What's new

India already started negotiations fpr second order of Rafale

US Navy will continue to operate Super Hornets for the foreseeable future.

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/na...per-hornets-in-fydp-to-ease-fighter-shortfall

Navy Wants to Buy 80 More Super Hornets for $7.1B Over the Next Five Years
By: Megan Eckstein
June 13, 2017 7:56 PM


Airman Michael Nywair signals that an F/A-18E Super Hornet from the Argonauts of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 147 is ready aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68) on June 7, 2017. US Navy Photo

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy intends to buy at least 80 more Boeing F/A-18E-F Super Hornets over the next five years to address its fighter shortfall, a change from its previous on-the-books plan to zero out the aircraft program beginning next year, service officials said in congressional testimony today.

The Navy’s written testimony to the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee notes the “Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget requests $1.25 billion in [the Navy’s aircraft procurement account] for 14 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft” and that, “with the support of Congress, we will also procure a minimum of 80 additional Super Hornets across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and continue modernization plans to address continuing warfighter demand for advanced tactical aircraft. These additional procurements begin to mitigate the decline in [the Department of the Navy’s] strike fighter inventory and enable older aircraft to be pulled from service for mid-life upgrades and rework to extend their service life.”

Though the services typically include in their budget requests a five-year projection of spending plans, this year Pentagon officials told reporters during the budget rollout that any out-year numbers were speculative and in many cases simply maintained current program levels. They said an ongoing defense strategy review would inform future year needs and render any current projections moot – and the Navy, as a result, took the FYDP projections out of its budget highlights book but not from its more detailed justification documents.

“The (defense) secretary has not spent any time at all looking at anything beyond FY ’18,” John Roth, performing the duties of under secretary of defense, comptroller, told reporters during the budget rollout.
“You will not see a growth in force structure. You will not see a growth in the shipbuilding plan. You will not see a robust modernization program in the so-called current FYDP. And so therefore I caution anybody from trying to make any comparisons. And I’m actually of the school that it really doesn’t provide anything that’s particularly insightful.”

However, the Navy’s testimony today confirms the plans within its aviation procurement justification documents – that the service wants to buy 14 in 2018 for $1.25 billion , 23 in 2019 for $1.95 billion, 14 in 2020 for $1.35 billion and 14 in 2021 for $1.27 billion and 15 in 2022 for $1.28 billion.

In contrast, the FY 2017 budget request included 14 aircraft in 2018, as was requested last month, and then zero for the rest of the years of the FYDP.


Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden , commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific, observes flight quarters on amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) on Nov. 19, 2016. US Navy Photo

Many have speculated that future F/A-18 procurement would be a signal of the Navy moving away from the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lighting II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter. President Donald Trump’s December 2016 tweet pitting the two airframes against one another only increased speculation – as did Defense Secretary James Mattis’ subsequent memo ordering a review of the two aircraft and the ability to add improvements to the Super Hornet to make it comparable to the Joint Strike Fighter.

At the SASC hearing today, Navy Director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) Rear Adm. DeWolfe Miller made clear that the Navy would not be choosing between the two.

“I get the question a lot, tell me about this F-35 versus F-18. And I say, it’s not a versus. The complementary nature of both these aircraft in the future for our Navy, our aircraft carrier Navy, is very exciting.”

At the hearing, Miller, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, and Naval Air Systems Command commander Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags agreed the F-35C and B development and fielding were going along well.

For the Marine Corps, which is already operating its short takeoff and landing variant overseas, the cost of operating the aircraft has proven to be less than predicted. Davis said the Marines still hired an outside firm to work with the service, airplane manufacturer Lockheed Martin and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney to identify even more cost savings in operating and maintaining the F-35Bs.

“Right now it’s costing me a heck of a lot of money to fly the legacy airplanes and get readiness out of them,” Davis said, but “the F-35 has got a high readiness rate for us right now; also too we’re working at driving cost per flight hour down and the [operations and sustainment] costs out.”

