Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

china-UAV-conf-10.jpg

china-UAV-conf-09.jpg

china-UAV-conf-08.jpg

china-UAV-conf-07.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Canada's next Jet Fighter?

This is a discussion on Canada's next Jet Fighter? within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Canadas CF18 fighters are getting pretty long in the tooth. Canada has spent something like 150 million towards the F35 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 3.67 average.
Old February 24th, 2010   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Huachuca City, AZ
Posts: 6
Threads:
Canada's next Jet Fighter?

Canadas CF18 fighters are getting pretty long in the tooth. Canada has spent something like 150 million towards the F35 JSF program which seems to still be away's off yet as far as entering active service. Some Canadians now seem to be waviering on the idea. The thought has come up that the JSF will not fit the needs of Canada and perhaps the cost may put it completely out of reach. With the vast areas that the jets would be required to patrol, the range of the JSF has been called into question. Add to this fact that Canada has prefered twin engined aircraft in the past. Other companies, such as Boeing, Saab and Mirage are smelling the blood in the water and have been making their pitch to the Canadian Government that perhaps they should go with an aircraft already in service and perhaps said aircraft would be better suited towards the needs of Canada. I believe the original plan called for 135 JSF's but rumor has it that it could be cut to as little as 80 because of costs. I am of the opinion that Canada would be better off buying new F15 Strike Fighters or the new version of the F18 Super Hornet. Whichever is cheaper. Do they cost more than the estimated 50 million the JSF is predicted to cost? The F15 has a proven track record and is still a credible threat to anyones air force...Canada does not have a huge population, when compared to the United States, and their armed forces reflect that fact. They cannot afford to fight prolonged conflicts overseas in any real numbers and money is a very big issue when picking any new military weapon. Yet they deserve, in my humble opinion, the best possible weapons that will fill the role required for defense of the country. The JSF is not operational as yet and Canada needs a long range interceptor/fighter/bomber very soon.. I just do not see the JSF filling this role. It may very well turn out to be a very good aircraft but I feel that Canada can do just as well for perhaps less money. Your thoughts are welcomed. Thank you very much.
thetoad45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #2
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,095
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetoad45 View Post
Canadas CF18 fighters are getting pretty long in the tooth. Canada has spent something like 150 million towards the F35 JSF program which seems to still be away's off yet as far as entering active service. Some Canadians now seem to be waviering on the idea. The thought has come up that the JSF will not fit the needs of Canada and perhaps the cost may put it completely out of reach. With the vast areas that the jets would be required to patrol, the range of the JSF has been called into question. Add to this fact that Canada has prefered twin engined aircraft in the past. Other companies, such as Boeing, Saab and Mirage are smelling the blood in the water and have been making their pitch to the Canadian Government that perhaps they should go with an aircraft already in service and perhaps said aircraft would be better suited towards the needs of Canada. I believe the original plan called for 135 JSF's but rumor has it that it could be cut to as little as 80 because of costs. I am of the opinion that Canada would be better off buying new F15 Strike Fighters or the new version of the F18 Super Hornet. Whichever is cheaper. Do they cost more than the estimated 50 million the JSF is predicted to cost? The F15 has a proven track record and is still a credible threat to anyones air force...Canada does not have a huge population, when compared to the United States, and their armed forces reflect that fact. They cannot afford to fight prolonged conflicts overseas in any real numbers and money is a very big issue when picking any new military weapon. Yet they deserve, in my humble opinion, the best possible weapons that will fill the role required for defense of the country. The JSF is not operational as yet and Canada needs a long range interceptor/fighter/bomber very soon.. I just do not see the JSF filling this role. It may very well turn out to be a very good aircraft but I feel that Canada can do just as well for perhaps less money. Your thoughts are welcomed. Thank you very much.
You might want to go back and read up again on Canadian fighter needs...

The F-35 is intended to be a reasonably long-ranged multi-role fighter aircraft. The CF-18 Hornets (F/A-18 A/B Hornets) that Canada will be replacing are fairly short-ranged multi-role fighters. Hence, any concern about the F-35 not having sufficient range is misplaced because it will have superior range.

