Hornet is 1000 times more airplane than a Rafale.


Really? I always figured they were close to each other in a lot of there capability. Late blocks of both have aesa radar with some sensor fusion(not 5th gen level), the spectre system in the rafale actually looks pretty decent for a self protection system. The only major difference I have noticed is the price difference, and in a dogfight the rafale should be a bit more nimble(if that really matters).


I still think the super would be a great fit for India's needs, until they can get some sort of stealth multirole going.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2016, 06:38
by linkomart
geforcerfx wrote:

I still think the super would be a great fit for India's needs, until they can get some sort of stealth multirole going.


So does Boeing.....
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 446_1.html

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has already approached major global fighter vendors, inviting them to build single-engine, medium fighters in India.

Now the spotlight is expanding to encompass heavier, twin-engine fighters as well.



On Thursday, Pratyush Kumar, President of Boeing India revealed that he expected a second inquiry from the IAF, asking international manufactures for interest in building twin-engine fighters in the country.


IMHO
If this is true, India will operate a vide variety of aircrafts, unlike most other air forces that tries to cut down the number of aircrafts. Never say never but I'll not hold my breath for this one.

my 5 cent

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 03:50
by popcorn
The smart choice would be an Indian Viper but this Is India so... :devil:

http://fortune.com/2016/10/31/india-fig ... ufacturer/

Parrikar: India to Kick Off Competition for New Foreign Single-Engine Fighters

NEW DELHI — India will invite global competitive bids to select a foreign single-engine fighter to be made in India, said Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar.

Addressing a news conference here, Parrikar said the final selection for a western partner to provide a single-engine fighter for the Indian Air Force will depend on transfer of technology terms and the pricing proposed by the original equipment manufacturer.

Parrikar disclosed another single fighter line will be done under the Strategic Partnership model that will be announced later this month.

"We will submit a new acceptance of necessity proposal for new single engine fighters to Ministry of Defense in the next four months, and will request to fast-pace this new program," a senior IAF official said. "IAF will put up a demand for 200 new single engine fighters to be made in India, which will easily cost around $45 million apiece without weaponry."

The Strategic Partnership concept was mooted by MoD's Aatre Committee, which in its April 2016 report recommended appointment of select few private sector companies be designated as SPs.

However a top MoD official said selection of an Indian private company to manufacture single engine fighters will only be approved by the cabinet by the end of 2017. Thereafter a global bid will be floated, with expectation that Lockheed Martin of US and Saab of Sweden will pitch the F-16 Block 70 and Gripen, respectively.

The global tender will be floated in the first quarter of 2018. At that time, a private company will be nominated as the strategic partners production agency and a two or more year process will kick off to evaluate technical and financial bids and conduct extensive trials, MoD official noted.

The final government-to-government deal will be inked in 2021.

Currently, there is proposal to buy additional Rafale fighters, Parrikar announced, after an $8.8 billion deal was signed with France in September for 36 of the fighters.

IAF wants to replace its 11 aging Russia MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons in the next five to seven years. The service faces a shortage of fleet strength as it has around 34 operational fighter squadrons – 11 short of the 45 required to fight China and Pakistan at a future date.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 06:41
by talkitron
2021 is long time from now to sign a deal to build a new plant to start building F-16s.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 07:27
by popcorn
talkitron wrote:2021 is long time from now to sign a deal to build a new plant to start building F-16s.

That's assuming everything proceeds without a hitch... but this is India we're talking about remember?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 09:36
by arian
So now it's a single engine plane deal? Or is this a separate project from the one SH is competing for?

Is India going down the path of 5 different planes for 2 roles, again?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:02
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:The smart choice would be an Indian Viper but this Is India so... :devil:

http://fortune.com/2016/10/31/india-fig ... ufacturer/

Parrikar: India to Kick Off Competition for New Foreign Single-Engine Fighters

NEW DELHI — India will invite global competitive bids to select a foreign single-engine fighter to be made in India, said Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar.

Addressing a news conference here, Parrikar said the final selection for a western partner to provide a single-engine fighter for the Indian Air Force will depend on transfer of technology terms and the pricing proposed by the original equipment manufacturer.

Parrikar disclosed another single fighter line will be done under the Strategic Partnership model that will be announced later this month.

"We will submit a new acceptance of necessity proposal for new single engine fighters to Ministry of Defense in the next four months, and will request to fast-pace this new program," a senior IAF official said. "IAF will put up a demand for 200 new single engine fighters to be made in India, which will easily cost around $45 million apiece without weaponry."

The Strategic Partnership concept was mooted by MoD's Aatre Committee, which in its April 2016 report recommended appointment of select few private sector companies be designated as SPs.

However a top MoD official said selection of an Indian private company to manufacture single engine fighters will only be approved by the cabinet by the end of 2017. Thereafter a global bid will be floated, with expectation that Lockheed Martin of US and Saab of Sweden will pitch the F-16 Block 70 and Gripen, respectively.

The global tender will be floated in the first quarter of 2018. At that time, a private company will be nominated as the strategic partners production agency and a two or more year process will kick off to evaluate technical and financial bids and conduct extensive trials, MoD official noted.

The final government-to-government deal will be inked in 2021.

Currently, there is proposal to buy additional Rafale fighters, Parrikar announced, after an $8.8 billion deal was signed with France in September for 36 of the fighters.

IAF wants to replace its 11 aging Russia MiG-21 and MiG-27 squadrons in the next five to seven years. The service faces a shortage of fleet strength as it has around 34 operational fighter squadrons – 11 short of the 45 required to fight China and Pakistan at a future date.



I beginning to wonder if India isn't really making a play for the F-35???? First, why limit this new fighter to just a single engine??? Second, I don't see India selecting the Gripen. As this is as good as admitting the LCA is a total failure. Third, also hard to believe India would select a fighter operated by Pakistan. (i.e. F-16) Especially, considering the age of the type. Which, dates back to the late 70's. Finally, India is never going to be able to afford enough FGFA's to defend on two fronts. So, another 5th Generation Fighter would have to be at least on their minds.

In short I am not saying India is really making a secret play for the F-35. Yet, I can't foreclose the possibility! Surely, Trump would go all out to make such a deal happen..... :wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:02
by popcorn
arian wrote:So now it's a single engine plane deal? Or is this a separate project from the one SH is competing for?

Is India going down the path of 5 different planes for 2 roles, again?

AFAIK the SH was one of the fighters proposed to fill the void created when the Rafale order was reduced from 126 under MMRCA to the 36 under Modhi's negotiated buy. Now that the IAF will only allow single-engine jets to compete, all dual-engine jets are excluded.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:17
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:
arian wrote:So now it's a single engine plane deal? Or is this a separate project from the one SH is competing for?

Is India going down the path of 5 different planes for 2 roles, again?

AFAIK the SH was one of the fighters proposed to fill the void created when the Rafale order was reduced from 126 under MMRCA to the 36 under Modhi's negotiated buy. Now that the IAF will only allow single-engine jets to compete, all dual-engine jets are excluded.


Odd they would exclude twin engine fighters. Especially, the Super Hornet that uses the same engine as the LCA MKII and would be perfect for the forthcoming AMCA. It's also has a very reasonable price..... :wink:


It's also available in EW (Growler) and Naval Variants. Thereby making it extremely attractive or you would think???

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:39
by weasel1962
The Indians are not making a play for the F-35, at least not in this comp.

(a) The requirement to manufacture in India – not going to happen with the F-35.
(b) The requirement for technology transfer - not going to happen with the F-35.
(c) The requirement for large numbers – not going to be able to afford the F-35.

Only the F-16 and Gripen satisfy the requirements right now. The reasons are very simple to understand, the Indians don’t need to go through another prolonged competition. Both aircraft have already been assessed in the earlier comp and there is not going to be many changes. It ends up more on pricing and how much technology can be transferred to build up the manufacturing and aviation industrial base in India.

The Indians are well known for working backwards from a targeted result. They have probably already identified which aircraft they want to procure and merely putting in place parameters to ensure the final aircraft is selected.
I don’t think the F-16 is a guaranteed result because it will depend on how much technology can ultimately be transferred but they would have ironed out this in the meetings with the state department etc. The Gripen has its issues as many parts require US pre-approval. However I note certain technologies eg APESS and engines are already previously approved specifically for India.

There are F-16 advantages due to India having a very close relationship with Israel. The AWACs/ SAM links to the F-16 would likely be an easier result plus some munitions can be used on the F-16 e.g. Derby. Hence, it is imho highly likely the F-16 is the front-runner. The biggest issue for the previous India administration is getting over the “Pakis” have it also syndrome. I don’t think the Modi administration has that constraint.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On a separate note. Just wanted to gloat at the same time at the error of the earlier MMRCA. Getting stuck with 36 Rafale at a huge costand having to select another of the “weaker” candidates after a lot of propaganda and BS over how good the Rafale is, is sure stupidity of the Indian procurement system. Typical and totally expected though.
Need some comments on the a super hornet as this is a SH thread. I won’t be surprised if the SH gets selected by the IN to supplement the worthless Mig-29K on the CVs. Which would make 3 MMRCA fighter models instead of just 1. Logically, if the F-35 were to feature anywhere, the IN carriers would make the most sense considering the B variant is the first in service, already combat capable and is natural to a ski-jump. But that would make too much logical sense for the IN to consider.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:46
by hythelday
popcorn wrote:The smart choice would be an Indian Viper but this Is India so... :devil:

"We will submit a new acceptance of necessity proposal for new single engine fighters to Ministry of Defense in the next four months, and will request to fast-pace this new program," a senior IAF official said. "IAF will put up a demand for 200 new single engine fighters to be made in India, which will easily cost around $45 million apiece without weaponry."



What is it, 1989? :D Another Indian procurement that is set for failure from the get go.


Corsair1963 wrote:Odd they would exclude twin engine fighters. Especially, the Super Hornet that uses the same engine as the LCA MKII and would be perfect for the forthcoming AMCA. It's also has a very reasonable price..... :wink:



One version I've heard is that they made it single-engine only is because they don't want Dassault to try to appeal in any way.

Personally, I'd root for Gripen - this has the potential to save SAAB's fighter branch. It's not like Indian MoD is thinking about constructing an actual effective fighting force with the zoo that is their air force.

As for F-35... still don't think it's even remotely likely.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 11:01
by popcorn
The South Koreans will be seriously pissed if LM wins and the USG approves ToT of the 4 key technologies denied them eg. AESA, IRST. EOTS and EA (jamming).

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 11:15
by weasel1962
Its aircraft manufacturing, not sub-systems. Dont think we will see India manufacturing SABR radars if the F-16 wins. However spare parts will probably be part of the TOT whoch could see the the USAF relying on Indian parts to keep the F-16 fleet flying past 2020.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 11:35
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:
Personally, I'd root for Gripen - this has the potential to save SAAB's fighter branch. It's not like Indian MoD is thinking about constructing an actual effective fighting force with the zoo that is their air force.


The Gripen in very close in overall design and even uses the same engine as the LCA MKII. So, it's selection would be clearly admitting that the latter is a total failure. Otherwise, India would just be procuring LCA and could forget about any fighter competition in the first place. Honestly, doubt that would be politically acceptable regardless of the merits of the Gripen.