“We have a winner on our hands,” he said and added that the Marine Corps would share lessons learned with the Navy and Air Force to help reduce costs for operating the F-35A and C models as well.


An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant, assigned to the Salty Dogs of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, performs a touch-and-go landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73). US Navy Photo

The F-35C is still awaiting the 3F software upgrade before beginning final test and evaluation and working towards reaching initial operational capability. Grosklags said at the hearing that “in terms of the (software) development process, we’re on very solid ground.”

“As we want to get to the final 3F software configuration before we introduce the aircraft in the Navy, we’re very closely watching the stability. And we have seen over the last year to 18 months the in-flight stability go from where they were having to system-reset or having to do something with the system in-flight from about every five hours, to the most recent software release is about every 40 hours, which is more than acceptable for us right now,” he said.

Miller said that early shipboard testing of the F-35C with previous software increments already looked promising. After about 150 carrier landings, the F-35C has seen a 100-percent rate of successfully landing on the carrier, with none of them catching the first of four arresting wires, which is typically the most dangerous of the four to catch.

“It was a dream to bring aboard,” Miller said. On the plane’s capability, he said “the fact that we’re getting super-sonic stealth, data fusion, the sensor-netting that this airplane is going to be able to provide, it adds capability, lethality and survivability, not just to the air wing but to the entire carrier strike group – the way we integrate it with our Aegis ships and our Baseline 9 configuration, the way we fight it alongside our .. E-2D [Advnaced Hawkeyes] and with the capability of a [EA-18G] Growler.”
Iam happy with hornets too.....this thing is more than just the planes, its about Tech transfer maybe thats the place where our acquisitions get stuck....TOT
 
.
Iam happy with hornets too.....this thing is more than just the planes, its about Tech transfer maybe thats the place where our acquisitions get stuck....TOT

Sorry! . We are not here for charity but to close a Business deal. Why do you expect US firms give away the hard invested and developed Technologies to India? Russian could fool you, France could mesmerize you and Swedes could entice you but No country or firm is going to indulge in such a suicidal act of parting away with their critical IP. US indulges in corruption free, fair and open deals. We do not over promise and under deliver like the others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-tech-in-make-in-india-plan-idUSKCN1BU15O


Exclusive: U.S. defense firms want control over tech in Make-in-India plan

Aditya Kalra, Sanjeev Miglani
6 MIN READ

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - U.S. defense firms offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions of dollars want stronger assurances they won’t have to part with proprietary technology, according to a business lobby group’s letter to India’s defense minister.

upload_2017-10-14_7-35-46.png


FILE PHOTO: A U.S. F-16 aircraft makes a landing during a joint India-U.S. air force exercises at the Kalaikunda Airbase, west of Kolkata, India, November 17, 2005. REUTERS/Jayanta Shaw/File Photo

These companies are also saying they shouldn’t be held liable for defects in products manufactured in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make-in-India’s drive to build a military industrial base.

Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and Boeing (BA.N) are both bidding to supply combat jets to India’s military, which is running short of hundreds of aircraft as it retires Soviet-era MiG planes, and its own three-decade long effort to produce a domestic jet is hobbled by delays.


Lockheed has offered to shift its F-16 production line to India from Fort Worth, Texas, and make it the sole factory worldwide if India orders at least 100 single-engine fighters.

The U.S. firm has picked Tata Advanced Systems as its local partner under the defense ministry’s new Strategic Partnership model under which foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can hold up to a 49 percent stake in a joint venture with an Indian private firm which will hold the majority of shares.

The US-India Business Council (USIBC) wrote to India’s defense minister last month seeking a guarantee that U.S. firms would retain control over sensitive technology - even as joint venture junior partners.

“Control of proprietary technologies is a major consideration for all companies exploring public and private defense partnerships,” the business lobby, which represents 400 firms, said in the Aug. 3 letter, reviewed by Reuters and previously unreported.

