10 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial

India Prepares For New Fighter Tender

by Reuben F. Johnson

While it is hard to believe, next year will mark almost 15 years since the Indian Air Force (IAF) embarked on a process to procure a new fighter. It will also be eight years since the force selected the Dassault Rafale for its Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA) program—a selection that was eventually not carried through to a license-production run as originally planned.

The M-MRCA effort was planned for a procurement of 126 fighters by the IAF with an option for 63 additional units. All but 18 of these aircraft were to be license-assembled in India on a Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) production line. In 2012, India eventually selected the Dassault Rafale from a competition that included Russia's Mikoyan MiG-35, the Saab JAS-39E from Sweden, the Eurofighter, and both the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and a developed version of the Lockheed Martin F-16. The latter two are U.S. products.

REPLACEMENT CRISIS

However, in “winning a competition” such as this, a French industry official told AIN, “you do not really ‘win' anything. What you supposedly win is the right to then sit down and negotiate a contract—and if you cannot come to some agreement, then you get nothing after having spent tens of millions [of dollars] for all the years it takes to bid a major program in a place like India.”

By 2015 the two sides had not come to an agreement on localized production, and in 2016 the new government of prime minister Narendra Modi ordered 36 Rafales “off-the-shelf,” the first of which has already been officially handed over to India. Seven of the aircraft should be delivered to the IAF between April and May 2020.

This, however, still leaves the force woefully short of the force levels it says are needed to meet New Delhi's national security requirements. There is still no suitable replacement for the older (but modernized) MiG-21 Bison aircraft in service.

There is also no solution to address the gap created by the 2018 Indian decision to withdraw from the HAL/Sukhoi joint program with Russia for a Future Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program. India was to have purchased 127 of this aircraft, which would have been a heavily-modified version of the Sukhoi Su-57. After an IAF inspection of one of the program's prototypes, the force was calling for 43 major changes to the design to correct what it saw as deficiencies with the original configuration.

VERSION 2.0

The consequence is that India—after some twists and turns—is on a path to issue another tender for what will be at least 100 of some aircraft to fill the void created by these developments. Originally, the program was to have been a competition for only single-engine airplane designs, which would have limited the competition to the JAS-39 and the F-16. The latter has now been re-christened the “F-21,” due to all of the changes that have been made to the design to accommodate Indian requirements.

One of the changes was to add a probe-and-drogue refueling option in addition to the traditional USAF flying boom refueling method.

This “single-engine only” competition was then widened to allow all of the twin-engine aircraft that participated in the original M-MRCA tender—with Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 now also thrown into the mix. This has prompted more than one observer to dub the still-officially unannounced re-running of the tender as “M-MRCA ver 2.0.”

NEEDED: A SHORTER ACQUISITION CYCLE

What makes this impending competition all the more critical for India's future defense posture is that the next-generation of aircraft carriers that will be coming online with the Indian Navy that will require a force of CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off barrier-arrested recovery) fighter aircraft. Both the Rafale-M and Boeing's Super Hornet are available for this mission and Saab has a design for a carrier-capable Maritime Gripen variant of the JAS-39E on the shelf that can be realized within a short time frame.

What remains to be seen is whether or not a new tender can be carried out without making it a repeat of the arduous seven-year process that the original M-MRCA turned out to be. Suggestions had been made last year that a new tender could be carried out without an extensive set of flight trials to shorten the evaluation and down-select cycles.

While there is no agreement on which aircraft type or types fit the requirements of both the IAF and the Indian Navy, there are numerous observers both inside and outside of India who disparage the manner in which the selection of a new fighter type has been carried out.

“As it stands now, the methodology for buying a new fighter is an objectively dysfunctional process,” said one Indian aerospace expert. “The problem is that it will never change as long as the OEMs keep rewarding those who propagate that process without demanding that it change.”

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-02-06/india-prepares-new-fighter-tender

Sur le même sujet

  • Solicitation for Bradley replacement offers flexibility for foreign participation

    21 décembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Solicitation for Bradley replacement offers flexibility for foreign participation