As for F-35... still don't think it's even remotely likely.


Really, then explain how India is going to counter the vast fleets of Chinese J-20's and J-31's. Which, she is gearing up to produce as we speak! Clearly, not with the PAK-FA/FGFA. As it will cost over $100 Million each and even then it's design has a number of shortcoming. Which, the Senior IAF Leadership has expressed openly about.

Oh, and before you claim the AMCA will come in and save the day. It's at the very early stages of development and a good 20 plus year off if not longer. Remember India's history in developing weapons programs. So, even that number maybe very be optimistic.....

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 11:51
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:Its aircraft manufacturing, not sub-systems. Dont think we will see India manufacturing SABR radars if the F-16 wins. However spare parts will probably be part of the TOT whoch could see the the USAF relying on Indian parts to keep the F-16 fleet flying past 2020.

India will asume responsibility for F-16 production, including new variants incorporating new tech that LM will market. This will necessarily require the transfer of advanced tech that will also benefit their own F-16 fleet and aerospace industry in general.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 12:16
by weasel1962
India already has Israeli AESA radar, EW systems, Litening pods etc so its not a question of operating advanced technologies. Neither the Gripen or F-16 will provide any significant uplift to those technologies in terms of usage (though they may see further etc). However, I doubt if US will ever allow India to manufacture its AESA radars or pods especially when the same tech are used for the latest fighter models e.g. F-35.

The most likely candidate for TOT might be engine sub-systems. Ironically, that’s what Sweden ended up doing with the F-404 (nka RM12) thru a Volvo – GE tie up to power the gripen. This would help boost the Kaveri engine if India ended up licensed producing the F-404 which could also power the LCA Mk2. The US would likely use that as a strong bargaining chip (if Gripen wins, no TOT on engine but if LM wins, GE ties up to provide TOT so India can manufacture critical parts for the F-404,

I think the Indians are gambling a little with the Chinese. Firstly China is reluctant to transfer its latest technologies to the Pakistanis (JF-17 not J-10, J-20 not exportable). Secondly, the Chinese are probably more focused on Taiwan rather than India. On the Tibetan border, its more to deter Indian mis-adventurism rather than territorial grab (they already have control over Aksai Chin which is what they were after). India is already effectively contained. Ultimately, the Tibetan airfields still have a lot of constraints (altitude) affecting very large scale PLAAF deployments.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 13:40
by popcorn
I would consider it likely that what LM is offering on the Blk 70 is superior to any Indian counterpart which ToT could help remedy. How will potential F-16 customers feel about indigenous Indian avionics? If Saab can make a more attractive ToT offer that would be a big plus for them.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 18:13
by hythelday
Corsair1963 wrote:
hythelday wrote:Personally, I'd root for Gripen.




hythelday wrote:As for F-35... still don't think it's even remotely likely.


Really, then explain how India is going to counter the vast fleets of Chinese J-20's and J-31's. Which, she is gearing up to produce as we speak! Clearly, not with the PAK-FA/FGFA. As it will cost over $100 Million each and even then it's design has a number of shortcoming. Which, the Senior IAF Leadership has expressed openly about.

Oh, and before you claim the AMCA will come in and save the day. It's at the very early stages of development and a good 20 plus year off if not longer. Remember India's history in developing weapons programs. So, even that number maybe very be optimistic.....


I am rooting for Gripen purely because it would be sad to see SAAB leave the fighter business, which they might eventually - not because I think Gripen is superior to F-16V/IN/Block 70 or whatever they call it now. LM are doing very well for themselves, couple hundred more Vipers won't make much difference.

I suppose IndAF could use magic. Or nuclear deterrence. If...IF J-20 (let's not forget J-31 is not intended for PLAAF as of yet) is real 5th gen then neither Super Hornet, nor F-16 or Rafale or all the MiGs India has will help them. To tell you the truth I don't really care.

Indians can bargain for F-35 all they want, but it's not gonna happen, not even if they dropped their ridiculous "Make in India" demands.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 21:47
by talkitron
weasel1962 wrote:Getting stuck with 36 Rafale at a huge costand having to select another of the “weaker” candidates after a lot of propaganda and BS over how good the Rafale is, is sure stupidity of the Indian procurement system.


I would put the Rafale in the same class as F/A-18E/F, F-15E recent export versions, and Typhoon. It is hardly a "weak candidate". In any case, Rafale was probably procured in only 36 units for the nuclear strike role and it is possible the US and UK/Spain/Germany/Italy were more reluctant to support nuclear strike. Rafale certainly serves in a French nuclear strike squadron, namely 1/91 "Gascogne", at least until recently (I am not going to rifle through Combat Aircraft/Air Forces Monthly issues to see if the nuclear strike squadron has recently changed names).

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-3036852/

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 00:09
by arian
Keep in mind these things are not LM's to give out. SABR radar for example is NG radar.

Second, simply because a plane is being assembled somewhere doesn't mean "India" owns it or builds it. LM will likely set up its own LM-owned final assembly line in India (if it wins), probably under some joint venture with HAL. Actual parts will be made mostly where they are made today.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 00:28
by popcorn
arian wrote:Keep in mind these things are not LM's to give out. SABR radar for example is NG radar.

Second, simply because a plane is being assembled somewhere doesn't mean "India" owns it or builds it. LM will likely set up its own LM-owned final assembly line in India (if it wins), probably under some joint venture with HAL. Actual parts will be made mostly where they are made today.

Agreed. I think though this goes a bit beyond the usual potential aircraft sale and should be taken in context of the ongoing strategy to realign and strengthen US-Indian relations ie. the US may be willing to offer more carrots than usual to win the girl.

What LM is offering,
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08 ... ck-70.html

A HARD LOOK AT THE F-16 BLOCK 70

Baranwal: What exactly is the offer of Lockheed Martin, also in the context of Make in India?

Abhay Paranjape (Paranjape): We are not looking at just assembling India’s aircraft here. We are looking at establishing the complete manufacturing base and the ecosystem here in India. We are looking at transferring our entire production from our existing Fort Worth facility to India and also exporting them from here. So what that means also, is, we now have a vested interest in making sure that it succeeds. Lockheed Martin is going to be selling aircraft made here to the world and we will make sure that it succeeds.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 02:08
by arian
popcorn wrote:
arian wrote:Keep in mind these things are not LM's to give out. SABR radar for example is NG radar.

Second, simply because a plane is being assembled somewhere doesn't mean "India" owns it or builds it. LM will likely set up its own LM-owned final assembly line in India (if it wins), probably under some joint venture with HAL. Actual parts will be made mostly where they are made today.

Agreed. I think though this goes a bit beyond the usual potential aircraft sale and should be taken in context of the ongoing strategy to realign and strengthen US-Indian relations ie. the US may be willing to offer more carrots than usual to win the girl.

What LM is offering,
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08 ... ck-70.html

A HARD LOOK AT THE F-16 BLOCK 70

Baranwal: What exactly is the offer of Lockheed Martin, also in the context of Make in India?

Abhay Paranjape (Paranjape): We are not looking at just assembling India’s aircraft here. We are looking at establishing the complete manufacturing base and the ecosystem here in India. We are looking at transferring our entire production from our existing Fort Worth facility to India and also exporting them from here. So what that means also, is, we now have a vested interest in making sure that it succeeds. Lockheed Martin is going to be selling aircraft made here to the world and we will make sure that it succeeds.


Of course. But that doesn't tell us much. "Complete manufacturing base and ecosystem" may simply mean making 30% of he parts for the F-16 there. This is about what HAL has been able to do with similar modern aircraft which have been licensed produced in India. "Complete" is political and journalistic speak for "some".

Their desires are obvious, but what they can actually do is also obvious. And as I said, "made in India" doesn't necessarily mean "made by Indian companies". LM would establish its own enterprise in India just as Boeing did (albeit with a JV with HAL). Otherwise there's no way for India to get anything for cheap if it tries to replicate the entire value chain of F-16 parts and production in India. First it won't be able to, but also it would take a decade or more and a lot more money.

That's been the usual progression of licensed production of US planes by other countries: they start off making simple stuff and it takes decades before they can go progress to making even a majority of parts. Even for countries like Japan.

Radars and electronics are a whole different ball game. Of course some support activities for electronics and radars will be done in India, but this is common to all users of US aircraft. Heck, even Saudi Arabia does many support activities for its APG-63 radars in Riyadh. They certainly didn't get tech transfer for the APG-63 however.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 02:15
by jakobs
weasel1962 wrote:The US would likely use that as a strong bargaining chip (if Gripen wins, no TOT on engine but if LM wins, GE ties up to provide TOT so India can manufacture critical parts for the F-404


I don't know, I don't think ToT for the engine will be much different between Saab and Lockheed. Were talking components only and I don't really see any reason the US would block that.

This deal is a lot bigger than just the engine, so if the Gripen would actually win it I find it hard to believe the US would try to block it via the engine.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 02:23
by arian
jakobs wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The US would likely use that as a strong bargaining chip (if Gripen wins, no TOT on engine but if LM wins, GE ties up to provide TOT so India can manufacture critical parts for the F-404


I don't know, I don't think ToT for the engine will be much different between Saab and Lockheed. Were talking components only and I don't really see any reason the US would block that.

This deal is a lot bigger than just the engine, so if the Gripen would actually win it I find it hard to believe the US would try to block it via the engine.


The Gripen is far more dependent on other country's supply chain than the F-16 is. You're right the US wouldn't block the sale, but the Gripen is already a far more expensive aircraft than the F-16 is and trying to duplicate its production in India would make it even that more expensive.

That being said, technology transfer is also not the same thing as making (some) parts for a system (like an engine) or having the ability to maintain them.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 04:33
by weasel1962
Sharing my thoughts about the Indian Navy CV fighter buy. INS Vikrant (IAC-1)’s intended fighter complement is 12 Mig-29Ks with 8 LCAs. This CV is due to be delivered in 2021 (but shipbuilder believes 2023 is a more realistic timeline).

IN initially bought 16 Mig-29Ks for INS Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov), assuming 81% serviceability for 13 fighters onboard. Then they bought another 29 for 12 onboard the Vikrant, assuming a total fleet serviceability of 51%. CAG indicated 37% serviceability over a 5 year period at best. This means IN would need to buy a further 19 Mig-29Ks for the 8 LCA as replacement. May need 38 if serviceability is at 18%.

If only for Vikrant, will only need 11 SH or Rafale assuming 75% serviceability. However, to modify and/or test 11 just for 1 CV stobar operation is cost-inefficient imho. 11 F-35Bs may be a far simpler solution but again small fleet issue. Another option to increase Mig-29K serviceability to 60% which means only another 6 Mig-29Ks may be needed for both CVs. Much easier said than done. Eventually, it may make sense to just operate Vikrant with a smaller fighter fleet than intended (<20).

INS Vishal (IAC-2) is supposed to be delivered in 2026. Vikrant will take 31-33 years from start in 1990. I think the actual delivery is likely to be beyond year 2030 since design started in 2012. I doubt if either the Rafale or SH production line is still operating then.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 04:39
by talkitron
weasel1962 wrote:I doubt if either the Rafale or SH production line is still operating then.