“To allow foreign OEMs to provide the most advanced technologies, the partnership arrangement between an Indian owned ‘strategic partner’ company and a foreign OEM needs to provide an opportunity for the foreign OEM to retain control over its proprietary technology,” it said, noting this wasn’t explicit in the policy document.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Technology transfer is at the heart of Modi’s drive to build a domestic industrial base and cut a reliance on imports that has made India the world’s biggest arms importer in recent years.

Without full tech transfer in previous arms deals, India’s mainly state-run defense factories have largely been left to assemble knock-down kits even for tanks and aircraft produced under license from the foreign maker.

Modi’s advisers have vowed to change that, insisting on transfer of technology so that critical military equipment are designed and manufactured in India.

upload_2017-10-14_7-36-33.png


FILE PHOTO: A U.S. naval F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft takes off from the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier during wargames between navies of India, Japan, Australia and Singapore in the Bay of Bengal September 7, 2007. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi/File Photo

Benjamin Schwartz, USIBC’s director for defense and aerospace, said the new Indian policy offered a roadmap for establishing partnerships between U.S. and Indian companies, but it raised some questions for the firms.

He said he was not in a position to name those companies concerned by the Indian policy, but there was a “general desire to see increased clarity” on several aspects, including the control of proprietary technologies.

QUALITY ISSUES
The USIBC also opposed a clause in the new rules that held foreign firms jointly responsible for the quality of the platforms provided to the military, saying legal liability is a significant factor in business decisions.

“We recommend the MoD (Ministry of Defence) affirm that foreign OEMs will not be liable for defects outside their company’s control,” the USIBC said.

Lockheed did not respond to a request for comment. Boeing, which is bidding for a separate contract to sell its F/A-18 Super Hornets for India’s aircraft carrier fleet, declined to comment on the USIBC letter. But the company’s India president, Pratyush Kumar, told a conference this month there were concerns about Indian private firms’ lack of experience in the aerospace sector.

Only state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HIAE.NS) Ltd had made planes under license, while some private players were starting from scratch, having never built even an aircraft component. Kumar said he could not find a single example worldwide of a private enterprise with limited experience building out a plane under transfer of technology.

“Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil - look at multiple countries. In all cases there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise,” Kumar said at a conference organized by the Centre for Air Power Studies, a think-tank of the Indian air force.


India’s defense ministry offered no response to the concerns expressed by the trade lobbying group on the strategic partnership model, which will also apply to building submarines and helicopters as part of a $150 billion modernization drive.

But an official, referring to sensitive technology, said the government has made clear in the past that foreign firms can be allowed to increase their stake beyond 49 percent if the technology they bring in is state-of-the art.

“It can be done on a case-to-case basis,” the official said.

Mukesh Aghi, president of the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, said that despite the starting problems, defense manufacturing looked set to be a breakthrough area in ties between India and the United States.

“It’s the next big thing. There is strong support from the (U.S. President Donald) Trump administration to take this forward.”

Reporting by Aditya Kalra and Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Ian Geoghegan

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
 
.
Sorry! . We are not here for charity but to close a Business deal. Why do you expect US firms give away the hard invested and developed Technologies to India? Russian could fool you, France could mesmerize you and Swedes could entice you but No country or firm is going to indulge in such a suicidal act of parting away with their critical IP. US indulges in corruption free, fair and open deals. We do not over promise and under deliver like the others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-tech-in-make-in-india-plan-idUSKCN1BU15O


Exclusive: U.S. defense firms want control over tech in Make-in-India plan

Aditya Kalra, Sanjeev Miglani
6 MIN READ

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - U.S. defense firms offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions of dollars want stronger assurances they won’t have to part with proprietary technology, according to a business lobby group’s letter to India’s defense minister.

