Boeing’s Make in India F-18 offer comes with a rider but it’s still a better offer claims Source

[Blue Marlin]

Silent eagle is a dead project.

Also, India has no need for the F-15. and the Su-30MKI fulfills the same role. It would just be a waste of money.
--------

I highly doubt that India is going to buy legacy fighters, when it's near future plans would pretty much make them a waste of cash. From what I understand, the MMRCA was suppose to be a stopgap for the eventual FGFA, which is why India was never interested in buying more than a 120 or so, in the first place.

My advice? At this point, it's a waste of money buying even a hundred Rafales, just reduce the numbers required, and sign the deal. There is no point in delaying any longer, because the longer India waits, the more pointless this entire deal will become, and the harder it will be to justify even considering the MMRCA in the first place.

On the other hand, it's good entertainment, from a Pakistani's perspective.

not really, qatar want 24 of them. the obama administration is holding them up, and at the same time boeing desperately needs the order to keep the line open. isreal is holding it up as well. also speaking of them, they want 2 squadrons of the se model as well.
granted congress will not allow the export to india its just too much of a destabiliser this will push pakistan up to the point that it needs a quick response as a counter. also nor do i think india is capable of the funds for such as jet and it will not adhere to the strings involved. the f18 however.... yes its all good to go.

 

[Immortan.Joe]

granted congress will not allow the export to india its just too much of a destabiliser this will push pakistan up to the point that it needs a quick response as a counter. also nor do i think india is capable of the funds for such as jet and it will not adhere to the strings involved. the f18 however.... yes its all good to go.

F-15SE and F-18SH have same avionics. F-15 has longer range and payload, while F-18 is more maneuverable.

I don't understand what instability would F-15 induce that F-18 would not.

 

[Blue Marlin]

F-15SE and F-18SH have same avionics. F-15 has longer range and payload, while F-18 is more manoeuvrable.

I don't understand what instability would F-15 induce that F-18 would not?

just look at the differences between the 2 jets. just look at the Singapore tender procurement program. they evaluated the f18,f15, rafale and the typhoon. and the f15 won, why???? just have a look.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

How can you not consider Swedes Gripen as a direct threat to LCA? They're of the same category. It's a direct cut into LCA's share of the cut. And I doubt IAF even wants dual production of two different "LCAs" anyway.

I doubt Gripen, or the MIG 35 will get anything. They were deemed the bottom tier by the IAF in trials, that'll continue to play a role in the outcome. And in terms of industrial benefits, both the other Europeans and the US companies offer more.

Again You are comparing w Gripen C...

And one of the reasons, for looking at another plane is that the production capacity of LCA limits
the buildup rate for replacements.

 

[Masterhunter]

F-15SE and F-18SH have same avionics. F-15 has longer range and payload, while F-18 is more maneuverable.

I don't understand what instability would F-15 induce that F-18 would not.

F15 is like su30... Air superiority..
F18 is like medium multirole.. A bit more apt for ground attk...
India don't need F15 as we already have Su30..

 

[Immortan.Joe]

just look at the differences between the 2 jets. just look at the Singapore tender procurement program. they evaluated the f18,f15, rafale and the typhoon. and the f15 won, why???? just have a look.

Probably because Singapore base most of its Airforce on foreign soil (including India) and for them range is important.

Again as I stated, Avionics of both jet is same. Even though F-15 may have longer range (3 times that of F-18), this point is not much relevant in Indo-Pak war (and we have Su-30MKI which does same thing as F-15).

My question was what instability would F-15 produce that would not be produced by F-18?

Cause of stability like American AESA radar, ECM warfare suits, armaments, and twin engines are present on both Aircrafts.

F15 is like su30... Air superiority..
F18 is like medium multirole.. A bit more apt for ground attk...
India don't need F15 as we already have Su30..

Yes, but those are classifications.

The point that @Blue Marlin made was that F-15 would cause instability while F-18 would not. I was contesting that point.

Every novelty that teens would introduce in subcontinent are present in both teens (same avionics). Only advantage F-15 has over F-18 is range which is synonymous with station time, and marginal high speed and ceiling, while F-18 has advantage of maneuverability (apart from having EW and carrier version).

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Why we are not touching Gripen ?
A very simple reason. Its C/D version cost in 2012 quoted to Switzerland was over 100 million dollars, excluding weapons and spares.
Imagine the cost of imaginary yet to fly Gripen E/F with Italian AESA and American GE414, with 33% contribution from UK ( It was quoted when Gripen was offered to Argentina ), will cost.