The French are slowing Rafale production down and there is speculation about another buy in the late 2020's to keep the line open. The long term plan is to modernize 40 Mirage 2000D's but those will need to be replaced at some date like 2030. Right now the factory is focusing more on export than domestic orders.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 19:15
by jakobs
arian wrote:but the Gripen is already a far more expensive aircraft than the F-16 is and trying to duplicate its production in India would make it even that more expensive.


I really fail to see how a locally produced F-16 block 70 or Gripen E/F would hold any kind of price advantage compared to one another.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 00:23
by arian
jakobs wrote:
arian wrote:but the Gripen is already a far more expensive aircraft than the F-16 is and trying to duplicate its production in India would make it even that more expensive.


I really fail to see how a locally produced F-16 block 70 or Gripen E/F would hold any kind of price advantage compared to one another.


If the Gripen costs twice as much as a new F-16 (probably more) given existing supply chain, I would guess trying to duplicate even some part of that production in India would increase Gripen prices more than F-16 prices. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone buys the Gripen.

But there will be no such thing as 100% made in India. 30% at best.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 17:34
by jakobs
I just think you're so cute for believing you could buy a brad new block 70 F-16 for half the price of a Gripen.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 19:10
by johnwill
:lmao:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 01:26
by arian
jakobs wrote:I just think you're so cute for believing you could buy a brad new block 70 F-16 for half the price of a Gripen.


Gripen E/F was sold to Brazil for ~$150 million per plane.

Older generation Gripen sold for around $50-60 million per plane.

F-16 Block 52 sold for $25 million in 2012. That's already half the price of a similar generation Gripen.

F-16 Block 60 is estimated to have cost UAE $50-55 million per plane.

That's actually 3 times cheaper than Gripen E/F.

So yeah half the price would be a good estimate. Economies of scale are a b*tch to beat.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 01:38
by arian
The notion that the Gripen E/F is a "cheap" plane comes from Sweden's purchase. But that's not a very insightful price when the country of origin sets up a contract to buy aircraft for itself. Market price is what matters, ie when you sell it to someone else.

Sweden's costs are estimated at about $45 million per E/F; but that's only for upgrading existing Gripen C to E/F standard. So no new airframes but upgrades. So it's $45 million just for the upgrade! That's already the cost of a new F-16 Block 60.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 16:24
by jakobs
arian wrote:
jakobs wrote:I just think you're so cute for believing you could buy a brad new block 70 F-16 for half the price of a Gripen.


Gripen E/F was sold to Brazil for ~$150 million per plane.

Older generation Gripen sold for around $50-60 million per plane.

F-16 Block 52 sold for $25 million in 2012. That's already half the price of a similar generation Gripen.

F-16 Block 60 is estimated to have cost UAE $50-55 million per plane.

That's actually 3 times cheaper than Gripen E/F.

So yeah half the price would be a good estimate. Economies of scale are a b*tch to beat.


You gotta stop, seriously. You are killing me! :lmao:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 18:21
by XanderCrews
jakobs wrote:I just think you're so cute for believing you could buy a brad new block 70 F-16 for half the price of a Gripen.


Gripen E? Absolutely a block 70 F-16 is cheaper.

In 2012-13 it was leaked that the gripen E for the Swiss was 107 million FLYAWAY cost.

Switzerland will pay far less for the 22 fighter jets it is planning to buy from the Swedish company Saab than Sweden itself would pay for the aircraft, the Swiss public broadcaster SF reported.


Switzerland is to buy the JAS-39 Gripen combat jets for 100 million Swiss francs ($107 million) each, SF reported late Sunday, citing unnamed sources in both Switzerland and Sweden.

That price is between 15 to 30 percent below the level Sweden itself has agreed to pay for the planes, according to the broadcaster's sources.

Stockholm has said it plans to buy between 40 to 60 Gripen jets, but has not said revealed how much it will pay for each.

A spokesman for the Swedish defence ministry refused on Monday to comment on the SF report.

Switzerland announced in August that it had agreed to the highly controversial deal to replace its ageing Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, with deliveries set to start in 2018.

It said the deal was worth 3.13 billion Swiss francs, but that amount included related services and it was unclear how much Switzerland would actually pay for each jet.

Swiss defence ministry spokeswoman Sonja Margelist declined to specify the amount paid per plane, saying her ministry would only speak about the full amount of the deal.

The Swiss Gripen purchase, which is part of a larger order for the planes to be shared with Sweden in a bid to cut production costs, is controversial in Switzerland because it will require spending cuts in other areas.

Defence Minister Ueli Maurer has countered the criticism by insisting that the Gripen "was the cheapest" option compared with the French Dassault Rafale and the EADS Eurofighter.

The deal must still receive a green light from the Swiss parliament and could possibly still be derailed by a popular referendum.

The agreement has also been criticized in Sweden for handing over very pricey merchandise at discount rates.

"Switzerland has no plans whatsoever to contribute to Gripen's development costs," Anna Dahlberg, a commentator with the Swedish daily Expressen, lamented after the August announcement.

She added "the country chose Gripen simply because it was the cheapest alternative."

AFP/The Local/og




They have to build gripen E by hand in small batches, meanwhile they are spending billions in Research and Development for it. Not to mention that they are going to keep splitting production all over the globe, making the problem worse.

Nothing is free. I believe the legacy gripen is between 45 million to 65 million depending on who you ask. That's a pretty wide variance, but cheap it is not. You can also ask the czechs how cheap they are after they crashed one of their leased ones and they got hit with the bill.

Look at Swiss procurement cost, look at the Brazil procurement cost. Why is it so much money? The world's most expensive light fighter.

Only on planet fanboy do gripen fans work themselves into a frenzy that 151 million for a Gripen E is cheap and 137 million for an F-35 is massively expensive

Laugh away. I've got numbers and proof. Gripen E is not cheap. It costs far more than the alternatives in some cases ridiculously so. In 2014 a super hornet cost $67 million flyaway. That is an aircraft with twice the number of gripen E engines, twice the weight. And it cost about 40 percent less, and is massively more capable especially in avionics

Gripen E isn't happening because it's a wunderwaffen it's happening because the Swedish government is giving Saab corporate welfare.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 18:58
by gideonic
IMHO India is exactly that kind of nation, that would never buy the F-16C (Block 70 or not) just because Pakistan is operating it, regardless of how good or cheap it is. Too much nationalistic "STRONK" mentality and corruption. I think, the only reason F-16 is even in the tender, is for it to look less like a direct sole-sourcing towards the Gripen.

The single engine requirement already seems really dubious and stupid to begin with. That, and the timeframe when they plan to actually purchase the aircraft, highly suggests that this is some shady behind-the-curtain deal to push Gripen.

After all, the notorious corruption of the Indian defence procurement agencies isn't exactly news.

Just my 2 cents ...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 19:09
by XanderCrews
gideonic wrote:IMHO India is exactly that kind of nation, that would never buy the F-16C (Block 70 or not) just because Pakistan is operating it, regardless of how good or cheap it is. Too much nationalistic "STRONK" mentality and corruption. I think, the only reason F-16 is even in the tender, is for it to look less like a direct sole-sourcing towards the Gripen.

The single engine requirement already seems really dubious and stupid to begin with. That, and the timeframe when they plan to actually purchase the aircraft, highly suggests that this is some shady behind-the-curtain deal to push Gripen.

After all, the notorious corruption of the Indian defence procurement agencies isn't exactly news.

Just my 2 cents ...



It also fits with India rejecting sensible American options to get bent over by expensive European over promise -- just like the Rafale!!

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 19:18
by jakobs
XanderCrews wrote:Gripen E? Absolutely a block 70 F-16 is cheaper.


Sure, I'm listening. Show me how much an F-16 block 70 cost.

XanderCrews wrote:In 2012-13 it was leaked that the gripen E for the Swiss was 107 million FLYAWAY cost.


Swedish planes have a flyaway cost of 74 million USD in todays exchange rate, if they were built from scratch without the ~100 components from the C/D. This is also in line with what Håkan Buskhe said about Brazil, where a little bit less than half the value of the 5.4 USD Billion is the flyway cost.

And this is for a plane that is just coming out of development.

XanderCrews wrote:You can also ask the czechs how cheap they are after they crashed one of their leased ones and they got hit with the bill.


I'm very confident that the czechs have never crashed a gripen.

XanderCrews wrote:Look at Swiss procurement cost, look at the Brazil procurement cost. Why is it so much money? The world's most expensive light fighter.


Look at the Iraqi procurement, look at the stalled Pakistan procurement, look at the pending Bahrain procurement. Why is it so much money for something the US is apparently practically giving away??

XanderCrews wrote:Only on planet fanboy do gripen fans work themselves into a frenzy that 151 million for a Gripen E is cheap and 137 million for an F-35 is massively expensive


I'm not really feeling the need to drag the F-35 into this conversation. As I said, look at the latest F-16 deals and we can see that it's by no menas cheap.

XanderCrews wrote:Laugh away. I've got numbers and proof. Gripen E is not cheap. It costs far more than the alternatives in some cases ridiculously so. In 2014 a super hornet cost $67 million flyaway. That an aircraft with twice the number of gripen E engines, twice the weight. And it cost about 40 percent less.


Ah yes, the old cheap Super Hornet. Proven by Australia and now Kuwait to be a real bargain.
Funny how it's always so ridiculously expensive when talking about the F-35, but otherwise it's always such a bargain.

XanderCrews wrote:Gripen E isn't happening because it's a wunderwaffen it's happening because the Swedish government is giving Saab corporate welfare.


Unlike all the other countries in the world that have fighter development... :doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 19:19
by jakobs
gideonic wrote:The single engine requirement already seems really dubious and stupid to begin with..


It is most likely there to not having to deal with Dassault.

There also have to be some kind of economic thinking behind it. Replacing hundreds of mig-21 with twin engine fighters would probably drive up the operating costs.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2017, 19:42
by madrat
Could we be overlooking something more to the latest round of requirements? Almost seems like the T-X program in the U.S. mirrors the requirements for price point. Could you mash one of the F404-equipped T-X contenders into something that matches requirements?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2017, 16:13
by XanderCrews
jakobs wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Gripen E? Absolutely a block 70 F-16 is cheaper.


Sure, I'm listening. Show me how much an F-16 block 70 cost.



about 70 million.


Swedish planes have a flyaway cost of 74 million USD in todays exchange rate, if they were built from scratch without the ~100 components from the C/D. This is also in line with what Håkan Buskhe said about Brazil, where a little bit less than half the value of the 5.4 USD Billion is the flyway cost.


Lets just take everyone at their word on this for a moment:

F-16 BK70- 70 million
Gripen E - 74 million
Super Hornet (FY17) 78 million
F-35A - 80-85 million

Point to the cheap light fighter. The fact that it costs at, near, or even slightly above the most advanced F-16 is what I would call a "fail" for what is supposed to be a cheap light fighter.

I await the excuses but 74 million is simply too much. and of course its already 10 million more than what they were saying it would cost 10 years ago.

This is my issue with Gripen fans. Its cheap because they say it is, not for what it costs. then they hit you with that "$4700 CPFH" and my eyes roll like a Gripen at an airshow.

I'm very confident that the czechs have never crashed a gripen.


my mistake it was the gripens the Hungarians crashed, one in the CZ rep.