The fact that the various F-35s are single-engine fighters vs. twin-engine is a source of concern for some. However, I do not recall a specific Canadian requirement for twin engine fighters. The USN and USMC, which have the habit of conducting combat missions from ships and for a good long while did require "twin engine reliability," seem to be satisfied with the single engine mounted in the F-35B/Cs respectively. This leads me to think the F-35 being a single-engine fighter is a non-issue.

Of greater concern is the possibility of a price increase which forces Canada to shrink the number ordered (or choose another aircraft) or any additional programme delays pushing deliver back. Given the work done in Canada on Hornet CBR to extend their service life, Canada does still have some time left, but needs to carefully manage the airframes. What might be sensible for Canada to do is follow in Australia's footsteps in order ~24 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to provide an interim aircraft in case Canada finds itself without the number of aircraft available for service that it feels it needs.

If Canada is to place an emergency order for an interim aircraft, that is something that would need to occur almost immediately, since it would likely take about 2-3 years for IOC to be reached, with FOC taking about 4 years. As for an outright replacement of Canadian Hornets with something other than the F-35... Canada could still find itselt running out of Hornets before IOC is reached, depending on just how much time is left on their Hornets. IOC on a completely different aircraft would likely take ~5 years, with FOC being reached ~2 years after that. That is from the time an order is placed. Part of the reason a SHornet unit could potentially reach IOC/FOC faster is that while it is a completely different aircraft/airframe from the classic Hornet, it is quite similar. This means that pilots, ground crew, etc can transition to it more quickly and easily than they could an F-16 or F-15 variant.

Unfortunately, two questions need to be answered in order for one to know if Canada should drop its plans to transition from the CF-18 Hornet to the F-35, and those answers are not in the public domain. The first is when Canada needs to begin replacement of the Hornets, and the other is what real cost can Canada afford for replacement fighters.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #3
New Member
Private
Go229's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 44
Threads:
I always though it would be the JSF, but my if it is not bought for budgetary reasons my guess on what the competitors will be are the JAS-39 Gripen, the Rafale and Typhoon. The Gripen costs less and is a twin-engine. Canada dosen't have a standing requirement for twin-engined fighters but they keep in mind the immense expanses of the frozen desolation in the north, where an engine failure in a single-jet would mean coming down in probably the most hostile environment known on earth. We're talking thousands of kilometers of -50 degrees windswept tundra populated only by polar bears, caribou, wolves and very far inbetween inuit tribes and big mines, OR in a incredibly mountainous and densely wooded area packed with lakes, rivers and bears. Northern canada is nowhere to thread in a single-engine aircraft if you ask me.

One i would think fits all requirements, is cheaper than all three above and has greater range but will never be considered is the Su-37. I would love to see a Bombardier-Sukhoi joint venture. It is not stealth but the military doctrine of Canada dosen't really put the emphasis on deep penetration and total matching against advanced AD systems. It would be very well suited to the multirole fighter requirements of the CAF. Imagine a Su-37 with western avionics, electronics, Radar and missiles. And give the Snowbirds some too! Now that would be an aerobatic team! There's also the very fun fact that canada could play aggressor in NATO exercises and whip the lesser airforces, and the americans would beg canada to participate in Red Flag..But that's just fantasy.

However we will probably have a bad suprise and the gov't will probably go for the easiest thing and buy F-18E/Fs.

Last edited by Go229; February 24th, 2010 at 01:00 PM. Reason: ...
Go229 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #4
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Huachuca City, AZ
Posts: 6
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go229 View Post
I always though it would be the JSF, but my if it is not bought for budgetary reasons my guess on what the competitors will be are the JAS-39 Gripen, the Rafale and Typhoon. The Gripen costs less and is a twin-engine. Canada dosen't have a standing requirement for twin-engined fighters but they keep in mind the immense expanses of the frozen desolation in the north, where an engine failure in a single-jet would mean coming down in probably the most hostile environment known on earth. We're talking thousands of kilometers of -50 degrees windswept tundra populated only by polar bears, caribou, wolves and very far inbetween inuit tribes and big mines, OR in a incredibly mountainous and densely wooded area packed with lakes, rivers and bears. Northern canada is nowhere to thread in a single-engine aircraft if you ask me.

