Ammyy
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions
- Thread starter Srirangan
- Start date
- Status
rockstarIN
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,168
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
^^
They might not want to give you the same..
They might not want to give you the same..
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
So American jet out from contest ???
An interesting point indeed, because the US will allow the assembly of critical parts in India only, so if the licence production of the radar is required too, it will be a difficult hurdle for them.
One thing that surprises me that if we can make Su-30 MKI in India with tech transfer, what is the scene here?, Is west that advanced than Russians, then whats the fuss?
It's about share of critical techs, especially AESA radars and latest avionics, the Europeans offers these, the Russians anyway, the issue here should be the US side mainly.
STAR SCREAM
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 0
http://asiandefenseupdates.blogspot.com/2010/12/jsf-lrip-iv-cost-targets-released.html
SF LRIP IV Cost Targets Released
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON
The Pentagon’s most recent per-unit target price for the conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is $111.6 million, according to program officials.
The target price for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version, which has encountered the most challenging technical and testing problems, is $109.4 million, the F-35 Joint Program Office says. And the target cost for the most expensive variant — the carrier version (CV) — is $142.9 million, officials say.
The price data traditionally has not been publicly released, but the program office released these figures to Aviation Week in response to questions.
Neither price includes the cost of the Pratt & Whitney F135 engines; that contract is under negotiation. Based on the low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) III pricing, the average cost of a CTOL engine is about $19 million and the average Stovl engine and lift-fan system cost is about $38 million. Pratt has offered a price reduction of at least 10% for LRIP IV.
Negotiations for the LRIP IV contract began in October 2009 and continued for more than a year; the contract deal was announced Nov. 19 without data on the per-unit target pricing. During that time, the Pentagon learned of more delays in delivering test aircraft as well as a lag in the flight testing program itself. Pentagon procurement czar Ashton Carter and acting Air Force procurement chief David Van Buren shifted LRIP IV away from being a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract.
LRIP IV is the first fixed-price, incentive-fee contract on the JSF production program. Pentagon officials were planning to shift to a fixed-price arrangement in LRIP V, but accelerated that plan to reduce financial exposure to the government of potential cost overruns. LRIP IV also includes the first purchase of CV versions.
The target price is driven largely by quantities. The prices include 11 CTOLs, one of which is a priced option. The base buy includes 10 CTOL aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. The Marine Corps is buying 16 Stovl aircraft, with another going to the United Kingdom. London, however, recently announced it would not purchase a Stovl fleet and this aircraft will be used for testing. This leaves the U.S. Marines and Italy as the only potential Stovl customers.
The U.S. Navy is buying four CVs in LRIP IV — most expensive version and the least mature at this point in the development program.
The LRIP IV contract stipulates that the government’s maximum per-unit financial exposure is 120% of the target price. Any overrun exceeding that ceiling (which represents the out-of-pocket cost to the government) would be paid for by prime JSF contractor Lockheed Martin. The funding would first come out of the company’s profit.
These per-unit target costs include some ancillary items not directly associated with building production aircraft, such as testing instrumentation equipment, says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager for F-35. Though he says that the government’s per-unit target price is higher than Lockheed’s unit recurring flyaway (URF) price, the two sets of numbers are following the same price reduction curve.
Lockheed officials declined to release the URF because they say it is competition-sensitive; the F-35 is still competing against the Gripen, Eurofighter and F/A-18 E/F in various international campaigns. Based on the most recent multiyear procurement of 124 F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft, the per-unit cost is approximately $42.7 million, excluding the cost of both engines.
However, Burbage says in general the target per-unit cost cited by the Pentagon exceeds Lockheed’s URF by about 3-4%. “It is not worth arguing about real prices … because it is only really a small amount of money,” he says. “These numbers aren’t important to the U.S. Department of Defense” because officials they know the numbers. “These numbers are important to the international partnership [and] they do tend to get taken out of context,” Burbage adds.
Lockheed’s decision to agree to a fixed-price, incentive fee contract in LRIP IV earlier than planned is an effort to “try and dispel some of the cost discussion … to try and signal to the world that we have confidence in our cost.”
A government source says that the if the target per-unit prices are achieved, the cost is on a steep downward curve - reducing by more than $100 million since the first lot - for the CTOL version, which is competing in the international market.
According to a government source, the prices for LRIPs 1-3 are:
LRIP 1 - CTOL - $221.2 million,
LRIP 2 - CTOL - 161.7 million; Stovl (first purchase) $160.7,
LRIP 3 - CTOL - $128.2 million: Stovl $128 million.
