Check the bottom of my post 383.
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
ADMk2 has already addressed the 14 orders out of 100 commitments issue and of course by responding point by point to you post exposing that you even mentioned me because I surely didn’t read your giant paragraph past the first one or two crazy points.
But in response to you point “posited” is a pretty dumb thing to do when you kind of forget to provide an argument. Posit means to assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument. Is a useful method to explain an issue. However if all you do is assume and make no argument there are a range of eloquent dismals of your hollow positing. But in honour of his recent passing this is the best:
“'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
On the other hand the stated commitments by partner and customer nations to date is:
USA: 2,443, UK: 138, Italy: 131, Netherlands: 85, Australia: 100, Canada: 65, Denmark: 48, Norway: 52, Turkey: 116, Israel: 100, Japan: 50
That’s a total of 3, 328 commitments to date. Sure there may only be 140 on order but that’s the nature of a production schedule. Many of these commitments may not become orders (in particular the UK) but there will be many more customers and many more orders before production ends in the 2030s. To posit otherwise is to be off in the fairies.
Last edited:
Sorry. Wasn't it announced that Japan was buying 42 (via a Reuters report), for this round (but the Japanese requirements over time could be much more than 42)?
I read 40 and 50 in different articles. If it is 42 then that hardly changes anything of substance to the post.
the road runner
Active Member
Have read a few articles that if India shows interest in JSF ,it maybe offered to them to.
What confuses me is that if India did show interest in JSF would they cancel the MMRCA or continue with MMRCA and also purchase JSF? Guess time will tell.
And not necessarily downward. As I recall with the C-17 Globemasters at the beginning the USAF desired around 120 aircraft. They are going to end up with over 210 aircraft. The Congress keeps appropriating more of them despite the USAF not requesting any ever since they reached 180. Much depends upon Congress funding them, but if the Congress likes an aircraft, they will buy more.Where have you read that India have shown any interest in the F-35
So far the India official statements have the opposite effects.
USA:2,443.. riight.
That number are still transparent and will change.
Even if the US doesn't buy 2,443 aircraft, much of the funding for developing the technologies for the F-35 JSF will cross over to any new aircraft. Considering the size of the fighters of the USAF, USN, and USMC, that number isn't really a high number. The US could cut its fighter strength considerably with budget cuts and size cuts from their present numbers and still reach that number.
I keep hearing about a trillion dollar JSF program. When I use my calculator and multiply 2,443 aircraft by 100 million dollars I get 244 billion. The aircraft would have to be four times as expensive to reach a trillion. Well, a cynic would reply count the operationing expenses. I respond we'll have those operationing expenses if we kept legacy aircraft and didn't buy any JSFs. Including operating costs may reveal total expenditures of a program, doing so doesn't reflect the operating costs of another aircraft or equipment. In other words simply all equipment has operating costs.
While development costs have increased by 80 percent, from $25 billion to $45 billion from Air Power Australia's Dr. Kopp webpage last updated on Dec. 15, 2011. $45 billion isn't $756 billion to reach a trillion.
Folks use your noggin for something besides a hat rack...
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
Its nothing official,here is the link note the words..."should India indicate interest in JSF"Where have you read that India have shown any interest in the F-35
U.S. Still Holds Out Hope For Indian JSF Purchase | AVIATION WEEK
I think its more of the US wanting to still be involved in the MMRCA its a massive contract,what company wouldnt want to be involved in a multi billion dollar deal
There's always the Indian Navy.
Of course, they may just opt to go with a navalized version of the Rafale or Typhoon.
Lockheed to offer fifth generation F-35 fighters to Navy - Times Of India
Lockheed to offer fifth generation F-35
fighters to Navy
PTI Jun 28, 2010, 09. 20pm IST
New Delhi | Lockheed Martin
NEW DELHI: US defence major Lockheed Martin said on Monday
that it will offer its latest fifth generation F- 35 fighters to meet
Indian Navy's requirements for carrier- based combat aircraft.
"We have received the Request for Information (RFI) from the Navy seeking information about the
F- 35 aircraft, which are capable of taking off from aircraft carriers. We are going to offer our aircraft
to them," Lockheed Martin vice president Orville Prins said.
Of course, they may just opt to go with a navalized version of the Rafale or Typhoon.
Lockheed to offer fifth generation F-35 fighters to Navy - Times Of India
Lockheed to offer fifth generation F-35
fighters to Navy
PTI Jun 28, 2010, 09. 20pm IST
New Delhi | Lockheed Martin
NEW DELHI: US defence major Lockheed Martin said on Monday
that it will offer its latest fifth generation F- 35 fighters to meet
Indian Navy's requirements for carrier- based combat aircraft.
"We have received the Request for Information (RFI) from the Navy seeking information about the
F- 35 aircraft, which are capable of taking off from aircraft carriers. We are going to offer our aircraft
to them," Lockheed Martin vice president Orville Prins said.
I don't think F35 offers enough local content and involvement for the Indians - and I suspect Naval Typhoon is likely to remain a powerpoint slide.