Ah yes, the old cheap Super Hornet. Proven by Australia and now Kuwait to be a real bargain.
Funny how it's always so ridiculously expensive when talking about the F-35, but otherwise it's always such a bargain.


More to it than meets the eye. especially for example with Canada which is a fairly unique yet well documented case.

Unlike all the other countries in the world that have fighter development... :doh:


twisting my message, the point is yes many nations opt not to develop their own fighter but buy from others, or buy from others with customized features for themselves. The Gripen E is not going according to plan. And the market envisioned for it does not seem to be there. Why Sweden didn't go with a specialized F-16 is beyond me--too late now!. But the point is to keep their industry going. so no matter how much the new Gripen becomes ungripen like (gains weight, increases cost, has a smaller market, is less sustainable, etc) they will push on. Being watching it unfold for 10 years now.


Having said that the Indians will probably buy it because its not a Pakistani machine, and everyone can blame the Indians themselves when the price skyrockets, oh and by the way we watched the original gripen cost projections go out the window, and seeing as this is not even in the air yet, I won't be surprised to see the 74 million go higher... (also no idea why Brazil are paying 151 million for a 74 million dollar fighter, but hey its cheap to sustain i guess? tpyically flyaway is about 70 percent of the procurement cost)


Gripen E is loaded with contradiction, which is not a surprise given that the story keeps changing since it's been an idea on paper for years and years now. Paper airplanes are easy to create

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2017, 16:22
by vilters
Well, close to all salesmen on this planet have been trying to sell the Griphen.

Unless politically required (for one or other dark reason) buying a low production A/C is stupid.

Always buy something that goes into MASS production to keep costs lower.

Not only for the initial buy, but certainly for long term logistics.
=> I wonder?
Who will make spare parts for a Griphen in 40 years from now? And at what cost?

Buying F-16, F-18, F-35 is buying into long term and well proven logistical chains.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2017, 17:34
by jakobs
XanderCrews wrote:about 70 million.


Which is in line with the Gripen, which was what I said from the start. These two contenders are going to be in a very similar price range for India.

XanderCrews wrote:Point to the cheap light fighter. The fact that it costs at, near, or even slightly above the most advanced F-16 is what I would call a "fail" for what is supposed to be a cheap light fighter.


I wouldn't really call that a fail at all. F-16 is at the bottom of the price range for fighters. It's not magical. It's a lightweight single engine fighter with all the benefits and all the drawbacks that comes with it.

XanderCrews wrote:and of course its already 10 million more than what they were saying it would cost 10 years ago.


Different from all fighter developments?

XanderCrews wrote:my mistake it was the gripens the Hungarians crashed, one in the CZ rep.


Anyway the crash was handled with insurance according to terms in the agreement. Cheap or not, the whole deal for the Czechs and Hungarians is pretty bad. If you wan't the best deal possible simply don't lease fighters, buy them.

XanderCrews wrote:twisting my message, the point is yes many nations opt not to develop their own fighter but buy from others, or buy from others with customized features for themselves. The Gripen E is not going according to plan. And the market envisioned for it does not seem to be there. Why Sweden didn't go with a specialized F-16 is beyond me--too late now!. But the point is to keep their industry going. so no matter how much the new Gripen becomes ungripen like (gains weight, increases cost, has a smaller market, is less sustainable, etc) they will push on. Being watching it unfold for 10 years now.


If you have a fighter industry, why would you throw that away? Once you throw it away it is gone.
For Sweden nothing could be bought on the western market that would offer any savings over the new Gripen, only upwards of 100 000 jobs to loose. I wonder what DJT would have done?

It will find it's market in the upcoming decades. How it goes we can only speculate about.

XanderCrews wrote:Having said that the Indians will probably buy it because its not a Pakistani machine, and everyone can blame the Indians themselves when the price skyrockets


If they were to actually to buy it it would probably not have much to do with Pakistan operating the F-16.

XanderCrews wrote:oh and by the way we watched the original gripen cost projections go out the window


And remind me again how this is different from any other fighter development?

XanderCrews wrote:(also no idea why Brazil are paying 151 million for a 74 million dollar fighter


Why does no one ever pay flyaway cost for a fighter?

XanderCrews wrote:Gripen E is loaded with contradiction, which is not a surprise given that the story keeps changing since it's been an idea on paper for years and years now. Paper airplanes are easy to create


Yes, but once again this is true for most fighter's that have been developed. Until it's signed of and funded it will probably change several times from what was the first thought.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2017, 20:39
by XanderCrews
jakobs wrote:
Which is in line with the Gripen, which was what I said from the start. These two contenders are going to be in a very similar price range for India.

I wouldn't really call that a fail at all. F-16 is at the bottom of the price range for fighters. It's not magical. It's a lightweight single engine fighter with all the benefits and all the drawbacks that comes with it.



The F-16 is more capable though. It carry larger external loads and has a better T/W overall. On the market, the Gripen is basically a "F-16 lite" and the loss in capability is fine as it costs less. That was always the notion.

Gripen E is different. It costs the same, and doesn't do as much. Which makes one wonder what the point of the whole endeavor is. F-16 has the F-16 market cornered. And there is going to be far more sustain for 4,000+ F-16s than from under 100 GRipen E ordered so far.

Different from all fighter developments?


Nope not different at all, but my point is the margins are far more tight. What happens if the Gripen cost escalates? Gripen E is far more unknown with more Risk than the F-16IN.

If its at 74 million, what happens if it slips 5-10 million more? Thats absurd for what it is and what its supposed to be. They appear to have "missed the plot"

If you have a fighter industry, why would you throw that away? Once you throw it away it is gone.
For Sweden nothing could be bought on the western market that would offer any savings over the new Gripen, only upwards of 100 000 jobs to loose. I wonder what DJT would have done?


You want to compare Sweden and Trump? :doh:

It will find it's market in the upcoming decades.


I remember hearing that with the original Gripen. How did that work out? This seems even more dubious as once again its supposed to be the cheaper stand out option, rather than another one in the crowd. Saab seems to be banking on this notion:

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/singapor ... 1455771998

How it goes we can only speculate about.


Maybe, Maybe not. Gripen NG has already been rejected in many competitions.

And remind me again how this is different from any other fighter development?


Again, they have far less margin for error or price increases.

Why does no one ever pay flyaway cost for a fighter?


I can't tell if you are deliberately missing the point or really just lost.

Yes, but once again thisis true for most fighter's that have been developed. Until it's signed of and funded it will probably change several times from what was the first thought.


It already has. several times. I don't think people are going to like what comes out on the other end.

Image

This is of course not up to date, the 7000 kg empty weight for Gripen E is now 8000 kg.

They are not equal. Gripen E is already going to have less thrust and kinematic capability than the Gripen C. :doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 01:13
by jakobs
XanderCrews wrote:The F-16 is more capable though. It carry larger external loads and has a better T/W overall. On the market, the Gripen is basically a "F-16 lite" and the loss in capability is fine as it costs less. That was always the notion.


It always depends on what is asked for, as there is quite big differences to the planes. If you need a A2A fighter with good A2G capabilities to defend your airspace the gripen will be a better choice.

XanderCrews wrote:Gripen E is different. It costs the same, and doesn't do as much. Which makes one wonder what the point of the whole endeavor is. F-16 has the F-16 market cornered. And there is going to be far more sustain for 4,000+ F-16s than from under 100 GRipen E ordered so far.


As I said it is two very different planes, with different sensor suits, different weapons integrated etc etc. The F-16 obviously dosen't have the market cornered.

XanderCrews wrote:Nope not different at all, but my point is the margins are far more tight. What happens if the Gripen cost escalates? Gripen E is far more unknown with more Risk than the F-16IN.

If its at 74 million, what happens if it slips 5-10 million more? Thats absurd for what it is and what its supposed to be. They appear to have "missed the plot"


It's easy, they just cough up the dough as all other fighter projects. You can call it absurd if you want to, but that is just that: your opinion.

When it comes to risk I don't think anyone would consider the new Gripen as particularly high risk. Also the timeline set for the "new" competition eases this issue.

XanderCrews wrote:You want to compare Sweden and Trump?


No, but he is hardly unique in that sense. No sane person, politician or not, would freely give away that amount of jobs if there is no reason to do it.

XanderCrews wrote:I remember hearing that with the original Gripen. How did that work out? This seems even more dubious as once again its supposed to be the cheaper stand out option, rather than another one in the crowd. Saab seems to be banking on this notion

]Maybe, Maybe not. Gripen NG has already been rejected in many competitions.


It also won two competitions before flying, so they must have something sought of. Its a safe bet that it will increase it's orders in the future.

I could also write: "I remember hearing that with the original *insert fighter of choice that one is arguing against*. How did that work out?"

XanderCrews wrote:I can't tell if you are deliberately missing the point or really just lost.


How am I missing the point? You use the US flyaway cost as a selling price for the plane you like and you take a multi-billion deal and just divide it with the number of airframes for the plane you don't like. That dosen't seem very serious.

XanderCrews wrote:It already has. several times. I don't think people are going to like what comes out on the other end.
This is of course not up to date, the 7000 kg empty weight for Gripen E is now 8000 kg.
They are not equal. Gripen E is already going to have less thrust and kinematic capability than the Gripen C. :doh:


Again, show me a fighter who has not changed during development? Especially one that was not even signed of and funded.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 01:20
by arian
Sorry but Swedish costs for Gripen E/F do not reflect market price for Gripen E/F. That much should be obvious. F-16 prices are market prices which include of course premium that LM and other companies are going to get, which generally in these European government purchases from their own companies may well not be present (or the company may even sell it for a loss to the home government). Lots of accounting tricks on the home turf which do not appear in market prices with other countries.

So, lets get a figure for how much fly-away cost Brazil paid for Gripen E/F and then we'll talk.

And even IF $74 million is the Swedish fly-away cost, that is still a) way more than F-16 would cost, even the Block 70, and certainly pretty expensive for what it is.

Brazil paid $150 million per plane, and although that includes maintenance as well (so not fly-away cost), it's also not $150 million since it is funded through a 25 year 2.5% loan (so you do the math what the actual amount paid comes out to)

Now of course if you're going to play the exchange rate game, you can buy Russian planes at half price now since the ruble has collapsed. That doesn't mean any of the costs of the plane have changed at all.

The older generation Gripen C was already TWICE as expensive as a comparable generation F-16. That's important to keep in mind.

BTW an F-16 Block 60 already has AESA and IRST and all the other goodies that supposedly Gripen E/F would bring along, and that cost between $50-55 million for UAE. So even if we take the Swedish $74 million figure on face value and accept it as realistic of what others would pay...that's already 40-50% more expensive than an F-16 Block 60.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 01:24
by arian
jakobs wrote:How am I missing the point? You use the US flyaway cost as a selling price for the plane you like and you take a multi-billion deal and just divide it with the number of airframes for the plane you don't like. That dosen't seem very serious.


Again, you can go ahead and give us the "fly-away cost" of a Brazilian Gripe E/F...if you can so disentangle that price from the contract price.

Second, countries buy the whole thing. They don't buy just the plane. Countries that already operate F-16s, for example, already have a support and maintenance system in place so whenever they would by a newer version F-16, the overall contract will be smaller since they don't need to duplicate maintenance and supply.