One i would think fits all requirements, is cheaper than all three above and has greater range but will never be considered is the Su-37. I would love to see a Bombardier-Sukhoi joint venture. It is not stealth but the military doctrine of Canada dosen't really put the emphasis on deep penetration and total matching against advanced AD systems. It would be very well suited to the multirole fighter requirements of the CAF. Imagine a Su-37 with western avionics, electronics, Radar and missiles. And give the Snowbirds some too! Now that would be an aerobatic team! There's also the very fun fact that canada could play aggressor in NATO exercises and whip the lesser airforces, and the americans would beg canada to participate in Red Flag..But that's just fantasy.
Stating that the USN and USMC seem satisfied with the single engine aspect is a little misleading. They really don't have a choice. The F35 is the only plane available (besides the F-18 Super Hornet) and it is being rammed down their throats so to speak, whether they like it or not.. I have been seeing pictures of French Rafale fighters flying from USN aircraft carriers. Perhaps the USN is also having second thoughts about the JSF? Time will tell. I have seen nothing published that states the JSF could be considered an aircraft with any real legs on it. Have I missed something? I feel that if Canada is going to purchase a new aircraft then purchasing a paltry amount as a stop-gap measure (like Australia) is not the way to go. What exactly is the current major threat to Canada today? The only one I see is the possible rebuilding of the old Soviet military machine. Yes, Canada has a huge amount of rough territory that needs to be covered and the aircraft needed to perform these duties needs some range, a big radar and the ability for firing BVR missiles. These requirements seem to be met by the current F15/F18SH fleets. Norway seems to have settled on the JSF stating their sole reason being it is cheaper than the Grippen. (?) I see no benefit of the JSF over current 4th and 4.5 generation jets. It's "stealth" is minimal and the weapons load appears to be small. Yes it has new technology but does the cost outweigh the percieved benefits for Canada? I wonder. Boeing has offered Canada the updated F-18 E&F model at a locked in price that will meet or beat the price of the future JSF. I have read reports from Australian test pilots who thought the new model F-18SH was an amazing aircraft and very easy to fly. Couple this with the F-18's ease of maintenance and upgraded radar and weapons systems, compatable with all NATO systems, and I think it would be hard to beat. I read a statement from Boeing that said they would even allow some of the parts to be made in Canada which means much needed jobs. It is also a bit comforting that the aircraft is made close by and not thousands of miles across the pond. The world economies are suffering and Canada needs to be smart with it's money. I say lets have a fly-off this year and pick a fighter that we can afford.
On another note, I would love to see a substantial aircraft industry blossom in Canada. I often wondered why Canada couldn't license built an older style airframe and enlist someone like the Isrealis to help provide engines and advanced avionics packages for a lot less than these newer aircraft cost. They did wonders with South Africas Mirage III's back in the mid 80's. Canada does not need, nor can it afford aircraft such as the F22 and the F35. I wish Canada had leaders with a bit more foresight. Canada needs to start taking the reins and manufacturing their own weapon systems. It would also put more Canadians to work. That's my dream. :-)
thetoad45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #5
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,089
Threads:
Quote:
One i would think fits all requirements, is cheaper than all three above and has greater range but will never be considered is the Su-37. I would love to see a Bombardier-Sukhoi joint venture. It is not stealth but the military doctrine of Canada dosen't really put the emphasis on deep penetration and total matching against advanced AD systems. It would be very well suited to the multirole fighter requirements of the CAF. Imagine a Su-37 with western avionics, electronics, Radar and missiles. And give the Snowbirds some too! Now that would be an aerobatic team! There's also the very fun fact that canada could play aggressor in NATO exercises and whip the lesser airforces, and the americans would beg canada to participate in Red Flag..But that's just fantasy.
Hah. The Su-37 isnt' a production aircraft. You'd be looking at either the Su-35S, or Su-30MK. Anyways like you say it's fantasy. Canada is far too solid of a NATO member to opt for Russian equipment.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #6
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Kilo 2-3's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 290
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go229 View Post
I always though it would be the JSF, but my if it is not bought for budgetary reasons my guess on what the competitors will be are the JAS-39 Gripen, the Rafale and Typhoon. The Gripen costs less and is a twin-engine. Canada dosen't have a standing requirement for twin-engined fighters but they keep in mind the immense expanses of the frozen desolation in the north, where an engine failure in a single-jet would mean coming down in probably the most hostile environment known on earth. We're talking thousands of kilometers of -50 degrees windswept tundra populated only by polar bears, caribou, wolves and very far inbetween inuit tribes and big mines, OR in a incredibly mountainous and densely wooded area packed with lakes, rivers and bears. Northern canada is nowhere to thread in a single-engine aircraft if you ask me.