Don't be surprised, it will cost only slightly less than Rafale yet not deliver us what Rafale does.

Further problems is the TOT. Local assembly is not a problem but for TOT we will depend more than 50% on 3rd parties.

What does anybody think, will be able to gainTOT of GE 414 from Sweden ? Will we get TOT of AESA and gurantee of its security of codes from Italy which has been supplying and supporting PAF with Radars , and get paid more ?

A big NO. Simply NO.

PS:- I am not questioning Gripens capability. Rather it simply doesn't fit our requirement.

I doubt without Indian participation the Sea Gripen will likely remain a paper plane.

 

[Immortan.Joe]

Italian AESA

It would be the biggest deal-breaker in current political environment.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Probably because Singapore base most of its Airforce on foreign soil (including India) and for them range is important.

Again as I stated, Avionics of both jet is same. Even though F-15 may have longer range (3 times that of F-18), this point is not much relevant in Indo-Pak war (and we have Su-30MKI which does same thing as F-15).

My question was what instability would F-15 produce that would not be produced by F-18?

Cause of stability like American AESA radar, ECM warfare suits, armaments, and twin engines are present on both Aircrafts.




Yes, but those are classifications.

The point that @Blue Marlin made was that F-15 would cause instability while F-18 would not. I was contesting that point.

Every novelty that teens would introduce in subcontinent are present in both teens (same avionics). Only advantage F-15 has over F-18 is range which is synonymous with station time, and marginal high speed and ceiling, while F-18 has advantage of maneuverability (apart from having EW and carrier version).

the word 'probably' means nothing. like me saying india is signing for the rafale next week. infact the su30mki against the f15 se

 

[randomradio]

How can you not consider Swedes Gripen as a direct threat to LCA? They're of the same category. It's a direct cut into LCA's share of the cut. And I doubt IAF even wants dual production of two different "LCAs" anyway.

I doubt Gripen, or the MIG 35 will get anything. They were deemed the bottom tier by the IAF in trials, that'll continue to play a role in the outcome. And in terms of industrial benefits, both the other Europeans and the US companies offer more.

The IAF is not buying the LCA Mk2. They are going to ask for block upgrades to the 126 LCA Mk1/Mk1A instead. The Mk2 program is now being targeted towards the navy and exports. It is possible that even the navy will not buy it depending on the progress of the AMCA.

The second line has nothing to do with MMRCA requirements. Anyway, it's been so long that all these aircraft already surpass MMRCA requirements.

The SH comes with zero ToT. Boeing wants to build the SHs in India on its own. Some parts will be made by other Indian companies though. And the numbers planned for orders is too less, that's why Gripen or Mig-35 makes more sense. We don't know about the F-16.

A very simple reason. Its C/D version cost in 2012 quoted to Switzerland was over 100 million dollars, excluding weapons and spares.

The Gripen E costs $150M. In the same Swiss tender the Rafales cost $200-250M. Gripen is at least 30% cheaper to purchase the first time and LCC costs are significantly lower.

The Brazilians got the best deal. Industrial production, ToT, joint development, 100% offsets etc for just $150M per jet.

During MMRCA evaluations, the Gripen Demo was highly praised by the IAF.

SH and even the F-16 cannot compete with Gripen in terms of costs. Mig-35 beats the Gripen in terms of costs, big time.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

The Gripen E costs $150M. In the same Swiss tender the Rafales cost $200-250M. Gripen is at least 30% cheaper to purchase the first time and LCC costs are significantly lower.

The Brazilians got the best deal. Industrial production, ToT, joint development, 100% offsets etc for just $150M per jet.

During MMRCA evaluations, the Gripen Demo was highly praised by the IAF.

SH and even the F-16 cannot compete with Gripen in terms of costs. Mig-35 beats the Gripen in terms of costs, big time.

ToT for local assembly and ToT to be used as per wish by the buyer are two very different things. And Brazilians aren't getting the second part.

Industrial production and 100% offset is still not decided for the simple reason that we still don't have any deadline for when it will be in service and how many will be assembled in Brazil.

F16 Block 52 beats Gripen E/F in cost and F18SH in present config will cost only slightly more. But discussing American jets should be kept out, because we are not getting them.