That is the case with Sweden, for example, and its Gripen E/F.

That's obviously not the case with Brazil, and it won't be the case with India either. That's why there's differences between prices 1) a current user of an older version pays, 2) the home country of the company making the plane pays, and 3) a completely new user of a plane pays.

I can't disentangle the fly-away cost of the Brazilian Gripen from the rest of the contract, but since you find my figures so hilarious...yo can maybe take the effort to go ahead and give us that figure :wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 03:58
by jakobs
arian wrote:Sorry but Swedish costs for Gripen E/F do not reflect market price for Gripen E/F.


Why not? US flyaway cost is used on this forum all the time as "market price".

arian wrote:So, lets get a figure for how much fly-away cost Brazil paid for Gripen E/F and then we'll talk.


As I said earlier, the flyaway for the planes is half the value of the deal, this has been communicated several times by Saab in the swedish press and also in the Brazilian press.

arian wrote:And even IF $74 million is the Swedish fly-away cost, that is still a) way more than F-16 would cost, even the Block 70, and certainly pretty expensive for what it is.


And once again, you need to stop being hilarious.

arian wrote:Brazil paid $150 million per plane, and although that includes maintenance as well (so not fly-away cost), it's also not $150 million since it is funded through a 25 year 2.5% loan (so you do the math what the actual amount paid comes out to)


In the brazilian deal there is included training, significant tot, significant development of Brazilian techniques, a weapons package, maintenance and spares and a crapload of other things.

Again, why should we be using flyaway prices for US fighters but never look at the whole package deal they sell with, but with Gripen we should only take the billion deal it is sold with and divide it by the number of airframes?

arian wrote:BTW an F-16 Block 60 already has AESA and IRST and all the other goodies that supposedly Gripen E/F would bring along, and that cost between $50-55 million for UAE. So even if we take the Swedish $74 million figure on face value and accept it as realistic of what others would pay...that's already 40-50% more expensive than an F-16 Block 60.


It's ridiculously retareded to think an almost 20 year old deal would serve as any kind of guideline to what India would pay for the F-16.

Last page you claimed an F-16 Block 52 could be sold for 25 million just a few years ago, still Pakistan is super pissed because they have to pay almost 90 million if they want them. And Pakistan already uses the F-16, which by your logic should have them only paying close to the flyaway cost.

Also I was not aware of the block 60 having IRST, thanks for adding that.

arian wrote:Second, countries buy the whole thing. They don't buy just the plane. Countries that already operate F-16s, for example, already have a support and maintenance system in place so whenever they would by a newer version F-16, the overall contract will be smaller since they don't need to duplicate maintenance and supply.


Ah so now you wanna talk about the whole package deal do you?


I'm gonna keep my discussion with XanderCrews going because he seem serious, you I'm just gonna ignore from now on.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 10:20
by basher54321
Seem to remember Lock Mart originally advertising it with IRST - so not 100% it was never put on of course - would need to find the very old reference.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 23:11
by arian
jakobs wrote:I'm gonna keep my discussion with XanderCrews going because he seem serious, you I'm just gonna ignore from now on.


LOL. Ok bud. I guess when you have no figures to back up anything you say, just resort to ad hominem.

Let's recap here for a moment:

1) Yes people use US procurement prices of planes as examples of what the planes will cost. US procurement is a lot different from Swedish procurement because they have very different contracts (Swedish contract is a fixed-price contract, US one is a cost-plus contract. I hope I don't need to explain the difference), and more importantly we have LOTS of foreign procurement prices for US planes to compare against and they appear to be similar in price.

2) If the Brazilian deal is, as you say, half for flyaway cost and half for maintenance and support, than that STILL means Gripen E/F for Brazil costs $75 million flyaway cost.

Of course it's not actually that, because as I said it is financed through a 25 year 2.5% loan. So you figure out what the actual amount of money you pay at the end. It ain't $75 million you pay at the end fly-away cost for Brazil. It's quite a bit more. But lets just assume $75 million for now.

3) F-16 Block 60 for UAE you say is not a realistic figure because you think its an "old" deal and therefore has no relevance to the discussion. Except that F-16 Block 60 is a comparable aircraft to the Gripen E/F, with AESA, IRST, etc.

So we're comparing like with like, and by your own admission, the F-16 achieved comparable levels of capability to Gripen E/F "nearly 20 years ago". I absolutely agree with you :D

4) F-16 Block 60 cost $50-55 million for UAE. And as you say since it's an old deal, that means producing new F-16s to that level of technology should actually be cheaper than that today.

5) $50-55 million F-16 Block 60 compared to $75 million (assuming) for Gripen E/F is about 50% to 36% cheaper, for comparable level aircraft.

Have a good day.

PS: Of course the same price differentials held for prior generation Gripen C and F-16 Block 52: ~$50 million vs ~$25 million. And you're absolutely right, again, that F-16 achieved the same level of technology a lot earlier than Gripen C. So again you're arguing against your own case here by pointing that out.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 23:17
by arian
PPS: BTW a 25 year loan at 2.5% interest comes out to about $135 million that Brazil pays at the very end for the flyaway costs of a Gripen E/F (assuming that half the contract is for fly-away cost as you claim). Of course in NPV that's not $135 million since you have to discount it...so go ahead and figure out what an appropriate discount out to 25 years is (hint: it's not 2.5%). So in the end, Brazil pays a lot more than $75 million flyaway cost.

So that 50% price advantage of F-16 Block 60 easily turns into something far north of that.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 02:21
by weasel1962
Hints of grease in many gripen contracts. Price differential wont make that much difference other than whose pockets get lined.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2017, 16:39
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:Hints of grease in many gripen contracts. .


This is one that makes gripen fanboys cry. Saab is too pure, and gripens too awesome to have to resort to bribes! They got caught in South AFRICA and fanboys blame BAE partners...

The simple truth is gripen are sought in parts of the world where bribery is still the order of the day. Which is why I laugh when they say "there are no bribes involved in Brazil" lol that's a first. You got a multi billion dollar Contract in BRAZIL and there were no bribes?! Same with India. Lol wow how did you pull that off?

I'm not judging. It's just the way things are in some places. People think SAAB can play in the dirt and not get dirty is a little ridiculous. And besides they have no problem saying every other fighter is winning thanks to bribes and politics.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2017, 19:05
by mixelflick
Back on point: It sure is hard to see India operating Super Hornets. Logistically speaking, they must have such nightmares already with the Rafale coming on board.

Speaking of which: I seem to recall them ordering Mig-29K's for their carrier. Why on earth do that with Rafale's coming on board soon? In the long shot event they do get the SH, that'd be another (I would think) credible platform to operate off the carrier.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2017, 18:33
by aprichelieu
arian wrote:PPS: BTW a 25 year loan at 2.5% interest comes out to about $135 million that Brazil pays at the very end for the flyaway costs of a Gripen E/F (assuming that half the contract is for fly-away cost as you claim). Of course in NPV that's not $135 million since you have to discount it...so go ahead and figure out what an appropriate discount out to 25 years is (hint: it's not 2.5%). So in the end, Brazil pays a lot more than $75 million flyaway cost.

So that 50% price advantage of F-16 Block 60 easily turns into something far north of that.


Denmark was quoted 48 Gripen E at $64M a piece (22 BDKr).

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2017, 21:22
by madrat
A decked out F-16 with the latest bells and whistles, complete with CFTs and targeting pods, is not very cheap even compared to F/A-18E without CFT and the same comparable targeting pods. F-35 has the equivalent equipment internalized by default. Nobody can make a rational judgement for Gripen NG if F-35 is available. It's price has dropped to the point even Sweden should opt for F-35.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 01:24
by arian
aprichelieu wrote:
arian wrote:PPS: BTW a 25 year loan at 2.5% interest comes out to about $135 million that Brazil pays at the very end for the flyaway costs of a Gripen E/F (assuming that half the contract is for fly-away cost as you claim). Of course in NPV that's not $135 million since you have to discount it...so go ahead and figure out what an appropriate discount out to 25 years is (hint: it's not 2.5%). So in the end, Brazil pays a lot more than $75 million flyaway cost.

So that 50% price advantage of F-16 Block 60 easily turns into something far north of that.


Denmark was quoted 48 Gripen E at $64M a piece (22 BDKr).


And yet they never submitted to the competition.

weasel1962 wrote:Hints of grease in many gripen contracts. Price differential wont make that much difference other than whose pockets get lined.


Of course. I personally find it astonishing anyone would buy a Gripen for any other reason.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 19:47
by mixelflick
Can someone please answer this?

Assuming India proceeds with a Rafale buy... why would they opt for Mig-29K's vs. the Rafale? I'd think the Rafale has it all over the Mig??

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2017, 23:15
by popcorn
mixelflick wrote:Can someone please answer this?

Assuming India proceeds with a Rafale buy... why would they opt for Mig-29K's vs. the Rafale? I'd think the Rafale has it all over the Mig??

Rafale is a very capable but pricey asset. I wouldn't want to hamstring it with limited fuel and weapons load operating off of a STOBAR ship. Heck, even launching from CdG which is a CATOBAR CVN the Rafale is compromised based on feedback from Libyan operations.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 03:55
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:Can someone please answer this?

Assuming India proceeds with a Rafale buy... why would they opt for Mig-29K's vs. the Rafale? I'd think the Rafale has it all over the Mig??



India is a illogical the end

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2017, 03:59
by XanderCrews
arian wrote:And yet they never submitted to the competition.
.


Image

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 09:44
by popcorn
The Indian Navy is set to acquire a foreign fighter capable of operating from it's carrier fleet after the Navalized Tejas failed to meet expectations. It's possible this could be tied to the IAF acquisition of single-engine jets. If som SAAB may have an advantage by offering a single platform to serve both services,


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/N ... 105331.ece
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 784_1.html

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 16:44
by southernphantom
Considering that nobody in their right mind would want to order MiG-29s any more, the choices are between the Super Bug and the Rafale. My guess would be the Rafale, as the IAF already ordered three dozen, but Indian procurement is laughably inconsistent, so who really knows what they're going to do?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 17:37
by mixelflick
popcorn wrote:The Indian Navy is set to acquire a foreign fighter capable of operating from it's carrier fleet after the Navalized Tejas failed to meet expectations. It's possible this could be tied to the IAF acquisition of single-engine jets. If som SAAB may have an advantage by offering a single platform to serve both services,


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/N ... 105331.ece
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 784_1.html


Wait, I thought they settled on Mig-29K's?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 23:11
by talkitron
mixelflick wrote:Wait, I thought they settled on Mig-29K's?


The new aircraft being discussed are for carriers yet to be built. They cannot design a carrier without a good idea of the takeoff/landing requirements for the embarked air wing.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 00:44
by neptune
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 26657.html


India keen to buy F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jets for IAF

India had considered F-18 Super Hornet during the earlier hunt for 126 medium multi-role fighter jets. But the US entry lost out to the French Rafale.