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The request for proposals from industry for the U.S. Army's optionally manned fighting vehicle, or OMFV, intended to replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, has hit the street and allows for greater flexibility for foreign companies to compete. In the service's second stab at holding a competition for OMFV, the Army is driving as much flexibility as it can across the board, from avoiding stringent requirements in favor of loose characteristics and creating a phase for industry to design concepts without much company investment that will form requirements along the way. The Army's previous attempt required the delivery of physical bid samples, which hamstrung foreign competitor Rheinmetall of Germany and drove Bradley-maker BAE Systems to avoid the competition. Ultimately, the service received just one bid sample from General Dynamics Land Systems, which forced the Army to rethink the effort and come back with a new approach. The OMFV competition has foreign industry jumping to join in with new and modernized platforms, and the Army appears to be ditching much of the restrictions that would typically keep them out. Rheinmetall has already partnered with American firms Raytheon and Textron to solidify its participation in the competition, but many other companies are poised to submit bids to design concepts. The pool needs to be deep because the Army anticipates awarding up to five contracts to design platforms. “The challenges we've typically had in getting foreign participation is we often have a lot of classified material that we release up front, and we have some detailed specification that has very detailed performance requirements that's classified,” Brig. Gen. Glenn Dean, the new Army program executive officer for ground combat systems, said in a Dec. 18 press briefing. Foreign competitors “have to have clearances in place to be able to take that information,” Dean said. This means foreign companies must either be partnered with a prime contractor in the United States, have a subsidiary stateside, or have other clearances that take time to get through the approval process in order to exchange the classified information. Working through consortiums, which the Army regularly does, also makes it hard for foreign contractors to come through the door, Dean said. This time, the Army isn't working with a consortium and is using a more traditional federal acquisition regulation-based contract, according to Dean. Furthermore, he said, classified reports will not be required in order to submit a bid or receive an initial design contract award. “We've eliminated the limitation on primes and, because we don't have classified information we are providing at the front end, that allows us to share more broadly and gives those companies time if they're going to continue to play as lead, to establish their facilities, clearances and have the necessary structures in place to receive classified information when we get to that point,” he said. Dean expects more classified requirements to kick in toward the end of the concept design phase where requirements begin to take shape, which translates to specifications. “Obviously, every company is going to make their own determination about what strengths and partners may bring to the table, whether they want to come in as a sub, whether they want to be prime with a bunch of U.S. subs,” Dean said, “but the response has been very promising.” He also said there is strong interest from abroad. “I would say that we at least heard from or have participation ... from all the major companies in the West capable of doing a full combat vehicle. Companies from Israel, South Korea, Singapore, Germany, in addition to companies both you're familiar with in the U.S. who've [supplied] combat vehicles, but also some companies that operate in the defense space but haven't traditionally been combat vehicle suppliers,” he said. “We will see how many of them ultimately decide they want to throw their hat in the ring and participate. I think we've done what we need to do to make it as open at an initial point.” Sources following the competition are expecting to see participation from South Korea's Hanwha, which is in a head-to-head competition in Australia with Rheinmetall to produce a new infantry fighting vehicle. Germany-based Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has also touted an infantry fighting vehicle option, most recently at the last in-person Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference in Washington, D.C., in 2019. Belgium's CMI Defense is also rumored to be forging a partnership with a U.S. prime to participate in the competition. Now that the solicitation has been posted to Beta.Sam.Gov, companies have until April 16, 2021, to submit a conceptual bid. The Army will award contracts in July, according to Dean, which will kick off 15 months of funded work. During the phase, industry will work on designs without bending metal that will inform an abbreviated capabilities development document — or an initial set of requirements. Once the design phase ends, the Army will take a pause and then open the competition back up for a more detailed design effort ahead of prototyping, where up to three bids will be selected to proceed. The detailed design phase will be executed over the course of fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024. The prototyping phase will begin in FY25, according to slides presented at the OMFV industry day. Vehicle testing will begin in FY26 and wrap up in FY27, with a production decision planned for the fourth quarter of FY27. Full-rate production is expected to begin in the second quarter of FY30. In parallel to the concept design phase, the Army will develop an open architecture for OMFV. An open architecture has risen to the top of the OMFV planner's list of required capability, particularly after seeing the need to be networked with other capabilities across the battlefield and at the forward edge at Project Convergence at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, over the summer. The Army will establish a voluntary consortium beginning in January 2021 that will represent industry, government and academia in order to develop such an open architecture, according to the statement. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/12/18/bradley-replacement-request-for-proposals-hits-street-with-flexibility-for-foreign-participation/