I guess they'll have to buy something when the last Mig-21 hits the deck at speed,
Ian
Normally I'd agree about a navalized Typhoon. Should the Typhoon win the MMRCA bid however, then India becomes a full partner nation in the EF program. With their money, they would very probably have a decisive say in the development of a navalized version if they wanted to. At the least, it would simplify their operational and sustainment challenges.
Nah- the entire competition started off as a lightweight fighter replacement for the Mig-21 fleet which was ageing rapidly. The carrier requirement is still technically not part of that particular competition. So, yes, I did mean Mig-21 and yes, I'm talking air not sea.
Ian
Haavarla
Active Member
Light weight fighter
Isn't that in the realms of Tejas, or perhaps a Navalized Gripen??
F-35, Mig-29K, Rafale and Typhoon are way to heavy for any tender in Light weight fighter Tender.
Eighter way, there will never be any IN Light weight fighter tender, Like ever!
There is zippo chance for that.
And the MMRCA are replacing the Mig-21 Bison.
Isn't that in the realms of Tejas, or perhaps a Navalized Gripen??
F-35, Mig-29K, Rafale and Typhoon are way to heavy for any tender in Light weight fighter Tender.
Eighter way, there will never be any IN Light weight fighter tender, Like ever!
There is zippo chance for that.
And the MMRCA are replacing the Mig-21 Bison.
I think you guys are thronging around the idea of a navalized variant of existing air-craft, which was not designed to be flown off of a carrier at sea, far too cavalierly. I am not saying that it cannot be done but there is a lot more involved than beefing up the landing gear and putting a tail hock on an aircraft that was defined for land use. You would be lucky to get 70% commonality, huge development costs for a small production run, and a long time frame before you got the product operational, if ever, as well as losing some the land variants proven capacities that make them attractive.Light weight fighter
Isn't that in the realms of Tejas, or perhaps a Navalized Gripen??
F-35, Mig-29K, Rafale and Typhoon are way to heavy for any tender in Light weight fighter Tender.
Eighter way, there will never be any IN Light weight fighter tender, Like ever!
There is zippo chance for that.
And the MMRCA are replacing the Mig-21 Bison.
There are many issues involved starting with the airframe. Will it be both strong enough to come whopping down on the fight deck and shot off again a few thousand times, assuming that the basic aerodynamic destine has sufficient low speed handling qualities and then sufficient structural life span to make it all worthwhile. There are many other issues like corrosion, ordnance and fueling restrictions and the assonated safety factors for flight operations when using a ship as your airport that do not come into play for shore based aircraft that directly affect the utility and safety of the destine of the aircraft. True, there would be fewer problems with a fighter type than an attack type but there would still many difficulties. And that is assuming that the manufacturer has the required knowledge base to address all of the navalized issues correctly.
There are very real reasons that the F-35C is a less capable aircraft that the F-35A. And that is true even though the F-35A has many features, which have increased its mass and its expense that would not otherwise be included if they were not trying to have the maximum commonality between the three variants. It would be cheaper and better for the Indian’s to build a plane from scratch in partnership with a western company that has real world experience with naval aircraft used up on carries. Operating aircraft from carries is a lot more than the aircraft, the aircraft is the most important part of a system but the aircraft has to fit the system to be practicable and it requires a huge knowledge base separate from operations conducted from land that take years to master. The Chines and the Indians are both embarking on a huge undertaking and it will be many years before they efficient in this specialized form of warfare. This is not a slam upon them or their abilities it is just a statement of how difficult the task is.
Which is a lightweight fighter.Light weight fighter
Isn't that in the realms of Tejas, or perhaps a Navalized Gripen??
F-35, Mig-29K, Rafale and Typhoon are way to heavy for any tender in Light weight fighter Tender.
Eighter way, there will never be any IN Light weight fighter tender, Like ever!
There is zippo chance for that.
And the MMRCA are replacing the Mig-21 Bison.
One shouldn't really think in terms of "type X is replacing type Y". It can lead to serious confusion. There have been many cases, for example, of type X being bought, while type Y retires - but when one looks at the role of type X, one realises that in reality, type Z, which is already in service, is taking over the role of type Y, while type X assumes the former role of type Z. And this is a simple example.
One should look at roles, not platforms.
Unfort its the thing that gets lost in the broader debate. its no longer a platform centric issue, but a capability issue.
thats why CAS, ISR are capabilities shared across types. its even more important when one factors in the nature of the evolution into virtual arrays and nodes where
platforms across air land and sea will share real time and can hand off tasking real time.
its a variation of multi-role across the delvery set.
Haavarla
Active Member
Yeah, i agree. But systems and role aside, platform classification still goes around, LCA/MMRCA etc.
Its not some term i invented.
But now that the MMRCA are up, i don't see why India would start a new light weight fighter tender any time soon or ever..
All modern platforms has gained weight, and which its a natural development, With Indias Tejas.. why go back to a Light weight platform tender again?
I could understand it if it was a small lightweight turboprop CAS role platform etc etc..
Last edited:
No-one is suggesting they have or should - we're talking about the selection of Rafale/Typhoon/F35 etc and the only time "lightweight" came up was in reference to the original program brief which like most Indian defence procurements has changed considerably along the way.
Probably worth reading this article as it covers the matter in depth and is free to read.
India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition
Naval Typhoon remains an improbable option however.
- Status