Posted by Anand Jayaram
New Delhi,
March 24, 2016

India is keen to consider Boeing's offer to supply F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets to the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Sources said that New Delhi will take a hard look at the proposal in April when a high-level delegation will engage the Indian officials on the construct of the offer. US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter will be in India on April 10 in a visit that is expected to take lift cooperation to a new level. Boeing has offered F/A-18 Super Hornets under the "Make in India" framework of the Indian government. Sources said the proposal is worth considering as IAF is facing acute shortage of fighter jets. The IAF has already made it clear that the 36 Rafale fighter jets that are being negotiated with France are inadequate to meet its operational requirement. There is a view emerging in the Indian security establishment that F/A-18 Super Hornets can also negate the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan by the US. Super Hornet is a carrier based multi-role fighter which can be used by the Indian navy as well. Sources said the aircraft can meet both the IAF and Indian navy's operational requirement. India had considered F-18 Super Hornet during the earlier hunt for 126 medium multi-role fighter jets. But the US entry lost out to the French Rafale.

With the government scrapping the proposed contract which could not be sealed even after prolonged discussions with the French side, it opened doors for other fighter makers to make fresh bids. Defense minister Manohar Parrikar has said the government is working out the best deal with the French. The contract, said to be in the final lap of negotiations is stuck over the price of 36 jets being sought by the French side. Sources said the deal is working out to be worth Rs 60,000 crore.

There is a sense of urgency in acquiring new aircraft as IAF's force levels are depleting due to an ageing fleet. Sources said the "Make in India" proposal of F-18s will solve the problem on the long term basis. Boeing's proposal also involves significant transfer of technology with a substantial indigenous content.

The proposal will also benefit the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft "Tejas" programme which needs to be resurrected after prolonged delays. Sources said the acquisition can be put on fast track considering the urgency. The government has already stressed on going for direct military sale the route which is faster instead of inviting global bids.

:)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 04:57
by delta9991
This could present a way the Super Hornet could get many of its proposed "Smarter ASH" upgrades that Boeing has been pitching since the original iteration was laughed off. India is looking for make at home and the US is keen on strengthening defense ties. Have the IAF partner up with the USN to develop the EDE F414 for an Indian Super (heck, even add Sweden to the mix as the F414 will go on the Gripen NG as well) and share costs for the conformal tanks and new cockpit to boot. With Mattis's report very likely to say exactly what everyone here already knows about the comparison between the Super and F-35, the Navy will probably get the funding it'd need for the upgrades and a partner will only make it that much better for both parties.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 15:47
by XanderCrews
delta9991 wrote:. With Mattis's report very likely to say exactly what everyone here already knows about the comparison between the Super and F-35, the Navy will probably get the funding it'd need for the upgrades and a partner will only make it that much better for both parties.


I don't think it's going to get the funding, so I guess we differ on opinion there.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 19:35
by delta9991
XanderCrews wrote: I don't think it's going to get the funding, so I guess we differ on opinion there.

Maybe I should have rephrased how I said that. I think we'll see Mattis come back and say the F-35 is the only suitable aircraft going forward and the Super Hornet is vastly outclassed to the point of needing upgrades to keep up with the curve. India wants a partner, Boeing needs the line open, and Trump wants to shower the money. It's the best chance the ASH has got to see the light of day.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 04:48
by Corsair1963
delta9991 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: I don't think it's going to get the funding, so I guess we differ on opinion there.

Maybe I should have rephrased how I said that. I think we'll see Mattis come back and say the F-35 is the only suitable aircraft going forward and the Super Hornet is vastly outclassed to the point of needing upgrades to keep up with the curve. India wants a partner, Boeing needs the line open, and Trump wants to shower the money. It's the best chance the ASH has got to see the light of day.


That is all great for the US and especially Boeing. Yet, the Super Hornet or any 4.5 Generation Fighter for that matter. Won't provide an effective counter to future Chinese Stealth Fighters. Which, are just around the corner....

Honestly, the only viable solution for India and many other nations is in fact the F-35. As without it they will become 2nd rate Air Forces......

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 02:19
by popcorn
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 884897.cms

RFP for 57 multi-role combat fighter jets likely by mid-2018: Indian Navy

NEW DELHI: Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba today said a request for proposal (RFP) is likely to be issued by mid-2018 for the procurement of 57 multi-role combat fighter jets for the Navy's aircraft carrier.
"Hopefully we will be able to issue the RFP by middle of next year," he said.
Four aircraft manufacturers have shown interest in the project.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 05:34
by neptune
popcorn wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/rfp-for-57-multi-role-combat-fighter-jets-likely-by-mid-2018-indian-navy/articleshow/61884897.cms

RFP for 57 multi-role combat fighter jets likely by mid-2018: Indian Navy

NEW DELHI: Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba today said a request for proposal (RFP) is likely to be issued by mid-2018 for the procurement of 57 multi-role combat fighter jets for the Navy's aircraft carrier.
"Hopefully we will be able to issue the RFP by middle of next year," he said.
Four aircraft manufacturers have shown interest in the project.


....apologies for not keeping up but, is this CATOBAR or ski-jump?
:)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 06:41
by rheonomic
If I remember correctly they were looking into CATOBAR with EMALS.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 07:38
by popcorn
Indigenous Carrier 1 is ski-jump. Indigenous Carrier 2 is purportedly CATOBAR. AFAIK.

You'ld expect the Indians wantng a figjter that could operate off of both. So Rafale and SH would seem to have an edge.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 09:45
by neptune
popcorn wrote:Indigenous Carrier 1 is ski-jump. Indigenous Carrier 2 is purportedly CATOBAR. AFAIK.

You'ld expect the Indians wantng a figjter that could operate off of both. So Rafale and SH would seem to have an edge.


....any guess as to how much fuel and ordinance (MTOW) the SBug can carry for the ski jump C1?

Maybe some insight may come from the Brits with the "Bee" MTOW and the QEs.
:)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 10:43
by popcorn
My mistake, apparently Indigenous Aircraft Carriers 1 and 2 are STOBAR and IAC 3 will be CATOBAR.

As for SH launching off from a ramp, Boeing claims the SH will carry fuel and ordnance loads 'relevant' to the Indian Navy's requirements (whhatever that means :D ).

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 10:57
by popcorn
Here's an interesting account on the Rafale operating from the Charles de Gaulle during the Libyan conflict.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-libyan-air-o ... rspective/

Lt. Gen. Desclaux: Basically, in the AOR, whether the Rafale was air or navy, it was conducting the same type of mission; 70 percent dynamic targeting, and 30 percent deliberate targeting. Obviously the advantage of being on an aircraft carrier is you’re closer from the theater of operation. The disadvantage when you take off from a French carrier is that your Rafale brings less ammunition than when taking off from a runway.

For example, with the Rafale from land, you can take off with two cruise missiles, as from the carrier it’s only one. The air force Rafale can take off from the land with six 250 kilos bombs – from the carrier, it only was four. You’re closer but you bring less ammunitions and you need gas anyway because in the dynamic targeting operation loiter time is important to mission success.



The Rafale is significantly handicapped even when catapulted from a nuke-powered carrier. Performance would likely be worse using a ramp. I'd expect similar degradation for a Super Hornet using the ramp.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2017, 15:32
by mixelflick
I rather doubt they'll spring for the SH. They already selected the Rafale for their LWF and the navalised version would lend itself to commonality, pilot training, logistics, weapons etc.

Purchasing SH's or ASH's would be pricey, add yet another type to India's logistical nighmare and it won't buy any game changing capability (especially for the $ they'll be charged). Plus, I want to see that SH line shuttered as fast as possible. So tired of Hornets, Super Hornets and Super Duper Hornets. The last airshow I went to, it seemed there were Hornets everywhere. Legacy Navy Hornet demo, two SH's on static, plus an EA-18G and 2 more Canadian Hornets.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have the Blue Angels headlining the show in their..... Hornets. :bang:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2017, 16:49
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:I rather doubt they'll spring for the SH. They already selected the Rafale for their LWF and the navalised version would lend itself to commonality, pilot training, logistics, weapons etc.

Purchasing SH's or ASH's would be pricey, add yet another type to India's logistical nighmare and it won't buy any game changing capability (especially for the $ they'll be charged). Plus, I want to see that SH line shuttered as fast as possible. So tired of Hornets, Super Hornets and Super Duper Hornets. The last airshow I went to, it seemed there were Hornets everywhere. Legacy Navy Hornet demo, two SH's on static, plus an EA-18G and 2 more Canadian Hornets.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have the Blue Angels headlining the show in their..... Hornets. :bang:



As if India was logical?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2017, 20:26
by mixelflick
Good point.

Who's acquisition process is more of a cluster f*** ?

First up is India: They're co-funding a stinker with the Russians (SU-57). That's going nowhere fast. Next, they commit to buying the Rafale (yet only 36 examples), not enough to fulfill requirements. Rumors abound of sending their SU-30MKI's back to Russia for all the latest bells and whistles. Then of course they're trying to fund an indigenous design (Tejas). Finally, they're shopping for a new carrier born fighter but it has to be produced in India with technology transfers.

By contrast, the Canadians just keep changing their minds. F-35? 2nd hand legacy Hornets? "interim". Super Hornets? Gripen E?

It's all very entertaining, but for sheer money wasted I'd have to give it to the Indians.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 01:22
by vilters
Only thing India is interested in is how to "Fill the pockets" of the happy few.

They don't care, it is "only" taxpayers money.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 02:02
by pmi
My hunch is that doodles that Mixel covers his trapper keeper with between classes aren't F/A-18s.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 05:53
by Corsair1963
The US and China will both be operating 5th Generation Fighters from their decks in the coming decade. So, again why would India want the Super Hornet or any other 4.5 Generation Naval Fighter???? :?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2017, 23:58
by XanderCrews
pmi wrote:My hunch is that doodles that Mixel covers his trapper keeper with between classes aren't F/A-18s.



They don't make trapper keepers anymore BTW

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 00:29
by jakobs
mixelflick wrote:Plus, I want to see that SH line shuttered as fast as possible. So tired of Hornets, Super Hornets and Super Duper Hornets. The last airshow I went to, it seemed there were Hornets everywhere. Legacy Navy Hornet demo, two SH's on static, plus an EA-18G and 2 more Canadian Hornets.

And if you're really unlucky, you'll have the Blue Angels headlining the show in their..... Hornets. :bang:


Oh boy, aren't you just gotta love future air shows with the F-35...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 07:00
by geforcerfx
jakobs wrote:Oh boy, aren't you just gotta love future air shows with the F-35...


:lmao:

I keep imagining Mixel being one of those guys arguing that if you just added X, Y & Z then the Super-amazing-OVer power-hardcore- MeGa tomcat would dominate the skys in 2100.

I get that Boeing does a bit of the same but there goal is a bit less ambitious (2030) and starting with a better platform survivability wise.


As far as India goes I really see the rafale not only being the smart choice here but having the leg up in negotiations and manufacturing.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2017, 07:07
by madrat
XanderCrews wrote:
pmi wrote:My hunch is that doodles that Mixel covers his trapper keeper with between classes aren't F/A-18s.