The LRIP IV buy doubles Lockheed’s F-35 backlog, and Burbage says that each time the quantity ordered doubles, the per-unit price will decrease by 25-28 percent. Ultimately, Lockheed plans to sell at least 3,100 of the single-engine stealthy fighters, and officials hope to achieve an average recurring flyaway cost of about $60 million per CTOL unit.
Many of Lockheed’s smaller F-35 subcontractors are already under fixed-price arrangements, but negotiations must still be done on LRIP IV with BAE and Northrop Grumman, the top two industrial partners on the airframe portion of the program.
Talks for LRIP IV are nascent, but Burbage says he hopes to have a contract for this next lot by June.
ajay shukla ji ka kaya hoga
SF LRIP IV Cost Targets Released
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON
The Pentagon’s most recent per-unit target price for the conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is $111.6 million, according to program officials.
The target price for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version, which has encountered the most challenging technical and testing problems, is $109.4 million, the F-35 Joint Program Office says. And the target cost for the most expensive variant — the carrier version (CV) — is $142.9 million, officials say.
The price data traditionally has not been publicly released, but the program office released these figures to Aviation Week in response to questions.
Neither price includes the cost of the Pratt & Whitney F135 engines; that contract is under negotiation. Based on the low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) III pricing, the average cost of a CTOL engine is about $19 million and the average Stovl engine and lift-fan system cost is about $38 million. Pratt has offered a price reduction of at least 10% for LRIP IV.
Negotiations for the LRIP IV contract began in October 2009 and continued for more than a year; the contract deal was announced Nov. 19 without data on the per-unit target pricing. During that time, the Pentagon learned of more delays in delivering test aircraft as well as a lag in the flight testing program itself. Pentagon procurement czar Ashton Carter and acting Air Force procurement chief David Van Buren shifted LRIP IV away from being a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract.
LRIP IV is the first fixed-price, incentive-fee contract on the JSF production program. Pentagon officials were planning to shift to a fixed-price arrangement in LRIP V, but accelerated that plan to reduce financial exposure to the government of potential cost overruns. LRIP IV also includes the first purchase of CV versions.
The target price is driven largely by quantities. The prices include 11 CTOLs, one of which is a priced option. The base buy includes 10 CTOL aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. The Marine Corps is buying 16 Stovl aircraft, with another going to the United Kingdom. London, however, recently announced it would not purchase a Stovl fleet and this aircraft will be used for testing. This leaves the U.S. Marines and Italy as the only potential Stovl customers.
The U.S. Navy is buying four CVs in LRIP IV — most expensive version and the least mature at this point in the development program.
The LRIP IV contract stipulates that the government’s maximum per-unit financial exposure is 120% of the target price. Any overrun exceeding that ceiling (which represents the out-of-pocket cost to the government) would be paid for by prime JSF contractor Lockheed Martin. The funding would first come out of the company’s profit.
These per-unit target costs include some ancillary items not directly associated with building production aircraft, such as testing instrumentation equipment, says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager for F-35. Though he says that the government’s per-unit target price is higher than Lockheed’s unit recurring flyaway (URF) price, the two sets of numbers are following the same price reduction curve.
Lockheed officials declined to release the URF because they say it is competition-sensitive; the F-35 is still competing against the Gripen, Eurofighter and F/A-18 E/F in various international campaigns. Based on the most recent multiyear procurement of 124 F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft, the per-unit cost is approximately $42.7 million, excluding the cost of both engines.
However, Burbage says in general the target per-unit cost cited by the Pentagon exceeds Lockheed’s URF by about 3-4%. “It is not worth arguing about real prices … because it is only really a small amount of money,” he says. “These numbers aren’t important to the U.S. Department of Defense” because officials they know the numbers. “These numbers are important to the international partnership [and] they do tend to get taken out of context,” Burbage adds.
Lockheed’s decision to agree to a fixed-price, incentive fee contract in LRIP IV earlier than planned is an effort to “try and dispel some of the cost discussion … to try and signal to the world that we have confidence in our cost.”
A government source says that the if the target per-unit prices are achieved, the cost is on a steep downward curve - reducing by more than $100 million since the first lot - for the CTOL version, which is competing in the international market.
According to a government source, the prices for LRIPs 1-3 are:
LRIP 1 - CTOL - $221.2 million,
LRIP 2 - CTOL - 161.7 million; Stovl (first purchase) $160.7,
LRIP 3 - CTOL - $128.2 million: Stovl $128 million.