One i would think fits all requirements, is cheaper than all three above and has greater range but will never be considered is the Su-37. I would love to see a Bombardier-Sukhoi joint venture. It is not stealth but the military doctrine of Canada dosen't really put the emphasis on deep penetration and total matching against advanced AD systems. It would be very well suited to the multirole fighter requirements of the CAF. Imagine a Su-37 with western avionics, electronics, Radar and missiles. And give the Snowbirds some too! Now that would be an aerobatic team! There's also the very fun fact that canada could play aggressor in NATO exercises and whip the lesser airforces, and the americans would beg canada to participate in Red Flag..But that's just fantasy.

However we will probably have a bad suprise and the gov't will probably go for the easiest thing and buy F-18E/Fs.
The Gripen is a single-engine aircraft, not a twin...Still, the Swedes operate it over a fairly large bit of airsapce and they seem to be doing fine. Modern single-engines are pretty darn reliable.

The Canadians also already have the Maple Flag Exercise and they fly in the Red Flag Alaska/ex-Cope Thunder exercises. A trip down to Nellis would be nice, but by no means is it a mandate. The CAF has plenty of other training options.
Kilo 2-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
SpudmanWP's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Socialist Cities of California
Posts: 585
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go229 View Post
I always though it would be the JSF, but my if it is not bought for budgetary reasons my guess on what the competitors will be are the JAS-39 Gripen, the Rafale and Typhoon. The Gripen costs less and is a twin-engine.
The Rafale and Typhoon are both MORE expensive than the F-35.


Quote:
Originally Posted by thetoad45 View Post
I have been seeing pictures of French Rafale fighters flying from USN aircraft carriers. Perhaps the USN is also having second thoughts about the JSF?
The French were using the US carriers because they did not have enough of their own carriers. From 2008:

Quote:
Three Rafale and a Hawkeye aircraft of the naval apponteront today on the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. The American vessel, to stop since last Thursday in Marseilles, will leave the port this morning phocéen to set sail to Gibraltar and then the USA. Its sole aircraft carrier being detained since last summer for his first major refit, the Navy advantage of the presence of Truman to train its pilots to appontages and catapultages. The first Rafale maneuvers on a U.S. building back to July 2007, when the M12 and M13 had landed on the USS Enterprise, crossing off Toulon. Refurbished PA aboard the U.S., the two aircraft had then been catapulted smoothly, paving the way for a Franco-American cooperation for the training of pilots during the shutdown technique of Charles de Gaulle. Another campaign on U.S. aircraft carrier is scheduled in July. Six Rafale and two Hawkeye french expected to join Norfolk and apponter on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetoad45 View Post
Time will tell. I have seen nothing published that states the JSF could be considered an aircraft with any real legs on it. Have I missed something?
The F-35C has an unrefueled combat radius of 642 nautical miles (1188km) WITHOUT wing tanks and carrying 2x2000lb JDAMS and 2xAIM-120Ds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetoad45 View Post
I see no benefit of the JSF over current 4th and 4.5 generation jets. It's "stealth" is minimal and the weapons load appears to be small. Yes it has new technology but does the cost outweigh the percieved benefits for Canada?
With external loads the F-35 can carry 18,000lbs (8164kg) while still being fully fueled.

The Flyaway for a F-18E/F in 2014 (the first Canadian F-35 buy year) is $92 mil. The F-35s that year, at full LRIP price, is $98 mil. Later years of the F-35 buy will only get cheaper as FRP commences, $87 in 2015 and $85 in 2016..

For the extra $6 mil you get all the benefits of the F-35.
SpudmanWP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2010   #8
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 77
Threads:
Let's make a deal !