They don't make trapper keepers anymore BTW


The hell they don't.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 01:46
by tincansailor
For example, with the Rafale from land, you can take off with two cruise missiles, as from the carrier it’s only one. The air force Rafale can take off from the land with six 250 kilos bombs – from the carrier, it only was four. You’re closer but you bring less ammunitions and you need gas anyway because in the dynamic targeting operation loiter time is important to mission success.[/i]
[/b]


Four 551lbs bombs? Not very impressive at all. Even six isn't anything to write home about. An F6F-5 in WWII could carry a 1,000lbs bomb under each wing, six 5" rockets, and a 150 gallon drop tank on the centerline station. It could carry a torpedo centerline. With a straight bomb load it could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. If that's the best the Rafale can do maybe the French Navy should dig up, and rebuild their old A-1 Skyraiders. they were beasts compared to this kind of light combat load.

Hay gums what kinds of loads were you hauling in Vietnam? these French planes need to really eat their Wheaties.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 04:16
by geforcerfx
tincansailor wrote:Four 551lbs bombs? Not very impressive at all. Even six isn't anything to write home about. An F6F-5 in WWII could carry a 1,000lbs bomb under each wing, six 5" rockets, and a 150 gallon drop tank on the centerline station. It could carry a torpedo centerline. With a straight bomb load it could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. If that's the best the Rafale can do maybe the French Navy should dig up, and rebuild their old A-1 Skyraiders. they were beasts compared to this kind of light combat load.

Hay gums what kinds of loads were you hauling in Vietnam? these French planes need to really eat their Wheaties.


I think they were trading fuel for weapons, they were prob taking off with 2 gas bags (400 gallon tanks if I remember right) and then 4 x 500 lbs bombs. That's not really that far off from what a we see legacy hornets flying with over iraq and syria.


something like this
rafale-3.jpg

libye-poursuite-des-operations-2.jpg

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 05:25
by Corsair1963
geforcerfx wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Four 551lbs bombs? Not very impressive at all. Even six isn't anything to write home about. An F6F-5 in WWII could carry a 1,000lbs bomb under each wing, six 5" rockets, and a 150 gallon drop tank on the centerline station. It could carry a torpedo centerline. With a straight bomb load it could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. If that's the best the Rafale can do maybe the French Navy should dig up, and rebuild their old A-1 Skyraiders. they were beasts compared to this kind of light combat load.

Hay gums what kinds of loads were you hauling in Vietnam? these French planes need to really eat their Wheaties.


I think they were trading fuel for weapons, they were prob taking off with 2 gas bags (400 gallon tanks if I remember right) and then 4 x 500 lbs bombs. That's not really that far off from what a we see legacy hornets flying with over iraq and syria.




The innermost pylons on your average 4/4.5 Generation Fighter. Will be used to carry external fuel on the vast majority of the strike missions. Which, means they have little additional capacity for weapons stores. This is why the F-35 with it's vast amounts of internal fuel. Just crush them in Payload vs Range. Something the F-35 critics conveniently overlook!
:nono:

f-35-and-current-weapons-3-728.jpg

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 08:20
by tincansailor
I think they were trading fuel for weapons, they were prob taking off with 2 gas bags (400 gallon tanks if I remember right) and then 4 x 500 lbs bombs. That's not really that far off from what a we see legacy hornets flying with over iraq and syria.


something like this
rafale-3.jpg

libye-poursuite-des-operations-2.jpg
[/quote]

I'm sure your right that that's what their doing. However were talking about coming off of carriers on the Libyan Coast. Their targets couldn't have been more then a few hundred miles away. They also had a good deal of tanker support. Your legacy Hornet example I think is a little bit different. Most of those missions are from the Persian Gulf, to hit targets in Syria. The distance between Kuwait city to Damascus is just about 900 miles. The Hornets have to flying 1,000 miles one way, making it more understandable that they carry a light load. Those have to be long difficult fatiguing missions.

If a carrier based Rafale can only carry one cruise missile, or 4, 250 kg bombs a few hundred miles how can they fight a major naval battle? VS an enemy task force with destroyers, and cruisers with sophisticated air defenses your not bringing much to the party. If the enemy has it's own air cover the Rafales would need to carry AIMs, to fight their way though.

A carrier commander wouldn't want to let a major surface force get within 300 miles. A Rafale would have to fly as far as they did in Libya. Ships are actually hard to sink. In a naval battle they'd need to bring more to the fight. If your hunting bears you better be loaded for bear.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 15:54
by mixelflick
geforcerfx wrote:
jakobs wrote:Oh boy, aren't you just gotta love future air shows with the F-35...


:lmao:

I keep imagining Mixel being one of those guys arguing that if you just added X, Y & Z then the Super-amazing-OVer power-hardcore- MeGa tomcat would dominate the skys in 2100.


Mixel will enjoy future airshows with the F-35, because it comes in 3 different flavors and has capabilities that are only now coming to be appreciated. He also values the fact it has world beating performance and delivers a clear edge to the warfighter. Something no F-18 variant has (or will ever have).

Mix really isn't big on new aircraft masquerading as simple extensions of a current airframe (i.e. the Super Hornet). He much prefers clean sheet designs.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 16:46
by white_lightning35
I think the hornet/SH pilots probably wouldn't appreciate being told that they are useless and they're flying in deathtraps. Sure, the SH is not the future, but it and it's pilots are still very valuable as of now.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 22:05
by zerion
I think someone is confused.

Lockheed Martin Plans To Make F-35 Fighter Jets In India

http://www.ibtimes.com/lockheed-martin- ... ia-2643489

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 23:54
by popcorn
zerion wrote:I think someone is confused.

Lockheed Martin Plans To Make F-35 Fighter Jets In India

http://www.ibtimes.com/lockheed-martin- ... ia-2643489


The writer's bio.

AYUSHMAN BASU
Junior Correspondent

Covers viral news. A Political Science graduate from Delhi University. Masters in Interactive Journalism from City, University of London. Apart from US news, likes to write on sports (especially regarding the Premier League and favorite club Chelsea FC) and Indian politics and social issues.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 00:11
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:I think someone is confused.

Lockheed Martin Plans To Make F-35 Fighter Jets In India

http://www.ibtimes.com/lockheed-martin- ... ia-2643489



Lol

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 01:08
by hythelday
Typical Indian stronkism. I remember indian news outlets heralding India was going to get hundreds of Avengers armed with lasers. "In your face, Pakistan!" was the subliminal message. In the end those turned out to be MQ-9s, and now I read those are unarmed too? :oops:
Custom F-35 based fighter built in India has even less chances to become a reality than Tejas maturing into a actual fighter plane.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 01:27
by nutshell
hythelday wrote:Typical Indian stronkism. I remember indian news outlets heralding India was going to get hundreds of Avengers armed with lasers. "In your face, Pakistan!" was the subliminal message. In the end those turned out to be MQ-9s, and now I read those are unarmed too? :oops:
Custom F-35 based fighter built in India has even less chances to become a reality than Tejas maturing into a actual fighter plane.


Reapers can only be armed with the explicit consent of the US congress (or the state department)

At least I've been told so when I learned Italy acquired MQ 9s back in 2009 (or 2010 don't remember)
200-ish millions of € for weapon kits, hellfires, gbu12, jams and software+training.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 02:11
by southernphantom
zerion wrote:I think someone is confused.

Lockheed Martin Plans To Make F-35 Fighter Jets In India

http://www.ibtimes.com/lockheed-martin- ... ia-2643489


No.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 02:37
by weasel1962
Seems to be the wrong thread as I tot this is a SH thread.

I seriously doubt that India would have the political will to contribute funds to buy F-35s in sufficient numbers that would allow LM to set up an F-35 production line in India. They don't even have enough for the SEF.

Its high risk to go straight to a 5th gen esp with India's crash rates and maintenance history. Every F-35 user today and projected has progressed from US 4th gen jets with similar fighter philosophies, service structures etc. The only experience India has is with the Harrier (which it no longer operates). And that opinion is already taking into account that the F-35 is probably incredibly easy to fly...

The report of LM "setting up" anything is a red herring. 10 years from now, it will still be in planning.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 07:20
by hythelday
I believe that since F-16 Block 70 was mentioned this is what the talk was about. This Vivek fella said Indian Viper will feature "5th gen avionics" and other features LM learned while developing F-22, F-35. Local production is a requirement in their light fighter comp, where F-16 is actually competing against Gripen. Writer/journalist got carried away (or intentionally) and misinterprited that as "custom F-35" built in India and sourcing local tech, no less.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 10:46
by weasel1962
hythelday wrote:I believe that since F-16 Block 70 was mentioned this is what the talk was about. This Vivek fella said Indian Viper will feature "5th gen avionics" and other features LM learned while developing F-22, F-35. Local production is a requirement in their light fighter comp, where F-16 is actually competing against Gripen. Writer/journalist got carried away (or intentionally) and misinterprited that as "custom F-35" built in India and sourcing local tech, no less.


If referring to the F-16, then I would link to the earlier posts on this subject which still applies today.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53185&start=15

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 10:55
by popcorn
I thought the plan to buy single-engined jets from abroad had been shelved and the money would be spent on LCA?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 15:19
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:I thought the plan to buy single-engined jets from abroad had been shelved and the money would be spent on LCA?



If you don't like India's decision just give it a year or two and there will be a new decision

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 19:54
by zerion
I put it here because I was in a hurry and this was the first India thread I ran into. I consider it more satire than a serious F-35/F-16 article so I wasn't too worried about it.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 22:52
by juretrn
Indian procurement makes Canada look like world class professionals.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 03:07
by Corsair1963
juretrn wrote:Indian procurement makes Canada look like world class professionals.



How true..... :(

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 08:49
by neptune
....not sure if Block 70 was offered but even the F-16V is beyond most of their manufacturing capabilities. The Lockheed offer to build the 100+ F-16s in India will be their best offer. Perhaps even training (pilots/ maintenance) by the USAF.
:)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 10:35
by popcorn
neptune wrote:....not sure if Block 70 was offered but even the F-16V is beyond most of their manufacturing capabilities. The Lockheed offer to build the 100+ F-16s in India will be their best offer. Perhaps even training (pilots/ maintenance) by the USAF.
:)

If memory serves LM has proposed moving the entire production line to India.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 15:14
by mixelflick
It may come to pass, but I just can't see an F-16 in Indian colors. Likewise, it's the same with the Super Hornet. To be building 4th generation aircraft in 2020 and beyond doesn't sound befitting of a world class air arm. The down-rated F-35 seems like a much better option, given it'll give them a true 5th gen/stealth bird with superior SA and avionics to anything the Chinese are flying (nevermind the Pakistani's)...

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 16:58
by SpudmanWP
What's a "down-rated F-35"?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 17:22
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:What's a "down-rated F-35"?




Indeed

This came up with the F-22. The "export" model. And as an F-22 pilot told me it's BS. So we take out all the "good avionics" and replace them with the second rate avionics we've been exepnsively developing for the airplane all these years?

Just throw the "B" version black box in there Chuck

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 00:19
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:What's a "down-rated F-35"?