  • DoD releases first new cyber strategy in three years

    20 septembre 2018 | International, C4ISR

    DoD releases first new cyber strategy in three years

    By: Mark Pomerleau In its first formal cyber strategy document in three years, the Department of Defense said it would focus its cyber efforts on China and Russia and use the Pentagon's cyber capabilities to collect intelligence as well as to prepare for future conflicts. According to an unclassified summary and fact sheet released Sept. 18, the documents lay out a vision for addressing cyber threats and addresses the priorities of the department's National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, which focused on a new era of strategic great power competition. “The United States cannot afford inaction,” the summary reads. It notes that China and Russia are conducting persistent campaigns in cyberspace that pose long term risk. The documents also say that China is eroding the U.S. military's ability to overmatch opponents and that Russia is using cyber-enabled information operations to influence the U.S. population and challenge democratic processes. The DoD's strategy comes on the heels of other major movements in cyberspace from the department. These include the elevation of U.S. Cyber Command to a full unified combatant command — which affords new and exquisite authorities — the full staffing of Cyber Command's cyber teams, an update to DoD's cyber doctrine and new authorities delegating certain responsibilities from the president to DoD to conduct cyber operations abroad. The summary's lists five objectives for DoD's cyberspace strategy: - Ensuring the joint force can achieve its missions in a contested cyberspace environment; - Strengthening the joint force by conducting cyberspace operations that enhance U.S. military advantages; - Defending U.S. critical infrastructure from malicious cyber activity that alone, or as part of a campaign, could cause a significant cyber incident; - Securing DoD information and systems against malicious cyber activity, including DoD information on non-DoD-owned networks; and - Expanding DoD cyber cooperation with interagency, industry, and international partners. The strategy also describes the need to remain consistently engaged with this persistent adversary and to “defend forward” as a means of disrupting or halting malicious cyber activity at its source, including activity that falls below the level of armed conflict. While academics have criticized the U.S. response to Russian election interference, the strategy notes that the United States tends to view conflicts through the binary lens of war or peace while competitors such as Russia see themselves constantly engaged in a state of war. U.S. Cyber Command's new leader is taking a different tact. “We've got to act forward outside of our boundaries, something that we do very, very well at Cyber Command in terms of getting into our adversary's networks. That's this idea of persistent engagement, the idea that the adversary never rests, so why would we ever rest,” Gen. Paul Nakasone said during an August dinner hosted by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. Nakasone also has described the notion of defending forward as enabling forces to act outside the boundaries of the U.S. to understand what adversaries are doing in order to better defend against them. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2018/09/19/department-of-defense-unveils-new-cyber-strategy

  • Les nouveaux jets coûteraient 18 milliards

    1 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Les nouveaux jets coûteraient 18 milliards

    Les coûts d'achat et d'entretien des nouveaux avions de combat ont été révélés dans la presse dominicale. Les nouveaux avions de combat coûteraient 18 milliards de francs au total, selon une estimation du Département fédéral de la défense (DDPS). En plus des coûts d'acquisition de 6 milliards de francs, près de 12 milliards viennent s'ajouter pour la maintenance des jets pendant toute la durée de leur utilisation. Ces chiffres publiés par la «SonntagsZeitung» ont été confirmés par l'Office fédéral des armements (ArmaSuisse). Pour les articuler, Berne s'est appuyée sur vingt ans d'exploitation de la flotte d'avions de chasse F/A-18 actuellement en service. «En règle générale, les coûts d'exploitation calculés sur trente ans devraient être environ deux fois plus élevés que le coût d'achat», a déclaré le porte-parole d'ArmaSuisse. Comme ni le type d'avions ni leur nombre ne sont encore déterminés, des calculs plus précis ne sont pas encore possibles. Le Conseil fédéral devrait faire son choix début 2021. Cette estimation de Berne a été précédée de discussions politiques sur les coûts des jets pendant tout leur cycle de vie. Dans certains cas, des montants beaucoup plus élevés que les 18 milliards de francs ont été articulés. Les opposants à l'achat de nouveaux avions de combat ont parfois estimé les dépenses à environ 24 milliards de francs. Ils se sont appuyés en partie sur des calculs effectués par les autorités allemandes et canadiennes. Votation fin septembre Le Conseil fédéral et le parlement prévoient d'acheter de nouveaux avions de chasse pour 6 milliards de francs à partir de 2025. Il s'agit de remplacer la flotte actuelle d'avions F/A-18 et Tiger. Les Suisses voteront le 27 septembre prochain après que le Groupe pour une Suisse sans armée (GSsA), le PS et les Verts ont lancé un référendum. Les Helvètes ne se prononceront pas sur le type d'avion, ni sur le nombre de jets, entre 36 et 40, qui seront achetés. Actuellement, une deuxième série d'offres est en cours. Au printemps dernier, quatre fabricants ont fait voler leurs engins dans le ciel suisse lors d'une démonstration. Quatre jets restent dans la course: le Rafale français (Dassault), l'Eurofighter allemand (Airbus) et, côté américain, le successeur du F/A-18, le Super Hornet de Boeing, et le F-35A de Lockheed-Martin. https://www.tdg.ch/les-nouveaux-jets-couteraient-18-milliards-574000585177

Toutes les nouvelles