The LRIP IV buy doubles Lockheed’s F-35 backlog, and Burbage says that each time the quantity ordered doubles, the per-unit price will decrease by 25-28 percent. Ultimately, Lockheed plans to sell at least 3,100 of the single-engine stealthy fighters, and officials hope to achieve an average recurring flyaway cost of about $60 million per CTOL unit.
Many of Lockheed’s smaller F-35 subcontractors are already under fixed-price arrangements, but negotiations must still be done on LRIP IV with BAE and Northrop Grumman, the top two industrial partners on the airframe portion of the program.
Talks for LRIP IV are nascent, but Burbage says he hopes to have a contract for this next lot by June.
ajay shukla ji ka kaya hoga
Last edited:
Dash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Sancho -
Though it looks like the problem is from US side,however this question has been raised by all, obviously it benifits them. Now one thing is that it shouldnt further delay the process of acquisition. If that happens then this will become a joke.
because we knew that we couldnt absorb the tech for Scorpenes but we faced, still we didnt realise, and if this becomes the same case for IAF(as told by IAF cheif most likely it is) then we are being dragged to a black hole.
IAF chief is realising now that offset policy is complicated, I mean why so late, couldnt this has been realised much earlier?
But US will not benift much if they delay the process, Their platforms are mature and that gives them a bargaining power over others, as their platform are not that mature in terms of AESA or critical techs for engines. But other platforms are improving and they will catch up, what it damages the only measure US has now?
So what the US will do, sell F-35s to India?..sounds fishy.
SpArK
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 22,519
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
IAFs MMRCA tender stuck in offset limbo
The acquisition process for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) is facing delays due to uncertainties about offset policy and with vendors facing the prospect of having to redo their homework.
The IAF had submitted its report on the technical evaluation of the six aircraft competing to win the tender last summer. After this submission, the Ministry of Defense had to evaluate the offset proposals submitted by the six vendors and also compare the respective proposals for transfer of technology.
Last September, the respective vendors were invited to a review of their offset proposals by ministry officials, when they were all told that the proposals submitted by them failed to comply with the parameters set by the ministry. They were also informed at the time that in the case of offsets for third party suppliers, all vendors would need to have Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) in place with their suppliers suppliers as well, and that a letter to this effect would be issued shortly, which would also list out discrepancies in the offset proposals of the respective vendors.
Although no such letter was forthcoming, representatives of all six vendors were invited to a meeting last month, where they were again informed of their non-compliance with the offset requirements. They were also told that they would be issued letters listing out the discrepancies in their offset proposals by November 30, as well as the structure of the MOUs required to be in place with Indian sub-contractors to the suppliers of the prime vendors, on the basis of which, they would have to submit fresh offset proposals by January 7, 2011.
Although no letter arrived by November-end, the vendors did receive telephone calls advising them that the deadline for resubmission of offset proposals was extended to January 21, 2011 and that the letter listing discrepancies in the respective proposals would arrive by December 17, 2010, that is, today.
No such letter has been received till this evening.
While vendors understand the enormity of the ministrys task in evaluating the individual offset proposals, said to number in their hundreds, they fail to understand why this process could not have been conducted in parallel with the flight evaluation trials, since the original offset proposals were submitted in July, 2008.
The ministry, on its part, wants to be thorough in setting the offset norms for the vendors in the fray for the MMRCA tender, since this deal, worth over US $ 10 billion, is expected to lay down the ground rules for offsets for successive deals as well.
Industry sources indicate that even the deadline of January 21, 2011 will be difficult to meet considering that any letter listing out possible discrepancies, even when it arrives, will require clarifications, face objections and is likely to cause much argument between the vendors and South Block, before responses are sent.
Some vendors object to the idea of signing MoUs with third party contractors since they do not expect to have any direct dealings with them. They also say that they would prefer to conclude sub-contracts on the basis of bids to discover the best prices and products and services, if and when they win the MMRCA tender.
In the light of the approval granted to the new Defense Procurement Procedure (DPP) and an unprecedented Defense Production Policy by the Defense Acquisitions Council (DAC) on Tuesday (both documents are expected to be published by next month), there is a chance that newer offset policy elements might find their way into the norms being set for the MMRCA vendors, even though technically, the MMRCA tender process is governed by the DPP issued in 2006. In fact, there is now even talk of banking offsets being allowed for the MMRCA tender, which were actually first permitted by the DPP issued in 2008 under the Defense Offsets Policy.