Well, if you're into a fixed state guaranteed pricing, favorable counter trade
ratios, extensive local production and state of the art technology transfer to
Bombardier, SAAB is probably the best option for you.
Who knows, Canada might also get the exclusive right to build and sell the
Gripen NG to all of North America
B3LA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #9
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,095
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetoad45 View Post
Stating that the USN and USMC seem satisfied with the single engine aspect is a little misleading. They really don't have a choice. The F35 is the only plane available (besides the F-18 Super Hornet) and it is being rammed down their throats so to speak, whether they like it or not.. I have been seeing pictures of French Rafale fighters flying from USN aircraft carriers. Perhaps the USN is also having second thoughts about the JSF? Time will tell. I have seen nothing published that states the JSF could be considered an aircraft with any real legs on it. Have I missed something? I feel that if Canada is going to purchase a new aircraft then purchasing a paltry amount as a stop-gap measure (like Australia) is not the way to go. What exactly is the current major threat to Canada today? The only one I see is the possible rebuilding of the old Soviet military machine. Yes, Canada has a huge amount of rough territory that needs to be covered and the aircraft needed to perform these duties needs some range, a big radar and the ability for firing BVR missiles. These requirements seem to be met by the current F15/F18SH fleets. Norway seems to have settled on the JSF stating their sole reason being it is cheaper than the Grippen. (?) I see no benefit of the JSF over current 4th and 4.5 generation jets. It's "stealth" is minimal and the weapons load appears to be small. Yes it has new technology but does the cost outweigh the percieved benefits for Canada? I wonder. Boeing has offered Canada the updated F-18 E&F model at a locked in price that will meet or beat the price of the future JSF. I have read reports from Australian test pilots who thought the new model F-18SH was an amazing aircraft and very easy to fly. Couple this with the F-18's ease of maintenance and upgraded radar and weapons systems, compatable with all NATO systems, and I think it would be hard to beat. I read a statement from Boeing that said they would even allow some of the parts to be made in Canada which means much needed jobs. It is also a bit comforting that the aircraft is made close by and not thousands of miles across the pond. The world economies are suffering and Canada needs to be smart with it's money. I say lets have a fly-off this year and pick a fighter that we can afford.
On another note, I would love to see a substantial aircraft industry blossom in Canada. I often wondered why Canada couldn't license built an older style airframe and enlist someone like the Isrealis to help provide engines and advanced avionics packages for a lot less than these newer aircraft cost. They did wonders with South Africas Mirage III's back in the mid 80's. Canada does not need, nor can it afford aircraft such as the F22 and the F35. I wish Canada had leaders with a bit more foresight. Canada needs to start taking the reins and manufacturing their own weapon systems. It would also put more Canadians to work. That's my dream. :-)
I would suggest then one read a number of different sources for information on the different aircraft which could be available, as well as Canada's requirements for its fighter force.

In fact, I would suggest perusing this thread, as it is discussion here on DT about the F-35.

Part of the reason I say this is some of the comments made about the F-35 and the JSF programme seems to be somewhat uninformed. Things like the range, LO/sig management, costs, etc.

As Spudman commented previously, the F-35A has a radius of action of 600 n miles with internal fuel and weapon stores. Adding in external droptanks, etc would only extend that even further. Compare that range to the ~290 n mile radius of action of Canada's current fighter force composed of CF-18 Hornets.

The last thing I have to say about the F-35, is that Canada is already a partner-nation in the JSF programme. This means that as long as Canada abides by whatever the agreed upon programme requirements are, Canada will receive whatever benefits it agreed to on contributing to the programme. I do not know whether or not Canada is one of the nations with subcomponent production agreements, but with Bombardier being based in Canada, it would seem likely.

As for why Canada does not do more of its own weapons/systems development and production... I would say that Canada cannot afford to do so. Major defence programmes are risky and expensive. Few nations have resources needed to development and construct a completed system, never mind a full range of defence products. Look at Western Europe, many of the defence programmes underway there are either consortiums, joint ventures, or being run by pan-European defence conglomerates. Canada is not large enough to commit to such a major undertaking on its own.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
SpudmanWP's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Socialist Cities of California
Posts: 585
Threads:
Canada's current industrial benefit plan has over $9 Billion in JSF contracts with $240 million already signed.