A F-16 Block 70 :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 03:45
by white_lightning35
Call me stupid but I have absolutely no idea how anyone could possibly dream of thinking of giving India something even resembling an f-35. Are they just a nice commodity now, "get your f-35's here, X million dollars a pop!" Why not send one or two to Russia and China if they ask nicely? I simply cannot understand how the USG would be okay with their supposedly most advanced warplane proliferating across the globe. If there is something I'm missing, would someone please tell me what it is?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 04:08
by madrat
I'm really surprised that India hasn't pursued an alternative plan for its homegrown MKI, with an eye towards independence. General Electric engines. TVR doesn't have to be saved. Shop for an AESA that is competitive over the next 25 years. Aim for Link 22 rather than Link 16 in order to be ready for drone support. Scale up the Rafale IMA. Secure a COTS-based stores management system compliant with MIL-STD-1760. Procure a modular, external-carry ECM to augment the COTS- based internal jammer. And work with vendors to cull it's basic RCS.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 06:09
by Corsair1963
white_lightning35 wrote:Call me stupid but I have absolutely no idea how anyone could possibly dream of thinking of giving India something even resembling an f-35. Are they just a nice commodity now, "get your f-35's here, X million dollars a pop!" Why not send one or two to Russia and China if they ask nicely? I simply cannot understand how the USG would be okay with their supposedly most advanced warplane proliferating across the globe. If there is something I'm missing, would someone please tell me what it is?



India is "quickly" moving towards the US orbit and is our best hope of containing CHINA. As a matter of fact they have already purchased some very sophisticated hardware from us and have oven to be very trustworthy.....


Time to let go of your prejudice..... :wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 06:10
by Corsair1963
Personally, I have far more concern with Turkey having the F-35 than India..........(just saying)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 08:36
by hythelday
madrat wrote:I'm really surprised that India hasn't pursued an alternative plan for its homegrown MKI, with an eye towards independence. General Electric engines. TVR doesn't have to be saved. Shop for an AESA that is competitive over the next 25 years. Aim for Link 22 rather than Link 16 in order to be ready for drone support. Scale up the Rafale IMA. Secure a COTS-based stores management system compliant with MIL-STD-1760. Procure a modular, external-carry ECM to augment the COTS- based internal jammer. And work with vendors to cull it's basic RCS.


And why bother with Flanker airframe then? Because of the looks? Just buy more Rafales for the same effect. Or F-15s. Not to mention that such extensive modifications wouldn't be okay with Russia anyway

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 11:18
by neptune
mixelflick wrote:It may come to pass, but I just can't see an F-16 in Indian colors. Likewise, it's the same with the Super Hornet. To be building 4th generation aircraft in 2020 and beyond doesn't sound befitting of a world class air arm. The down-rated F-35 seems like a much better option, given it'll give them a true 5th gen/stealth bird with superior SA and avionics to anything the Chinese are flying (nevermind the Pakistani's)...

....Block 70 with AESA and Sniper ATP sensor merge, hi-bandwidth data links will become an interesting missile/ bomb a/c
:)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 16:10
by mixelflick
SpudmanWP wrote:What's a "down-rated F-35"?


According to "thedrive.com" it's an F-35 with the F-16's latest AESA radar. So no AN/APG-81. What Neptune said :)

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 16:34
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:What's a "down-rated F-35"?


According to "thedrive.com" it's an F-35 with the F-16's latest AESA radar. So no AN/APG-81. What Neptune said :)



Image

The drive? The number 1 source of F-35 fake News? Well ok then!!

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 17:25
by southernphantom
mixelflick wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:What's a "down-rated F-35"?


According to "thedrive.com" it's an F-35 with the F-16's latest AESA radar. So no AN/APG-81. What Neptune said :)


And how much would that cost to integrate?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 17:48
by SpudmanWP
The ESM would also take a hit since the two are so interconnected in the F-35.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 18:06
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:The ESM would also take a hit since the two are so interconnected in the F-35.



I know a guy who helped design the nose section of the F-35. Its packed with Radar, avionics, AAR probe, MADL, EOTS, EODAS, etc, getting it all to fit was no mean feat.

Some idiot on the Drive who doesn't know a damn thing has a thought and suddenly avionics are like legos! :doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 20:04
by hythelday
XanderCrews wrote:I know a guy who helped design the nose section of the F-35. Its packed with Radar, avionics, AAR probe, MADL, EOTS, EODAS, etc, getting it all to fit was no mean feat.

Some idiot on the Drive who doesn't know a damn thing has a thought and suddenly avionics are like legos! :doh:


Remember the "just upgrade 4th gen!" drivel? Well it's "just downgrade the 5th gen!" now.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 01:14
by XanderCrews
hythelday wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I know a guy who helped design the nose section of the F-35. Its packed with Radar, avionics, AAR probe, MADL, EOTS, EODAS, etc, getting it all to fit was no mean feat.

Some idiot on the Drive who doesn't know a damn thing has a thought and suddenly avionics are like legos! :doh:


Remember the "just upgrade 4th gen!" drivel? Well it's "just downgrade the 5th gen!" now.



That is so 2007

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 02:22
by madrat
hythelday wrote:And why bother with Flanker airframe then? Because of the looks? Just buy more Rafales for the same effect. Or F-15s. Not to mention that such extensive modifications wouldn't be okay with Russia anyway


For starters, the Chinese are already able to match MKI. The machine is too bulky to survive direct engagement in the air with their current technology. They need something to keep them relevant, especially in regards to survival against missiles. For all its elegance and agility, it's a lumbering tactical bomber playing fighter. Only it's not really practical as is as a tactical bomber or fighter.

The MKI is not obsolete quite yet, but it has virtually no edge over regional rivals. It needs a smaller RCS. It's too big and boxy to become stealth. But RCS reduction would help put it on pat with Su-35S. It also needs electronic warfare technology that is beyond India"s ability to produce. I'm sure Dassault would happily work with them to integrate European vendors technology at a premium price.

Either the United States is open for business or it passes off the work to the European community. It's pretty obvious that China would be a counterproductive partner just like the Russian partnership. The United States has several decades of technology edge over the Indians that would be marketable in a progressive partnership to win contracts without selling out the current secret sauce recipes.

Upgraded MKI (backed by Rafale and Tejas) just places the Indians in a good place when it comes to national security.

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 06:43
by neptune
India's F-16 Block 70

- The F-16 Block 70 combines capability upgrades, most notably the advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar with a new avionics architecture, and structural upgrades to extend the structural life of the aircraft by more than 50 percent beyond that of previous production F-16 aircraft. F-16 Block 70 software takes advantage of technologies not available when earlier Block F-16s were developed and produced. Operational capabilities are enhanced through an advanced datalink, targeting pod and weapons; precision GPS navigation and the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS).

- Lockheed Martin has more than 36 years of weapon integration experience with the F-16. No other organization can match this weapons integration experience. In concert with the U.S. Air Force and multiple F-16 Foreign Military Sales customers, Lockheed Martin has certified more than 3,300 carriage and release configurations for greater that 180 weapon and store types. Our experience as a weapon integrator has enabled the F-16 to be one of the most versatile multirole fighters ever.

- Northrop Grumman’s advanced APG-83 AESA radar; Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) delivers greater situational awareness, flexibility and quicker all-weather targeting. The APG-83 provides pilots with unprecedented target area detail and digital map displays that can be tailored with slew and zoom features. The APG-83 provides F-16s with 5th Generation fighter radar capabilities by leveraging hardware and software commonality with F-22 and F-35 AESA radars.

- Another key feature of the F-16 Block 70 configuration is the new Center Pedestal Display (CPD), which provides critical tactical imagery to pilots on a high-resolution 6”x 8” screen. The high-resolution display allows pilots to take full advantage of AESA and targeting pod data. The new CPD enables color moving maps, larger and easier to manage air-to-air Situation Displays, zoom functionality with the ability to switch information among displays, and a digital display of Flight Instrument Data. The CPD is also compatible with the Night Vision Imaging System.

- The Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto GCAS) was purpose-built to prevent deadly crashes and has already been credited with saving at least four F-16 pilots and their aircraft since the system entered service with the U.S. Air Force in late 2014. The Auto GCAS is designed to reduce incidents of what is known as controlled flight into terrain, or CFIT. According to U.S. Air Force statistics, CFIT incidents account for 26 percent of aircraft losses and a staggering 75 percent of all F-16 pilot fatalities. The F-16 Auto GCAS system is currently being integrated into the U.S. Air Force’s F-16 fleet and the Air Force and Lockheed Martin plan to develop similar systems for the F-22 and F-35.
:)

...Lockheed Martin has described the F-16IN as "the most advanced and capable F-16 ever." Based closely on the F-16E/F Block 60 as supplied to the UAE, the features on the F-16IN include;
- Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs)
- AN/APG-80 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar
- GE F110-132A engine with 32,000 pounds (143 kN) of thrust with FADEC controls
- electronic warfare suite and infra-red searching (IRST)
- advanced all-color glass cockpit with three large displays
- a helmet-mounted cueing system
Lockheed Martin's vice-president-Business Development (India) Orville Prins has said that "I can assure you, the Super Viper is much more advanced in all aspects than the [Block 50/52+] F-16s being given to Pakistan".
:wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 04:37
by popcorn
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 788978.cms

Boeing in talks with Indian Navy to sell F/A-18 fighter jets

Boeing Co. is in talks with the Indian Navy to sell its F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets in a bid to gain a bigger share of the defense market in the South Asian country, the world's biggest arms importer.

A lot of technical evaluation has yet to take place, Gene Cunningham, Boeing's vice president for defense, space and security, told reporters at the Singapore Airshow. The company is also seeing opportunities for its KC-46 multirole tanker in India and other countries, Cunningham sai ..


//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/62788978.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 08:04
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/boeing-in-talks-with-indian-navy-to-sell-f/a-18-fighter-jets/articleshow/62788978.cms

Boeing in talks with Indian Navy to sell F/A-18 fighter jets



It would be a colossal mistake on the part of India to acquire the Super Hornet or even Rafale for her Carriers. As neither are likely to match the forthcoming J-20 and/or J-31.
:doh:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 10:13
by hythelday
Corsair1963 wrote:
popcorn wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/boeing-in-talks-with-indian-navy-to-sell-f/a-18-fighter-jets/articleshow/62788978.cms

Boeing in talks with Indian Navy to sell F/A-18 fighter jets



It would be a colossal mistake on the part of India to acquire the Super Hornet or even Rafale for her Carriers. As neither are likely to match the forthcoming J-20 and/or J-31.
:doh:


Unlike the MiG-29K?

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 11:46
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:
Unlike the MiG-29K?

The Mig-29K was a colossal mistake too! Which, is why the Indian Navy is already looking for a replacement. :wink:

Re: India Taking another Look at the Super Hornet

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 16:22
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
hythelday wrote:
Unlike the MiG-29K?

The Mig-29K was a colossal mistake too! Which, is why the Indian Navy is already looking for a replacement. :wink:


Other than Rafale and SH, what other options are there? It's unlikely the F-35B/C is going to be offered, so stealth is out. They for damn sure aren't going to get a carrier rated SU-57, LOL. So it'll have to be 1 of those 2. I predict it'll be Rafale, if for no other reason than commonality with their land based birds. Being shut out of the F-35 is a major limiting factor for India. Especially given the point made about Chinese J-20's and 31's.

The more I study these other countries carrier projects and associated air arms, the more I think it just isn't worth it. Whevever the US Navy goes to war, it takes a minimum of 3 carriers in theatre. A single carrier with limited power projection is an expensive and limited proposition. They'd be much better off building a first rate fleet of offensive missile cruisers, or a true (land based) long range strike aircraft and tanker fleet IMO..