Another issue that is expected to lead to yet more delays in the process is the failure on the part of the ministry to form a team to evaluate the respective proposals made by vendors for the transfer of technology. The methodology for evaluating and comparing the value of the respective proposals for transfer of technology also remains unformulated and unclear. This process, too, is expected to be tedious and time-consuming.
And a third outstanding issue is the post delivery risk allocation with respect to the aircraft. While the aircraft will come with warranties, vendors feel they would breathe easier with clarity on the question of any civil liability that might accrue to an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) in the event of a mishap. While civilian and commercial aircraft deals usually cater for this issue, it remains unresolved as far as the MMRCA is concerned.
Since the second week of February will also feature the Bangalore Air Show, Aero India 2011, these issues are unlikely to see the glimmerings of resolution anytime soon, without which the process cannot proceed toward the formulation of a shortlist of the aircraft and the opening of indicated commercial bids.
The six contenders in the race are Boeings F/A-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martins F-16, EADS Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassaults Rafale, Saabs Gripen and the Russian MiG-35.
IAF’s MMRCA tender stuck in offset limbo
luckyyy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,337
- Reaction score
- -1
so , Gripen have to submit the MoU with GE for their engine...........i doubt that they can
F-18/F16 has to submit the MoU with their radar suppliers..............i doubt that they can
but what's the problum with Eurofighter and MIG-35.....i suppose they shouldn't be having any such issues...
angeldemon_007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,298
- Reaction score
- 0
Air Chief Marshall said the result will be out by march 2011. I think once again the timeline will cross and this might mean, we the normal taxpayer will have to pay an extra couple of billion $. Does our politician even pay Income Tax??/ The policies mentioned above are too strict although if accepted by the vendors will be very beneficial for us.
In my opinion, if India is thinking of increasing this deal from 126 to 180-200 which we have heard in many reports, then its time to do it.
I think it would be beneficial as a deal for 200 fighters could help in decreasing the per unit cost of the fighters. If India extends this deal in the future then we will have to purchase the same fighter at more cost. But I know, we won't do this, as we like to waste money.
Just look at examples, we are buying the new SU30 mki at the price close to that of F35 lightening. But who cares, we are paying...
Apart from this, any deal of this size (200 fighters) would mean even US will give all the technologies.
We have to understand that with time, this deal is getting less attractive. Three years ago, this deal would have been the mother of all deal but now many countries are coming up with there demands, not so big but not so tough requirements either.
In my opinion, if India is thinking of increasing this deal from 126 to 180-200 which we have heard in many reports, then its time to do it.
I think it would be beneficial as a deal for 200 fighters could help in decreasing the per unit cost of the fighters. If India extends this deal in the future then we will have to purchase the same fighter at more cost. But I know, we won't do this, as we like to waste money.
Just look at examples, we are buying the new SU30 mki at the price close to that of F35 lightening. But who cares, we are paying...
Apart from this, any deal of this size (200 fighters) would mean even US will give all the technologies.
We have to understand that with time, this deal is getting less attractive. Three years ago, this deal would have been the mother of all deal but now many countries are coming up with there demands, not so big but not so tough requirements either.
pulsar220
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2010
- Messages
- 93
- Reaction score
- 0
Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF
HYDERABAD: The multi-billion dollar deal to acquire 126 fighter jets under the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) project is likely to be inked by mid-2011, Indian Air Force chief said.
"It is a big deal. We have finished the evaluation and the matter is with the (defence) ministry now. Hopefully, it will progress and we will be able to sign the contract by July next year. After that it takes three years for delivery," Air chief marshal P V Naik said.
He was talking to reporters after reviewing the Combined Graduation Parade of flight cadets of IAF at the Air Force Academy in Dundigal, about 35 km from here.
Six global aeronautical firms are in the fray for the contract for which a tender was floated in August 2007.
The chief of Air Staff said besides the MMRCA project, deals for inducting new aircraft were in the pipeline. India and Russia are jointly developing the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). "We will be going in for about 200-250 of such fighter planes starting from 2017 onwards."
With regard to transport aircraft, the IAF will buy C-17 American transport aircraft for which negotiations are going on, Naik said.
"The air force is going in for the Medium Transport Aircraft in collaboration with Russia. We are also going in for air to air refueling tankers (Flight Re-fueling Aircraft) for which we have given a global request for proposal (RFP). The C-130 J Hercules will be inducted from January," he said.