Details here:
http://www.manitoba-aerospace.mb.ca/...eed_martin.pdf

Overview:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg d573edc3.jpg (193.0 KB, 11 views)
SpudmanWP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
jaffo4011's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 272
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
The Rafale and Typhoon are both MORE expensive than the F-35.




The French were using the US carriers because they did not have enough of their own carriers. From 2008:





The F-35C has an unrefueled combat radius of 642 nautical miles (1188km) WITHOUT wing tanks and carrying 2x2000lb JDAMS and 2xAIM-120Ds.



With external loads the F-35 can carry 18,000lbs (8164kg) while still being fully fueled.

The Flyaway for a F-18E/F in 2014 (the first Canadian F-35 buy year) is $92 mil. The F-35s that year, at full LRIP price, is $98 mil. Later years of the F-35 buy will only get cheaper as FRP commences, $87 in 2015 and $85 in 2016..

For the extra $6 mil you get all the benefits of the F-35.
What a load of nonsense….

The USAF’s own estimates for F-35 pricing contradict Lockheed’s claims of a $50-60 m price tag. The USAF figures give a programme flyaway average of $83.131 m, with a price of $199 million in 2009, $158 million in 2010, $124 million in 2011, $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter. But that’s founded on the assumption that inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is unlikely in the defence and aerospace sectors.

Lockheed have claimed an export price of “$58.7 million for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters.”

But let's look a little more closely at $58.7 m.

That’s in 2002 dollars, so the real price is likely to be $80-90M in real world dollars with even modest inflation.

And that’s just a predicted price, not an actual or guaranteed price. It’s a deliberately attractive figure intended to ensnare the Aussies and is deliberately ‘optimistic’. Indeed it was specifically stated that this fixed price would “only be able to be offered if consortium numbers and schedules are maintained, and that it would likely add additional costs should partner nations start deferring or reducing their buys."

So with Denmark and Norway looking hard at Gripen, Super Hornet and Typhoon, and with the Netherlands equally shaky, and with the UK more likely to take about 82 aircraft, and not the planned 150, you’d have to be a hopeless optimist to imagine that numbers and schedules would be maintained, so this price is MOST unlikely to be met.

That’s the F-35 price taken care of.

How about Typhoon?

Firstly, you have to compare like with like – so you have to compare F-35 unit flyaway cost with Typhoon unit FLYAWAY cost not with Typhoon unit SYSTEM cost.

(We’ll ignore the fact, for now, that European unit flyaway costs are always higher, because they include more initial spares provisioning and GFE). They’re close enough to be interesting.

Now you could believe ‘experts’ like Lewis Page (notoriously unreliable, partial and inaccurate), Bloomberg and the BBC (who like all the mainstream non specialist media take the latest figure and accept it uncritically), or you could look at what industry, the partner nations air forces and governments, and real expert defence journos say…..

The source of most of the inaccuracy and mis-reporting is the NAO figure of £64 m quoted in the Major Projects Report 2005 (MPR05). This IS NOT A UPC, and was based on the production costs only for 144 Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 aircraft that are currently on contract - but included R&D and other costs that should properly be divided across all three production tranches, making it meaningless as a proper unit flyaway cost. (Some costs for 232 aircraft, some for 144 aircraft, divided by 144 does not give a real unit cost, obviously).

That figure is £20m out of kilter with ALL previous AND subsequent UK, German, Italian and Spanish figures - ALL OF WHICH HOVER AROUND £45 M. That figure is higher than the price paid by Austria (the contract was leaked so we KNOW what that price was) which would be illegal under the heads of agreement, which provide that the partner air forces will always pay less.

£64 m ($122 m) is NOT an accurate unit flyaway cost for Typhoon. So what does it cost?

The real costs of Typhoon are:

1) £42-45 m Unit production cost (validated by the NAO, confirmed by the Typhoon IPT, and backed up by the equivalent official figures from all four partner nations and Austria)

Tranche 1 cost £45.45 m (NAO MPR: "The contract for the first Tranche of 148 aircraft, of which 55 valued at some £2.5bn are for the UK, was signed in September 1998.")

NB That the R1 and R2 upgrades (NAO: "retrofit of Tranche 1 aircraft to Tranche 2 standard (+£117m))" add £2.12 m per aircraft.

In the NAO major projects report 2004, the unit production cost (excluding R&D) was quoted as £49.1 m (assuming a full 232 aircraft buy) across all three Tranches. (£11.39 Bn + R&D)

It was later said (by the NAO and the Government) that our 55 Tranche 1 aircraft were costing £2.5 Bn, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 m.

Figures released in Germany, Italy and Spain would all suggest that the Typhoon's UPC is in the region of £40-45 m ($73-83 m).

So if 55 Tranche 1 aircraft cost £45-49m each, how could the average Tranche 1 and 2 UPC have got to £64.8 m? Is there any way that a £64 m UPC could be real?

No, there isn't.

The 144 RAF aircraft in the first two Tranches would have to cost £9.333 Bn (excluding R&D), and since Tranche 1 costs £2.5 Bn, the Tranche 2 aircraft would have to cost £6.833 Bn, or £76 m each - £30 m more, per jet, than Tranche 1.

Whereas NAO and UK Government figures show that they actually cost £42 m each, fractionally less than Tranche 1, as planned.

Or you could arrive at a Tranche 2 unit cost by dividing the production contract total (€13 Bn or $16 Bn US) by the 236 aircraft in the tranche. That's €55 m/$67.8 m - £42 m at that time.

Or you could look at the Austrian price of €61 m - guess what - fractionally more than £42 m......

2) £82-84 m total programme unit cost. (UK total cost (£19 Bn - £19.6 Bn) divided by UK production total of 232). That's cheaper than Rafale - which works out at £88 m.

So Typhoon has a unit programme cost of £82 m, and a unit system price of about £60 m - which includes the unit flyaway cost of about £42 m.

That’s rather cheaper than F-35, and (as you’d expect) rather more expensive than the less capable F/A-18E/F.

this isnt my quote,i lifted it from a recent external debate but it says what i wanted to say...better!
jaffo4011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 325
Threads:
A small correction to the above: Norway has already decided to buy F-35, Gripen is no longer an option.

I would be very surprised if any of the other partner nations would pull out, given that they have already invested. What may change compared to the original schedule is the number of a/c purchased. I doubt Holland will buy 85 a/c for instance. Still, in the grand scheme of things that would not influence the price I would think.
Vivendi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #13
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaffo4011 View Post
What a load of nonsense….

The USAF’s own estimates for F-35 pricing contradict Lockheed’s claims of a $50-60 m price tag. The USAF figures give a programme flyaway average of $83.131 m, with a price of $199 million in 2009, $158 million in 2010, $124 million in 2011, $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter. But that’s founded on the assumption that inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is unlikely in the defence and aerospace sectors.

Lockheed have claimed an export price of “$58.7 million for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters.”

But let's look a little more closely at $58.7 m.

That’s in 2002 dollars, so the real price is likely to be $80-90M in real world dollars with even modest inflation.
SNIP !

$83.131 m is in then-year dollars, TY2034. In 2002 dollars: $48 m and CY2014 dollars $70 m.

The JSF CTOL is $60-65 m in 2008 dollars. Fly away.


The Typhoon tranche 2 are EUR55m UPC (unit production cost) in CY2004 or $88m in 2008 dollars.

Cheers.
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #14
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 77
Threads:
Well...Not entirely true :

In 20th November 2008 Norway choose to pursue the plan to purchase 48 F-35 in 2016,
but much remains to be agreed upon between Norway and LM before the actual signatures
are put down on paper.

If the costs and the delays keeps rising and Norway's aging F-16 fleet keeps on getting
grounded at the current rate ( right now 65% of them are unavailable for service) , as a
thinking exercise only, they might be forced to acquire something else for starters.

Either Eurofighters or more probably S-Hornets.

They will NOT however be able to switch back to Gripen as that plane was judged
totally useless for Norway's needs. Gripen could only fulfil 1 of the 4 operational
requirements Norway had and it was also much more expensive than the F-35.

I see nothing wrong with a healthy mix of S-Hornets and F-35s though...
B3LA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2010   #15
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B3LA View Post
If the costs and the delays keeps rising and Norway's aging F-16 fleet keeps on getting
grounded at the current rate ( right now 65% of them are unavailable for service) , as a
thinking exercise only, they might be forced to acquire something else for starters.
What's the source? Curious.
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 PM.