View attachment 431167

FILE PHOTO: A U.S. F-16 aircraft makes a landing during a joint India-U.S. air force exercises at the Kalaikunda Airbase, west of Kolkata, India, November 17, 2005. REUTERS/Jayanta Shaw/File Photo

These companies are also saying they shouldn’t be held liable for defects in products manufactured in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Make-in-India’s drive to build a military industrial base.

Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and Boeing (BA.N) are both bidding to supply combat jets to India’s military, which is running short of hundreds of aircraft as it retires Soviet-era MiG planes, and its own three-decade long effort to produce a domestic jet is hobbled by delays.


Lockheed has offered to shift its F-16 production line to India from Fort Worth, Texas, and make it the sole factory worldwide if India orders at least 100 single-engine fighters.

The U.S. firm has picked Tata Advanced Systems as its local partner under the defense ministry’s new Strategic Partnership model under which foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can hold up to a 49 percent stake in a joint venture with an Indian private firm which will hold the majority of shares.

The US-India Business Council (USIBC) wrote to India’s defense minister last month seeking a guarantee that U.S. firms would retain control over sensitive technology - even as joint venture junior partners.

“Control of proprietary technologies is a major consideration for all companies exploring public and private defense partnerships,” the business lobby, which represents 400 firms, said in the Aug. 3 letter, reviewed by Reuters and previously unreported.

“To allow foreign OEMs to provide the most advanced technologies, the partnership arrangement between an Indian owned ‘strategic partner’ company and a foreign OEM needs to provide an opportunity for the foreign OEM to retain control over its proprietary technology,” it said, noting this wasn’t explicit in the policy document.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Technology transfer is at the heart of Modi’s drive to build a domestic industrial base and cut a reliance on imports that has made India the world’s biggest arms importer in recent years.

Without full tech transfer in previous arms deals, India’s mainly state-run defense factories have largely been left to assemble knock-down kits even for tanks and aircraft produced under license from the foreign maker.

Modi’s advisers have vowed to change that, insisting on transfer of technology so that critical military equipment are designed and manufactured in India.

View attachment 431168

FILE PHOTO: A U.S. naval F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft takes off from the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier during wargames between navies of India, Japan, Australia and Singapore in the Bay of Bengal September 7, 2007. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi/File Photo

Benjamin Schwartz, USIBC’s director for defense and aerospace, said the new Indian policy offered a roadmap for establishing partnerships between U.S. and Indian companies, but it raised some questions for the firms.

He said he was not in a position to name those companies concerned by the Indian policy, but there was a “general desire to see increased clarity” on several aspects, including the control of proprietary technologies.

QUALITY ISSUES
The USIBC also opposed a clause in the new rules that held foreign firms jointly responsible for the quality of the platforms provided to the military, saying legal liability is a significant factor in business decisions.

“We recommend the MoD (Ministry of Defence) affirm that foreign OEMs will not be liable for defects outside their company’s control,” the USIBC said.

Lockheed did not respond to a request for comment. Boeing, which is bidding for a separate contract to sell its F/A-18 Super Hornets for India’s aircraft carrier fleet, declined to comment on the USIBC letter. But the company’s India president, Pratyush Kumar, told a conference this month there were concerns about Indian private firms’ lack of experience in the aerospace sector.

Only state-run Hindustan Aeronautics (HIAE.NS) Ltd had made planes under license, while some private players were starting from scratch, having never built even an aircraft component. Kumar said he could not find a single example worldwide of a private enterprise with limited experience building out a plane under transfer of technology.

“Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil - look at multiple countries. In all cases there is a fine balancing act of co-opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise,” Kumar said at a conference organized by the Centre for Air Power Studies, a think-tank of the Indian air force.


India’s defense ministry offered no response to the concerns expressed by the trade lobbying group on the strategic partnership model, which will also apply to building submarines and helicopters as part of a $150 billion modernization drive.

But an official, referring to sensitive technology, said the government has made clear in the past that foreign firms can be allowed to increase their stake beyond 49 percent if the technology they bring in is state-of-the art.