Evaluation is on to buy attack helicopters and heavy lift choppers, the IAF chief said.
Read more: Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF - The Times of India Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF - The Times of India
i eager to know which one they have selected
HYDERABAD: The multi-billion dollar deal to acquire 126 fighter jets under the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) project is likely to be inked by mid-2011, Indian Air Force chief said.
"It is a big deal. We have finished the evaluation and the matter is with the (defence) ministry now. Hopefully, it will progress and we will be able to sign the contract by July next year. After that it takes three years for delivery," Air chief marshal P V Naik said.
He was talking to reporters after reviewing the Combined Graduation Parade of flight cadets of IAF at the Air Force Academy in Dundigal, about 35 km from here.
Six global aeronautical firms are in the fray for the contract for which a tender was floated in August 2007.
The chief of Air Staff said besides the MMRCA project, deals for inducting new aircraft were in the pipeline. India and Russia are jointly developing the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). "We will be going in for about 200-250 of such fighter planes starting from 2017 onwards."
With regard to transport aircraft, the IAF will buy C-17 American transport aircraft for which negotiations are going on, Naik said.
"The air force is going in for the Medium Transport Aircraft in collaboration with Russia. We are also going in for air to air refueling tankers (Flight Re-fueling Aircraft) for which we have given a global request for proposal (RFP). The C-130 J Hercules will be inducted from January," he said.
Evaluation is on to buy attack helicopters and heavy lift choppers, the IAF chief said.
Read more: Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF - The Times of India Deal to buy 126 fighter jets to be inked by mid-2011: IAF - The Times of India
i eager to know which one they have selected
MAFIAN GOD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 377
- Reaction score
- 0
^^^
We already knew that
We already knew that
kingdurgaking
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- -2
hooo nooo moved further.. i doubt this will happen next year
sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Hi Dash, you know, I don't thrust these kind of reports anymore and wait for official, or at least reliable sources, because we read too many different reports, that were false, or made up.
Further delays are bad for us mainly, for the vendors it have pros and cons, because they have more time for further developments, but also a higher chance that the order could be scrapped, if LCA gets ready in the meant time and possibly better than expected.
The F35 will be offered of course, but at the moment it's not ready, too costly and for sure also not available for a licence production.
Personally I don't even care much about delays of the final decision (I even expect them), but am more interested about the shortlisting, because it could tell us more about what IAF/MoD wants.
angeldemon_007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,298
- Reaction score
- 0
In my opinion India should not give any further military orders to US. We are getting good response from Europe and Russia. US will try to pressurize but the thing is what they can do ?? We have to be realistic they won't give UNSC seat to India because the know India is not like others, India won't support US in many cases especially in case of Iran. And if they really wanna give us UNSC then it must be an act of desperation because of China's growth.
Look at how Pres. Obama was desperate to get more and more deals. If India decides not to make any exception in case of procurement of military equipment from US and start giving orders to only Europe and Russia then Defense giants LM, Boeing, NG etc. will start to pressurize the govt. to give India full tot in most of the cases like the one in Globemaster deal, poesidan deal etc.
Look at how Pres. Obama was desperate to get more and more deals. If India decides not to make any exception in case of procurement of military equipment from US and start giving orders to only Europe and Russia then Defense giants LM, Boeing, NG etc. will start to pressurize the govt. to give India full tot in most of the cases like the one in Globemaster deal, poesidan deal etc.
sudhir007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2009
- Messages
- 4,728
- Reaction score
- 1
Beauty ::: EFT
Working from Centre Fuselage to Outer Wing Pylon: 1000L tank, 2 * Meteor, 1000L Tank, ASRAAM.
Working from Centre Fuselage to Outer Wing Pylon: 1000L tank, 2 * Meteor, Paveway III, Storm Shadow, ALARM, ASRAAM.
Working from Centre Fuselage to Outer Wing Pylon: 1000L tank, 2 * Meteor, Taurus, ALARM, IRIS-T.
Working from Centre Fuselage to Outer Wing Pylon: 1000L tank, 2 * Meteor, 1000L Tank, ASRAAM.
Working from Centre Fuselage to Outer Wing Pylon: 1000L tank, 2 * Meteor, Paveway III, Storm Shadow, ALARM, ASRAAM.
Working from Centre Fuselage to Outer Wing Pylon: 1000L tank, 2 * Meteor, Taurus, ALARM, IRIS-T.
- Status
Similar threads