Mig35 is a real solution.
Even if we get Rafale and Tejas MK1A on time we still will be short of 200 fighter jets.

Pakistan can put 25 squadrons and similar numbers can be put up by China for us.

We will need a minimum of 45 squadrons .


As for Gripen demo being praised, there are a greater number of pro Il78 men in our airforce but that doesn't mean we will be getting il78s rather A330s. Similar cases for Mi26.

 

[randomradio]

ToT for local assembly and ToT to be used as per wish by the buyer are two very different things. And Brazilians aren't getting the second part.

Brazilians are getting the same amount of ToT we will get. The Brazilians will be developing the Gripen F with Saab.

Industrial production and 100% offset is still not decided for the simple reason that we still don't have any deadline for when it will be in service and how many will be assembled in Brazil.

Saab has already signed the offsets deal. The contract has also been signed.
Brazil finalises $4.68bn Gripen NG deal

F16 Block 52 beats Gripen E/F in cost

Can't compare Block 52 with Gripen. There is a generation gap there.

F18SH in present config will cost only slightly more

It's more expensive than the Rafale.

As for Gripen demo being praised, there are a greater number of pro Il78 men in our airforce but that doesn't mean we will be getting il78s rather A330s. Similar cases for Mi26.

The Gripen Demo was praised by the evaluation team, especially the pilots who physically flew them.

Other people only have an opinion. That's not considered important.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Brazilians are getting the same amount of ToT we will get. The Brazilians will be developing the Gripen F with Saab.



Saab has already signed the offsets deal. The contract has also been signed.
Brazil finalises $4.68bn Gripen NG deal
.

On TOT , even Pakistan has had a TOT on Agosta 90b and permission to produce more and sell it to 3rd parties.

What it didn't had to use the electronics meant for Agosta 90 B to use upon the Chinese sub they will be getting.

What India is vying for is to get the TOT for assembly plus a TOT on systems like Radar, Avionics , RAM etc , and a provision to use the know how in its future projects.

All these are not present in the Brazilian deal.

Further it doesn't mention the number of Aircrafts which will be ' assembled ' in Brazil, further I see no Brazilian cooperation in NG.

And how can thecodevelop ? Are the Americans providing them TOT on GE414, are the Italians providing them TOT and codes of their AESA?

What Brazilians will be doing is basically paying the money and choosing from international market the goodies it want on the " Yet to fly " aircraft.

If we leave out the PD of F16blk52 ( can get Israeli AESA later) , its very well a match for the " Yet to fly " Gripen E.

 

[jhungary]

Depending on what is the term and the scope Indian is looking for.

If this is simply just a contract to which you considering it stand alone, I would say F-18 is not the best bang to your buck, it is lacking the future-proof system avionic, which is actually being phase out by the USN themselves. In fact, like some poster said, If this is an one-off thing, I would simply order a lower number of Rafale and potentially have them all deliever in fly-away condition with Dassault. Which would be better than the offset deal that were originally envisioned.

However, if you look at the potential of this aircraft and the potential relationship with boeing, then it would potentially the best deal India. There are several reason behind this.

1.) An Production plant in India with Boeing in control means Boeing is going to be responsible for the Indian Production F-18 Superhornet. Which is something the Original Rafale deal missing, where Dassault refused to take responsibility to the Indian built Rafale.

2.) It could potentially affect the sitation with other Project Boeing have with India. Namely, the Chinook, the Apache, and most importantly, the C-17 Globemaster.III.

The reason being, if India have a good working relationship with Boeing, they may push forward the same deal on these platform, make in India Apache, or Chinook or even with a new production line restart of C-17 in India. The chance that India would get any new C-17 is currently at near nil. But again, it would be another issue had India have a working relation with Boeing.

3.) The Growler. Which is based on F-18 Super Hornet. Would be a main stay in future air combat, even if we are talking about a full line up of Stealth aircraft such as the US military, the EW suite (especially so when the Growler are equipped with NGJ) would be something India want to look at as a force multiplier. Which a squadron of Growler would enhance the capability of any Indian Aircraft, not just fighter, by multiple fold.

I do not think Boeing will share or sell this technology, which is being regarded as the best in the world, to india without them buying any sort of Super Hornet.

I am not a fan for F-18, but if you considered more than just the fighter aircraft but the whole situation, this may not be as bad as you think.

 

[jung41]

Kept all in loop and buy nothing ?? Can any body explain me why??