“It can be done on a case-to-case basis,” the official said.

Mukesh Aghi, president of the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, said that despite the starting problems, defense manufacturing looked set to be a breakthrough area in ties between India and the United States.

“It’s the next big thing. There is strong support from the (U.S. President Donald) Trump administration to take this forward.”

Reporting by Aditya Kalra and Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Ian Geoghegan

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
TOT is crucial tech, i know nobody would kill a hen laying golden eggs....but India would like to have some consultancy and help in designing the future planes.Now that is too a problem.....but i think India should go for US planes off the shelf....our country needs an industry and it can not be built without US help.
 
.
TOT is crucial tech, i know nobody would kill a hen laying golden eggs....but India would like to have some consultancy and help in designing the future planes.Now that is too a problem.....but i think India should go for US planes off the shelf....our country needs an industry and it can not be built without US help.
Brazil is certainly getting a lot of help setting up themselves to build Gripen,
and also to design the Gripen F double-seater.
Why would a deal with India be different?

A deal with the US would mean that the fab will move to India.
Will there be trained LM personell accompanying the fab, to ensure it works?
Will there be support from LM 5-10 years from now, when all US employees have
moved over to F-35 or retired or left the company?

A deal with SAAB would mean a new fab would be created, and India can send people to Sweden
to train in the SAAB fab, while the new fab is beeing built.
They will be using the latest production tools including 3-D printing, instead of old worn out junk designed 20-30 years ago.
If India wants to do modifications, the Gripen E was created using Model Based Design.
What tools were used to create the F-16? Are they still available at a state where modifications are possible?

As for Software, the F-16 Software is a monolithic piece, and if India wants to modify stuff like adding new weapons, they need to fully requalify that Software.
The Gripen E Software suit allows India to add weapons as an App, and does not need to requalify the flight system.
 
.
Buying F16 means that you buy yourself a master except the machine
Buying Gripen means that you buy yourself a partner except the machina
I am afraid india will choose F16, because they need find a new master ever since seperated with UK
 
.
India are getting F414 production for Tejas Mk2 and AMCA.
India is getting all the Engine ToT it is going to get from the US for this project.
Nothing that stops India from producing F414 for Gripen as well.

I think that might represent future plans quite well.
All we know right now is that AMCA and LCA mark 2 are on track and being pursued seriously and here with GE 414IN being offered to India could well be key to SEF competition.
Grippen E is a mighty capable fighter in its class and if India finds that Political relations with Sweden don't go sour for any unforeseen reason, the deal could very well be clinched.
US in its part could get (in distant future) contract for F-35C, once initial orders for NATO allies are fulfilled, but that certainly will be at cost of FGFA which seems to be going nowhere.
 
. . .
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...gine-jets-this-month/articleshow/60958830.cms

NEW DELHI: In a major move, the Indian Air Force will start the process this month to acquire a fleet of single engine fighter jets which are expected to significantly enhance its overall strike capability.

Chief of Air Staff B S Dhanoa said having a new fleet of single engine jets was a "priority" for the IAF and the request for information (RFI) for it is likely to be issued "very soon".
...
Dhanoa said IAF is giving priority to the single engine fighters as the twin-engine fighters will cost more.

"Right now, we are concentrating on the single engine so as to make up the numbers with lower cost," he said. The IAF currently has 33 fighter squadrons against authorised strength of 42.

The IAF chief, however, said the force has requirement of twin engine jets as well.
 
.
Sorry! . We are not here for charity but to close a Business deal. Why do you expect US firms give away the hard invested and developed Technologies to India? Russian could fool you, France could mesmerize you and Swedes could entice you but No country or firm is going to indulge in such a suicidal act ...............


are you nuts ? what charity ????? you mean billions of dollars have no worth ??????? same thing happened with cryogenic engine technology , america denied the technology transfer , and then what happened ? they are rattled in america that ISRO is taking over commercial space launch business away from their hands very fast .
remember one thing , no technology transfer , no jet purchases , count this as a prediction only . bye
[/QUOTE]
 
.
are you nuts ? what charity ????? you mean billions of dollars have no worth ??????? same thing happened with cryogenic engine technology , america denied the technology transfer , and then what happened ? they are rattled in america that ISRO is taking over commercial space launch business away from their hands very fast .
remember one thing , no technology transfer , no jet purchases , count this as a prediction only . bye
[/QUOTE]
Yankees are having the full right not to share theirs hard earned tech with others,also we have the full authority on how to spend our taxpayers money.
 
.
are you nuts ? what charity ????? you mean billions of dollars have no worth ??????? same thing happened with cryogenic engine technology , america denied the technology transfer , and then what happened ? they are rattled in america that ISRO is taking over commercial space launch business away from their hands very fast .
remember one thing , no technology transfer , no jet purchases , count this as a prediction only . bye
[/QUOTE]

Money can buy Technology not ToT.
 
.
India has a hectic diplomatic calendar next week with a series of high-profile visits scheduled. French Defence Minister Florance Parley will be in New Delhi on an official visit during which she is likely to make a strong pitch to sell additional Rafale fighter jets.

Ms. Parley is scheduled to visit India from October 26.

“The two sides will discuss the progress of the implementation of the deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets,” one official said. The issue of additional Rafale jets and the Navy’s mega tender for a new line of submarines are likely to come up for discussion, the official added.

“Ms. Parley will travel to Nagpur on October 27 to lay the foundation stone for a manufacturing facility being set up by Dassault and Reliance Defence as part of the offsets under the Rafale deal,” another official said.

In September last year, India and France concluded a €7.87-billion government-to-government deal for 36 Rafale jets in flyaway condition scheduled to be delivered between 2019 and 2022. The deal has a 50% offset clause to be executed by Dassault and its partners in India amounting up to ₹30,000 crore.

Following this, Dassault Aviation and Reliance Defence announced a joint venture called “Dassault Reliance Aerospace”, which is likely to execute a major part of the offsets.

Single-engine jet
The Indian Air Force has stated its requirement for additional twin-engine fighter jets and has expressed its desire for more Rafale jets. However, with a depleting fighter strength and several squadrons of MiG-21s and MiG-27s to be phased out, the focus is now on procuring a single-engine fighter jet under the newly promulgated Strategic Partnership model. “Single engine is a priority ... Right now, we are trying to make up numbers with single-engine aircraft …,” Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa said earlier this month in response to questions on the IAF’s procurement plans.

The IAF is operating 32 fighter squadrons against the sanctioned strength of 42, which is set to drop further in the coming years.

One officer said the IAF would like to have additional Rafale jets. “The resources are limited and we need to prioritise,” he added.

Source:http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/france-wants-india-to-buy-more-rafales/article19891556.ece
 
.
India should have bought rafales only.

Unfortunately, it got distracted left and right, too much clutter aircraft hence only 36 rafales for a country so big.

I highly doubt india will buy more since 5G aircraft on the horizon thus leaving india with weak air credibility for next 10 years

Anyway, india never take the defense of their nation seriously, especially with accidents and mig-21 still in the air

the french are also good people unlike russians, refusing to launder with the indian military hence low sales to india

India can only blame itself for own failures...whenever India thinks of China, it cannot even dare step in China's shadows
 
Last edited:
.
India should have bought rafales only.

Unfortunately, it got distracted left and right, too much clutter aircraft hence only 36 rafales for a country so big.

I highly doubt india will buy more since 5G aircraft on the horizon thus leaving india with weak air credibility for next 10 years

Anyway, india never take the defense of their nation seriously, especially with accidents and mig-21 still in the air

the french are also good people unlike russians, refusing to launder with the indian military hence low sales to india

It can only blame itself for own failures...
So ..Now you will set India's defence plan!!!!!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom