Eurofighter Rafale and Gripen v. JSF

[fylr71]

how do the eurofighter, rafale, and gripen expect to achieve foreign sales when they are up against the f-35?. From what I understand Eurofighter at 83 million offers similar but better capabilites then rafale at 50 million. Gripen is a bargan at 25 million and is only slighty less capable then the other European fighters. All three are 4.5 generation. The f-35 will probably cost 50-60 million and will be just as stealthy as an f-117 and is considered a 5th generation fighter. How then does Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium expect to comptete with that?

[Waylander]

First to say is, that nobody already knows how cheap or expensive the F-35 is going to get.
About the F-35 as stealthy as F-117A argument I let the experts tell their opinion. ;) :D

[tphuang]

how do the eurofighter, rafale, and gripen expect to achieve foreign sales when they are up against the f-35?. From what I understand Eurofighter at 83 million offers similar but better capabilites then rafale at 50 million. Gripen is a bargan at 25 million and is only slighty less capable then the other European fighters. All three are 4.5 generation. The f-35 will probably cost 50-60 million and will be just as stealthy as an f-117 and is considered a 5th generation fighter. How then does Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium expect to comptete with that?
F-35 is not going to be that cheap. the typhoon, rafale and gripen are not as cheap as your listed price either. Do a little research on the past details involving these planes.

[SABRE]

Lockheed-Martin estimated JSF's price to be $50million/unit couple of months back... but it was just an estimation. The real prince may just go high.

As for how are EF-2000, Rafale & Gripen going to do against JSF when it comes to export. Well, price is not the only factor involved while purchasing fighter aircrafts. You have got to see risk factors, availablity etc ... & in that department EF-2000, Gripen & Rafale are in better possition right now. European aircrafts come with lesser political risk than US aircrafts.

[rjmaz1]

The JSF is going to cost WELL over 100 million dollars. It'll be funny in 5 years time when they say it will cost 150 million each, this is highly likely to happen. So much for it being a budget fighter.

At that price you could have 50 Gripens or only 10 or so JSF aircraft. Most small countries would go for the Gripen just so they can have enough aircraft.

The Eurofighter will come off worst in my opinion as it is quite expensive for what it is.

You actually forgot to mention the biggest threat to the sales of these aircraft the F16. The F-16 block 60 has already taken alot of the Eurofighters sales due to the fact its less than half the price and performance is very similar in every way.

The F16 has also taken Gripen sales too from the smaller countries. The Gripen is a great aircraft, very cheap but pay a bit more and you get an F-16 with longer range, similar performance and an excellent track record. The F-16 block 60 is still the best "bang for your buck" aircraft by a long margin.

Greece, Oman, Chile, Poland and Israel are all currently purchasing hundreds of F-16's between them. Thats more export sales than the Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter combined!!

[Cootamundra]

The JSF is going to cost WELL over 100 million dollars. It'll be funny in 5 years time when they say it will cost 150 million each, this is highly likely to happen. So much for it being a budget fighter.

Really!!!

Geez, I'd love to have that forward looking futurescope you have...I'd make millions in the lotto :laugh

Despite all the commentry on this board across the various JSF related threads we don't know how much the final cost of Australia's JSFs are going to cost. We have a range of JSF naysayers around here - Occum and others make plenty of valid comments around projected costs but we need to keep in mind that Australia is NOT paying for large amounts of the development for this aircraft and we won't be purchasing them until the 2012-13 (nd onwards) time frame.

In the last senate estimates committee hearing Shep clearly stated that based on their latest information the cost of the JSF was still looking like it was in the range of 40-50 mill (USD) in 2001 dollars. Everything else is speculation. Do you work on the JSF program? Does Occum? Do I? I don't think any of us do, so for now all we're doing is arguing about something that we'll only ever be able to do based on publicly available data.

The Raptor is NOT going to be made available to AUS (yes, even us), but then we've not even asked because one thing we do know is that the Raptor does cost 126 mill USD in current dollars. Is it multirole - no it is not. Could it be - probably. All the other aircraft mentioned have good and bad points, just like the JSF but one thing is for sure, the sensor fusion side of the F-35 will be the best we've seen.

[Wild Weasel]

A minor quibble:

If the Raptor can carry and deliver air-to-ground ordinance, ( And we know it can ) I don't know how you can say that it isn't multi-role.

Did you mean export varients?

[Magoo]

The JSF is going to cost WELL over 100 million dollars. It'll be funny in 5 years time when they say it will cost 150 million each, this is highly likely to happen. So much for it being a budget fighter.

At that price you could have 50 Gripens or only 10 or so JSF aircraft. Most small countries would go for the Gripen just so they can have enough aircraft.

Sources please!

The F-16 block 60 has already taken alot of the Eurofighters sales due to the fact its less than half the price and performance is very similar in every way.

The F-16E/F has been sold to ONE country only, the UAE.

The F-16 block 60 is still the best "bang for your buck" aircraft by a long margin.

Again, sources please. Some analysts predict the UAE paid more than US$100m each for their Block 60s.

Magoo

[Cootamundra]

A minor quibble:

If the Raptor can carry and deliver air-to-ground ordinance, ( And we know it can ) I don't know how you can say that it isn't multi-role.

Did you mean export varients?

No I meant the current USAF model that if I recall is only getting cleared for air to ground ordinance - I'll stand corrected, but is this aircarft not meant to be a stand out air to air superiority fighter. Any air to around capability is very much secondary.

Also, as far as I'm aware there are NO export varients. Again i'll stand corrected;)

[Wild Weasel]

It is cleared ( or will soon be, as a minor formality ) for the GBU-38. I expect that it will also be cleared for the GBU-39 in the very near future.
Yes, the Raptor was meant to be a standout air-superiority fighter/interceptor. So was the F-14 and F-15.
But a secondary land attack role, is still an additional capability- thus it is currently multi-role capable.

And no, I can neither confirm, nor deny, any Raptors or varients thereof- for export.

[tphuang]

back to the original question.

The answer is that they are not.

You are talking about a group of planes that can't beat out the teens in exports, let alone JSF.

Gripen hasn't had a sale in a long time despite putting their plane in every country's competition pretty much.

Rafale still doesn't have an export deal.

Typhoon got the Saudi deal and is probably the only one that can compete against JSF in the export market due to its own capabilities.

[swerve]

how do the eurofighter, rafale, and gripen expect to achieve foreign sales when they are up against the f-35?. From what I understand Eurofighter at 83 million offers similar but better capabilites then rafale at 50 million. Gripen is a bargan at 25 million and is only slighty less capable then the other European fighters. All three are 4.5 generation. The f-35 will probably cost 50-60 million and will be just as stealthy as an f-117 and is considered a 5th generation fighter. How then does Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium expect to comptete with that?

If you want a fighter delivered before 2015, you can't buy F-35. That's an advantage for the others. If you don't want US restrictions, you can't buy F-35 (or Gripen, but that's solvable, at a price). And, as has been said, nobody yet knows what an F-35 will cost.

[old faithful]

F16 block 60/62 was developed for UAE. They paid for the development R&D. Any exports of block 60,s will carry a royalty payment to the UAE. The last off the shelf varient of the F16 is block 50/52+. Its a great aircraft, but not comparable to Typhoon. The only real advantage that Typoon/Rafale has over JSF is that it dosnt have the strings attached that the JSF will,its available now.Rafale has one advantage over Typhoon, in that all componants/systems come from one nation compared to Typhoons four. Could be vital if you are flying Typhoon agaisnt a nation friendly with one of its suppliers.

[rjmaz1]

The F-16 block 60 is right on 100million US dollars per aircraft INCLUDING the development costs whichs the UAE paid for which was 3 billion US dollars. They paid a total of 8 billion for 80 aircraft including the 3 billion for development. That leaves 5 billion for the actual aircrafts themselves

The actual price of an F-16 Block 60 excluding development cost is only 62.5 million per aircraft in current dollars. The development cost has now been paid for so only money on top of that would be a royalty fee to the UAE which surely would only be a few million per aircraft. Thats just a guess i have no idea about royalty fee's for aircraft.

Now the reasons why is aid the F16 Block 60 is the best bang for your buck aircraft is because the performance is similar yet the F-16 is cheaper. The radars are very similar performance wise. ECR-90 versus APG-80 is a close match i'd say the F-16 radar is actually superior. The APG-80 uses the same radar technology as the JSF and F-22, however just another size down from the JSF radar, just the the JSF radar is a size down from the F-22.

Flight Performance of the two aircraft, range, speed, agility are also close match. They both have advanced avionics, FLIR and carry similar weopons.

The F-16 however costs significantly less than the Eurofighter. Eurofighter costs between 80 and 90 million per aircraft. So you get similar performance with the Block 60 F-16 at a bargain 25% off! Excellent Bang for your buck!!

Then look at the F-16 block 50's are also decent at 45million is 2000 dollars so around 50million per aircraft in current dollars you get something that is superior to the Gripen. All the potential buyers of the Gripen and buying the Block 50 F-16's.

[contedicavour]

The JSF is going to cost WELL over 100 million dollars. It'll be funny in 5 years time when they say it will cost 150 million each, this is highly likely to happen. So much for it being a budget fighter.

At that price you could have 50 Gripens or only 10 or so JSF aircraft. Most small countries would go for the Gripen just so they can have enough aircraft.

The Eurofighter will come off worst in my opinion as it is quite expensive for what it is.

You actually forgot to mention the biggest threat to the sales of these aircraft the F16. The F-16 block 60 has already taken alot of the Eurofighters sales due to the fact its less than half the price and performance is very similar in every way.

The F16 has also taken Gripen sales too from the smaller countries. The Gripen is a great aircraft, very cheap but pay a bit more and you get an F-16 with longer range, similar performance and an excellent track record. The F-16 block 60 is still the best "bang for your buck" aircraft by a long margin.

Greece, Oman, Chile, Poland and Israel are all currently purchasing hundreds of F-16's between them. Thats more export sales than the Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter combined!!

I am surprised by your saying that the F16 (even block 60) is "very similar in every way" to the Typhoon :rolleyes: You are comparing a 2-engine long-range 4.5 generation fighterbomber with the latest evolution of a short-range single-engine jet which started its career almost 30 years ago !!
The countries you mention as buyers of F16 versus Typhoon were looking for the characteristics of a F16 with its price range, they never really seriously considered acquiring a more capable and logically more expensive Typhoon !

[rattmuff]

how do the eurofighter, rafale, and gripen expect to achieve foreign sales when they are up against the f-35?. From what I understand Eurofighter at 83 million offers similar but better capabilites then rafale at 50 million. Gripen is a bargan at 25 million and is only slighty less capable then the other European fighters. All three are 4.5 generation. The f-35 will probably cost 50-60 million and will be just as stealthy as an f-117 and is considered a 5th generation fighter. How then does Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium expect to comptete with that?

Mostly depends on the buyers needs.

A F-35 for 50-60 million USD? What kind of things is included? Just the aircraft?
Czech Republic leased 14 Gripens for 55-60 million USD per aircraft, they did choose the whole package. But still, they just leased them!

[rjmaz1]

I am surprised by your saying that the F16 (even block 60) is "very similar in every way" to the Typhoon :rolleyes: You are comparing a 2-engine long-range 4.5 generation fighterbomber with the latest evolution of a short-range single-engine jet which started its career almost 30 years ago !!
The countries you mention as buyers of F16 versus Typhoon were looking for the characteristics of a F16 with its price range, they never really seriously considered acquiring a more capable and logically more expensive Typhoon !
The two aircraft are very similar, speed, weight, agility and avionics. Considering two people have no disagreed i'll no post solid data.

2 medium engine versus 1 big engine aircraft.

4.5 generation eurofighter versus a 3rd generation F16 with 4.5 generation avionics.

Internal fuel:
Eurofighter - 4,900kg
F16 Block 60 - 4,600kg

Empty Weight:
Eurofighter - 11,000kg
F16 Block 60- 9,100kg

Engine Thrust:
Eurofighter - 18,000kg
F16 Block 60 - 14,500kg

Maximum Take off:
Eurofighter - 23,582kg
F16 Block 60 - 23,500kg ;)

Radar Performance:
The F16 Block 60 radar is no doubt superior to the Eurofighters, this will offset the difference in radar cross section. So both aircraft will detect each other at similar long range. The APG-80 AESA radar is a small version of the F-22's Radar. Its radar when active cannot be detected like the F-22's, thus giving the F16 a huge advantage.

Price:
Eurofighter - US 85 Million
F16 Block 60 - US 65 Million

So the latest F-16 has much longer range and is larger than most people think. The conformal tanks has really transformed the F-16 giving it nearly 50% more internal fuel. Just like the F-15E conformal tanks these are considered part of the air frame.

In the bomb trucking role the F16 can carry more weight than the Eurofighter.

[marxist_command]

The two aircraft are very similar, speed, weight, agility and avionics. Considering two people have no disagreed i'll no post solid data.

2 medium engine versus 1 big engine aircraft.

4.5 generation eurofighter versus a 3rd generation F16 with 4.5 generation avionics.

Internal fuel:
Eurofighter - 4,900kg
F16 Block 60 - 4,600kg

Empty Weight:
Eurofighter - 11,000kg
F16 Block 60- 9,100kg

Engine Thrust:
Eurofighter - 18,000kg
F16 Block 60 - 14,500kg

Maximum Take off:
Eurofighter - 23,582kg
F16 Block 60 - 23,500kg ;)

Radar Performance:
The F16 Block 60 radar is no doubt superior to the Eurofighters, this will offset the difference in radar cross section. So both aircraft will detect each other at similar long range. The APG-80 AESA radar is a small version of the F-22's Radar. Its radar when active cannot be detected like the F-22's, thus giving the F16 a huge advantage.

Price:
Eurofighter - US 85 Million
F16 Block 60 - US 65 Million

So the latest F-16 has much longer range and is larger than most people think. The conformal tanks has really transformed the F-16 giving it nearly 50% more internal fuel. Just like the F-15E conformal tanks these are considered part of the air frame.

In the bomb trucking role the F16 can carry more weight than the Eurofighter.

So in few words, F-_series is better than Eurofighter?

[Big-E]

So in few words, F-_series is better than Eurofighter?

Not better, cheaper while still being competitive.

[McZosch]

Globalsecurity is stating the Typhoons fly-away-price at 58 million US$.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

Found two other sources indicating the same. Total system cost per airframe are 83 million US$, according to BMV (DoD) of Germany. That's including development, not to be accounted on export-sales.

Combat readiness of the F-35 will be around 2013. Thats 7 years from now. Price tag on current estimates is 40 to 50 million US$. If I only count inflation (3.2 % in the US in 2005; makes 24,66 % over 7 years), it will be 50 to 62,5 million US$. That's very optimistic, because it doesn't take account on possible technical problems. So I expect the fly-away-price tag at 70-75 million US$ in 2013 for a single-engined short-range aircraft.

All info I found backs the graphic stated on the Eurofighter-Homepage (http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Cost/).

Comparing the F-16 Block 60 with the EF is nonsense. The EF is an air-superiority fighter with a secondary ground-attack role. F-16 is vice-versa. The Block 60 is very likely to be the last edition of the F-16. The EF is still produced with Tranche 1. AESA-radar will come with Tranche 3 at the latest. And the comparision in agility was meant as a joke, wasn't it?:lol3 Sustained 6-7g at Mach 1.5 is only matched by F-22, climb rate is much higher than F-16.

[swerve]

The two aircraft are very similar, speed, weight, agility and avionics. Considering two people have no disagreed i'll no post solid data.

2 medium engine versus 1 big engine aircraft.

4.5 generation eurofighter versus a 3rd generation F16 with 4.5 generation avionics.

Internal fuel:
Eurofighter - 4,900kg
F16 Block 60 - 4,600kg

Empty Weight:
Eurofighter - 11,000kg
F16 Block 60- 9,100kg

Engine Thrust:
Eurofighter - 18,000kg
F16 Block 60 - 14,500kg

Maximum Take off:
Eurofighter - 23,582kg
F16 Block 60 - 23,500kg ;)

Radar Performance:
The F16 Block 60 radar is no doubt superior to the Eurofighters, this will offset the difference in radar cross section. So both aircraft will detect each other at similar long range. The APG-80 AESA radar is a small version of the F-22's Radar. Its radar when active cannot be detected like the F-22's, thus giving the F16 a huge advantage.

Price:
Eurofighter - US 85 Million
F16 Block 60 - US 65 Million

So the latest F-16 has much longer range and is larger than most people think. The conformal tanks has really transformed the F-16 giving it nearly 50% more internal fuel. Just like the F-15E conformal tanks these are considered part of the air frame.

In the bomb trucking role the F16 can carry more weight than the Eurofighter.

1) Your oddly precise max T/O weight for the Typhoon is almost certainly underestimated. Compare thrust & wing area. Speaking of weights, where did you get those empty weights? Isn't Block 60 (aka F-16E) about 10000 kg?
2) We've been over this "the F-16 can carry more than the Eurofighter" nonsense before. Try to come up with a real load, of real stores, which will actually fit on F-16 pylons (not the sum of what they're stressed to for low-G), which is greater than what a Typhoon can lift. I doubt you can. The maximum loads for which Typhoon hardpoints are stressed to hasn't been officially released. All we have are estimates based on the stores which have either been carried, or which officials have stated can be carried.
3) Radar. Are you absolutely sure the APG-80 has a longer range than Captor? First time I've seen that said. It is AESA, which gives advantages, but the back end is no more - and probably less - sophisticated than Captor. And LPI is Low Probability of Intercept, not zero. Doesn't mean it's undetectable, means it's hard to detect. LPI techniques were around long before AESA, & Captor uses them. AESA enables further improvements: it doesn't magically make radars undetectable. BTW, the APG-80 is optimised for air-surface (though by all reports, it ain't at all bad air-air). And anyway, when CAESAR's operational ....

[Wild Weasel]

But the weapon system is still very similar, isn't it? The EF isn't racing the F-16, or even trying to make a gun kill against it- they both would employ very similar, and effective BVR, and WVR AAM's.

The parity of the weapons in question suggests that the engagement could very well end in a draw- and it is a fact that one of these aircraft is quite a bit less expensive than the other.

That's fairly distressing when one considers the amount of national treasure being spent on a new fighter, that is supposed to have significantly superior performance compared to a much earlier generation design.

[contedicavour]

All this comparing of the last of the F-16s against the very first Typhoons reminds me of when some smart politicians :sick in Italy opted for an umpteenth version of the F-104 (the S) instead of buying the F-4 because the first's cost was 30% lower while it could carry the same BVR missiles than the F-4. So basically the same anti-air capability for 30% less cost. Why bother buy the newer plane ? ;)
Of course 25 years later when you are still stuck with a jet that is obsolete (despite good electronics and missiles) you realize how wrong the decision to go with the older plane was.
It is not acquisition cost that matters, but life cycle cost. A brand new Typhoon Batch 2 will still be flying in 30 years' time without being obsolete. I wouldn't say the same of a F-16, which in 30 years time will be a 56-year old design.......

cheers

[McZosch]

But the weapon system is still very similar, isn't it? The EF isn't racing the F-16, or even trying to make a gun kill against it- they both would employ very similar, and effective BVR, and WVR AAM's.
You can build the APG-80 into a F-4 Phantom, than you have also quite similar weapons systems. Makes that the F-4 a better aircraft with better all-aspect performance?
Doesn't the Meteor has a greater range due to it's ramjets?

That's fairly distressing when one considers the amount of national treasure being spent on a new fighter, that is supposed to have significantly superior performance compared to a much earlier generation design.

But the money is spent domestically. It creates several thousand highly skilled jobs. The economic balance is absolutely in favorable.

[swerve]

All this comparing of the last of the F-16s against the very first Typhoons reminds me of when some smart politicians :sick in Italy opted for an umpteenth version of the F-104 (the S) instead of buying the F-4 because the first's cost was 30% lower while it could carry the same BVR missiles than the F-4. So basically the same anti-air capability for 30% less cost. Why bother buy the newer plane ? ;)
Of course 25 years later when you are still stuck with a jet that is obsolete (despite good electronics and missiles) you realize how wrong the decision to go with the older plane was.
It is not acquisition cost that matters, but life cycle cost. A brand new Typhoon Batch 2 will still be flying in 30 years' time without being obsolete. I wouldn't say the same of a F-16, which in 30 years time will be a 56-year old design.......

cheers

Exactly. The F-104S was an upgrade too far. As for F-16s - just look at the latest models! Bulges everywhere to fit all the stuff in. Can't fit a bigger antenna in the nose, which can't be made bigger without a substantial redesign & rebuild. Meanwhile, the competition all stick in AESA antennae with 50-100% more T/R modules. The F-16 can't lift any more without a new wing (wing loading's already bloody high) - by which time, you have a new plane. Etc, etc.

[Wild Weasel]

The point is, the F-16 could be purchased for much less and provide immediate capability, until something better becomes available.
The production model EF is still years away, it's capabilities will hardly be comparable to fifth-gen fighters, and it costs a tremendous amount of money RIGHT NOW.

[contedicavour]

The point is, the F-16 could be purchased for much less and provide immediate capability, until something better becomes available.
The production model EF is still years away, it's capabilities will hardly be comparable to fifth-gen fighters, and it costs a tremendous amount of money RIGHT NOW.

Sorry but I really don't get your point : the production model of EF is flying now and fully operational, although it is Batch 1. Our 4° wing in Grosseto is flying 15 Typhoons in air-to-air role with Amraams. I've read the RAF is also ready with its first wing, and I am sure the Luftwaffe is only a few months away from having the same.
As of 2008 the Batch 2 (air-to-ground as well as air-to-air) will become operational.
By the time Batch 3 arrives (2011) it will incorporate features close to gen 5.
So cheer up we are NOT wasting our money :D

cheers

[Magoo]

Combat readiness of the F-35 will be around 2013. Thats 7 years from now. Price tag on current estimates is 40 to 50 million US$. If I only count inflation (3.2 % in the US in 2005; makes 24,66 % over 7 years), it will be 50 to 62,5 million US$. That's very optimistic, because it doesn't take account on possible technical problems. So I expect the fly-away-price tag at 70-75 million US$ in 2013 for a single-engined short-range aircraft.

The US$45-$55m flyaway price of the JSF is an average non-recurring flyaway price over the life of the program in 2002 dollars, based on 2000+ F-35s being ordered. JSFs delivered in 2012 and 2013 will cost a lot more than this (est ~US$65-70m if there are no further development issues) as the development costs will be amortised into the earlier aircraft. It's probably not until aircraft 800-1000+ that the quoted price will begin to be realised. Conversely, aircraft number 2000 should in theory, be cheaper!

Magoo

[Magoo]

Ok...I've been reading this thread for a while and it seems the one major difference between these aircraft has been left out. Integration!

The F-16E/F is, without doubt, a fine aircraft and has, along with the F-15SG and F/A-18E/F Block 2, probably seen the teen series US fighters taken out as far as they can go. Yes, it has AESA radar, advanced displays, conformal tanks, standoff weapons, IRST, and a lot of other systems, but it's still lacks an integrated avionics, weapons and sensor suite such as that on the F-22 and (promised) on the Typhoon.

Once Typhoon reaches its Tranche 2/3 standard, it will offer CEASAR (now called AMSAR?), DASS, IRST, AIS, MIDS as well as off-board sensor feeds, and present these all on a single multifunction heads down display (MHDD) for the pilot, similar to that offered by the F-22 and which will be in the F-35. Nothing else flying can do that now. While the F-16E and other jets may offer all of these capabilities, they are presented in various formats which the pilot must 'scan' and interpret, rather than on a single screen which gives him a 'god's eye view' of everything happening around him. Rafale plans to offer a similar capability, although I am not up to date on the status of this program, and Gripen has also talked about offering it on the new versions it has recently proposed for Denmark and Norway.

This level of integration is generally accepted as being what constitutes a generational difference between fighters, although I'm not prepared to get into what constitutes a 3rd gen vs 4th gen vs 5th gen jet here.

Just on a side issue here...don't underestimate the Typhoon's non-AESA CAPTOR radar. While it may not have the agile beam steering capability of the AESA sets, I understand it is one hell of an awesome sensor and has compared very favourably with the F-15C's AESA APG-63(v)2 in trials in the UK.

Magoo

[swerve]

Ok...I've been reading this thread for a while and it seems the one major difference between these aircraft has been left out. Integration!

The F-16E/F is, without doubt, a fine aircraft and has, along with the F-15SG and F/A-18E/F Block 2, probably seen the teen series US fighters taken out as far as they can go. Yes, it has AESA radar, advanced displays, conformal tanks, standoff weapons, IRST, and a lot of other systems, but it's still lacks an integrated avionics, weapons and sensor suite such as that on the F-22 and (promised) on the Typhoon.

Once Typhoon reaches its Tranche 2/3 standard, it will offer CEASAR (now called AMSAR?), DASS, IRST, AIS, MIDS as well as off-board sensor feeds, and present these all on a single multifunction heads down display (MHDD) for the pilot, similar to that offered by the F-22 and which will be in the F-35. Nothing else flying can do that now. While the F-16E and other jets may offer all of these capabilities, they are presented in various formats which the pilot must 'scan' and interpret, rather than on a single screen which gives him a 'god's eye view' of everything happening around him. Rafale plans to offer a similar capability, although I am not up to date on the status of this program, and Gripen has also talked about offering it on the new versions it has recently proposed for Denmark and Norway.
...

Magoo

AMSAR is a technology development project. CAESAR is a radar (CAPTOR with an AESA antenna: the radar in Tranche 2 Typhoons is ready for such an upgrade, so it's more or less plug and play), which uses the technology developed under AMSAR.

For Gripen, I believe it's linked to NORA (Not Only a RAdar), the AESA radar/sensor/EW integrated system Ericssion has been developing for some time.

[rjmaz1]

Comparing the F-16 Block 60 with the EF is nonsense. The EF is an air-superiority fighter with a secondary ground-attack role. F-16 is vice-versa.
The F-16 was designed and originally operated as an Lightweight day fighter with very limited ground-attack capabilities.

The Fighter bomber role was added many years after it entered service, its just as multirole as the Eurofighter


And the comparision in agility was meant as a joke, wasn't it?:lol3 Sustained 6-7g at Mach 1.5 is only matched by F-22, climb rate is much higher than F-16.
The F-16 is no doubt highly agile. It was the most agile aircraft in the world for a long time, as it was regarded as being slightly superior to the F-15. Its still right up there too, the Eurofighter has an edge but nothing to write home or laugh about.

All this comparing of the last of the F-16s against the very first Typhoons reminds me of when some smart politicians :sick in Italy opted for an umpteenth version of the F-104 (the S) instead of buying the F-4

A brand new Typhoon Batch 2 will still be flying in 30 years' time without being obsolete. I wouldn't say the same of a F-16, which in 30 years time will be a 56-year old design.......
The F4 is a completely different class aircraft to the F-104. The F-104 by its design can only be short lived with its limited fuel capacity.

The F-16 when compared to the Eurofighter they have very similar qualities. Fly by wire, lightweight high power engines. Advanced designed composite structures, advanced radar, similar weights, fuel and ranges. The F-16 design will last very well, i think the physical lifespan of the aircrafts themseleves will be the limiting factor not the design.

Not better, cheaper while still being competitive.
Spot on. Thats the point im trying to get across.

Thats why alot of countries are buying F-16's as for the money they get alot of fire power.

[contedicavour]

Thats why alot of countries are buying F-16's as for the money they get alot of fire power.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, after Chile and the UAE, nobody is considering anymore buying brand new F16s if there is enough budget to buy newer Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, SU-30s, etc.
A page has been turned ;)

cheers

[rjmaz1]

Hmm, after Chile and the UAE, nobody is considering anymore buying brand new F16s if there is enough budget to buy newer Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, SU-30s, etc.
A page has been turned ;)
The F-16 production line is still going at full speed and will be for the next two years, as it has orders to fill. Plenty of time for new orders to come up.

How many Gripen, Rafale and Su-30 aircraft are currently coming out of their manufacturing plants?

None!! It seems everyone is wanting to buy these aircarft!!! :lol2

[swerve]

How many Gripen, Rafale and Su-30 aircraft are currently coming out of their manufacturing plants?

None!! It seems everyone is wanting to buy these aircarft!!! :lol2

Wrong. Gripens are being built right now (JAS39C/D for the RSwAF & South Africa), as are Rafale for the French navy & air force, & Su-30 for India & China, with new orders currently being negotiated for Algeria & Venezuela. Production of Rafale & Su-30 is guaranteed past 2010.

[rjmaz1]

Wrong. Gripens are being built right now (JAS39C/D for the RSwAF & South Africa), as are Rafale for the French navy & air force, & Su-30 for India & China, with new orders currently being negotiated for Algeria & Venezuela. Production of Rafale & Su-30 is guaranteed past 2010.
I stand corrected.

A google search said that india and china have received all of their SU-30's and French have not started producing their last batch of Rafales. But then Google doesn't always have up to date info.

[swerve]

I stand corrected.

A google search said that india and china have received all of their SU-30's and French have not started producing their last batch of Rafales. But then Google doesn't always have up to date info.

I think India has received all their Russian-built Su-30s, but they're now building them in India. It's possible none are currently coming out of Russian factories, though they're building other Su-27 family variants in small numbers for the Russian air force. China - well, there are a lot of stories about what's happening with Chinese Su-30 & Su-27 production & purchases, & to be frank, I'm not sure about that. Dassault won't start building the last batch of Rafales for some time, but they're still building the 2nd of the 3 batches ordered so far - which means Typhoon production overtook the Rafale some time ago. Gripens now being built are all C/D, & A/B currently in Swedish service are scheduled to be either recycled through the factory to be turned into C/D or put up for sale.

[contedicavour]

I think India has received all their Russian-built Su-30s, but they're now building them in India. It's possible none are currently coming out of Russian factories, though they're building other Su-27 family variants in small numbers for the Russian air force. China - well, there are a lot of stories about what's happening with Chinese Su-30 & Su-27 production & purchases, & to be frank, I'm not sure about that. Dassault won't start building the last batch of Rafales for some time, but they're still building the 2nd of the 3 batches ordered so far - which means Typhoon production overtook the Rafale some time ago. Gripens now being built are all C/D, & A/B currently in Swedish service are scheduled to be either recycled through the factory to be turned into C/D or put up for sale.

Yep right. F16s have been beaten in several Eastern European countries by Gripen (Hungary and Czech Rep), although it had previously won in Poland. It remains to be seen who will win in Romania. Farther South, Greece has erased its option for 15 more F-16s and is now considering buying Typhoons.
Saudi Arabia just went for Typhoons, as did Austria. Some more F16s may be assembled locally in Turkey, but only to make up for attrition rates on their current numbers. Farther East, Pakistan is at last ordering F16s, though less than originally planned. India and China are in love with SU-30s, as are apparently Indonesia and Vietnam. Korea, Singapore, and Israel bought the latest F15s. In South America, other than Venezuela (who will buy Russian just to anger the US a bit more) and Chile (which took..... 10 F16s ;) ) nobody else has money available to buy new-build jets. Brazil is more oriented towards second-hand Mirage 2000s from France, and would buy Gripen or Rafale if it had the money.
So... after this tour of the world, I see small orders for Pakistan and Chile and the somewhat larger one for Poland (48 if I remember correctly), besides the one for UAE you mentioned. The beautiful Falcon is being slowly but surely edged out of international competitions.

cheers

[tphuang]

I think India has received all their Russian-built Su-30s, but they're now building them in India. It's possible none are currently coming out of Russian factories, though they're building other Su-27 family variants in small numbers for the Russian air force. China - well, there are a lot of stories about what's happening with Chinese Su-30 & Su-27 production & purchases, & to be frank, I'm not sure about that. Dassault won't start building the last batch of Rafales for some time, but they're still building the 2nd of the 3 batches ordered so far - which means Typhoon production overtook the Rafale some time ago. Gripens now being built are all C/D, & A/B currently in Swedish service are scheduled to be either recycled through the factory to be turned into C/D or put up for sale.
India just sold their 18 su-30Ks and bought 18 new mki, so those are in the order books. Sukhoi definitely has work to do for a while with those and the orders of Algeria and Venezuela coming up. I'm not sure if all RMAF ones have been delivered.

[rattmuff]

I think India has received all their Russian-built Su-30s................................ ...........................Gripens now being built are all C/D, & A/B currently in Swedish service are scheduled to be either recycled through the factory to be turned into C/D or put up for sale.

They are going to turn 70-80 Gripen A/B to C/D. But then SwAF has a few A/B left and they are going to reduce the Gripen-force to about 100 C/D. So that leaves many aircraft for sales or the gov. have to put billions of euros just to scrap the leftovers and nobody wants that(?!)..... :(

[contedicavour]

They are going to turn 70-80 Gripen A/B to C/D. But then SwAF has a few A/B left and they are going to reduce the Gripen-force to about 100 C/D. So that leaves many aircraft for sales or the gov. have to put billions of euros just to scrap the leftovers and nobody wants that(?!)..... :(

You mean that out of 200 Gripens built, the Swedish Air Force will only keep a hundred ? that's a shame ! :rolleyes:
Although I'm sure that beyond Hungary and the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, and even Denmark and Finland will be interested in recent second-hand Gripens. Norway probably not as we're close to selling Typhoons to them as F16MLU update.

cheers

[RA1911]

You mean that out of 200 Gripens built, the Swedish Air Force will only keep a hundred ? that's a shame ! :rolleyes:
Although I'm sure that beyond Hungary and the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, and even Denmark and Finland will be interested in recent second-hand Gripens. Norway probably not as we're close to selling Typhoons to them as F16MLU update.

cheers

What's your source for the info that Norway is close to buying Typhoons? The decision is not to be taken until 2008, and personally I'll be VERY surprised if Norway buys anything but the JSF..

[contedicavour]

What's your source for the info that Norway is close to buying Typhoons? The decision is not to be taken until 2008, and personally I'll be VERY surprised if Norway buys anything but the JSF..

BAE (in charge of Norway for the Typhoon consortium) apparently is convinced it can pull off the contract (recent "air forces" edition if I recall correctly), although you are right JSF is the key opponent.
Let's see who wins ;)
cheers

[RA1911]

There are several factors that is as of now in JSFs favour in Norway:

1. Price. In 2016 which is, if my memory serves my right, the said cost of JSF will be half of the Typhoons.
2. Date of purchase. Norway is buying an aircraft to replace the F16s by 2020. By then the JSF should be "cheap" (se above), and most of the bugs should be worked out.
3. Politics. Norway has "always" bough their fighters from the US, and since WWII Norways security has been based on the Norway/USA friendship and alliance. The norwegian military also has strong ties to the US industry and especially LM (We're flying F-16s and C-130s). I believe that most of the officers in charge wants the JSF (although they don't say that in public).

PS. yes there has been some noise in media about industry shares etc, but in my opinion it won't affect the end result.

[swerve]

There are several factors that is as of now in JSFs favour in Norway:

1. Price. In 2016 which is, if my memory serves my right, the said cost of JSF will be half of the Typhoons.


Maybe. The JSF is not yet in production - indeed, is being redesigned as we type (though most of the redesign has been done) to reduce weight & change the way it's built. The first of 21 pre-production F-35s for testing is expected to fly in 2008. The one currently being readied for first flight is a one-off, with major differences from the production standard. The quoted price is a forecast. It could be correct, but taking into account the recent history of JSF price forecasts, I think that's unlikely. The forecast cost of manufacturing, in constant 2002 US$, increased 31.3% from 2001 to 2005. It's increased another 7.7% since then.

The Typhoon price, on the other hand, is firm. It's in series production (well past number 100 on the assembly line), & the manufacturers know exactly what it costs them to make it.

I find it very odd that people regularly talk about a predicted price of something that's not yet been built, & the actual price of something in production & service, as if they have equal credibility.

[rattmuff]

How do those people behind these combataircraft pricelists calculate the actual price?? Are they insiders??

[swerve]

How do those people behind these combataircraft pricelists calculate the actual price?? Are they insiders??

I use only published official sources. There are a lot of them around. I can't comment on the sources for lists, but I wouldn't trust one unless it referenced its sources.

[Scorpion82]

Just my 2 cents,
exporting combat aircraft is a very complex issue. It depends on a varity factors. Political and economical reasons may one thing, costs and military requirements another.

The problem with the US is that they often give less technology transfer. Their off sets are mostly less good. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of potential customers out there which wouldn't get the F-35 for political reasons. That's were the european fighters could score.

About the F-35:
The aircraft is far away from entry into service, no one can predict the exact costs and what will be included for different customers? From direct contracts the Typhoon costs about 60 mio. € and the Rafale 55 mio. €. The Gripen lies more in the range of 35 - 40 mio. €. The F-35's proposed 50 mio. $ is the aim, not more not less.

If you divide the JSF programme costs (276 bln $) through the number of aircraft to be purchased by the US (2443) the result is a 113 mio. units price. I wouldn't be surprised to see the F-35 being significantly more expansive then exspected, it already is more expensive than initially planned.

Don't forget that the F-35 programme is over 10 years younger than the european fighter programmes.


About the F-16:
The newest versions are still very capable, but they fall behind Rafale or Typhoon in terms of flight performance, RCS, short field performance and growth potential. The Rafale and Typhoon offer already the same things and even more in their planned basic configurations and they have a lot of growth potential. The F-16 is far away in terms of flight performance in comparison to the Typhoon or the Rafale.
Sensor fusion is a technology already realized for Rafale and Typhoon and it will be further enhanced in the future. I wouldn't bet on the F-35 being much superior in that direction. The primary advantage of the F-35 will be its stealth capabilities. But the aircraft will also offer a level of technology in its basic configuration which will be only matched in the evolved versions of Rafale or Typhoon. In comparison to the F-teens the european aircraft are featureing many systems by defeault which could be more easily replaced with better ones like EWS equipement, IRST/FLIR etc.

[rjmaz1]

If you divide the JSF programme costs (276 bln $) through the number of aircraft to be purchased by the US (2443) the result is a 113 mio. units price. I wouldn't be surprised to see the F-35 being significantly more expansive then exspected, it already is more expensive than initially planned.

Don't forget that the F-35 programme is over 10 years younger than the european fighter programmes.
Yep i've posted a few times that the JSF will definitely end up costing more than double the estimated price when the project first started. A few sources already suggest the ticket price has risen 50%, so its already half way there!!

The F-22 costs more because they are buying less than a quarter of the original quantity which means the price per aircraft has to be much higher to pay for development cost. IF the US bought the original number of 750 F-22's they would cost LESS than the JSF.

So much for the US history of High-low mixture of aircraft. Its now turned into Very high-high mix :rotfl

The JSF is a perfect example of a poorly run program who's design goals were unrealistic and unacheivable at the price they expected.

Just like how computers have increased in power and speed yet the price keeps dropping the JSF should have been the first aircraft in history to cost less than its predisesor.

The JSF should have integrated proven technologies into a cheap aircraft from all the previous aircraft. Using the most efficient production techniques using proven materials and comercial or off the shelf components the JSF could have provided an aircraft that had basic stealth, was lightweight and manuverable, had good avionics, and was CHEAP!!

Look how the F117 was devloped for less than 1% the cost of the JSF program, using off the shelf technologies and parts. The JSF should have tapped into the F-22 the same way the F117 did with other aircraft.

F-16 avionics, cockpit and radar, Hornet landing gear, F-22 engine. Then blended the proven F-22, Fa-18E and F-16 aerodynamics designs into a cheap fighter. Remember that the structure of the aircraft represents less than a quarter of the aircraft cost so just using off the shelf avionics and engines would see the development cost cut in half.

By wanting a long range in the navy version the weight increased.
By wanting good stealth, more exotic materials were used.
By wanting the most advanced avionics of any aircraft the price doubled!

Getting off topic though.

[Magoo]

About the F-35...If you divide the JSF programme costs (276 bln $) through the number of aircraft to be purchased by the US (2443) the result is a 113 mio. units price. I wouldn't be surprised to see the F-35 being significantly more expansive then exspected, it already is more expensive than initially planned.

This may be nit picking, but anyway...

The USAF (>1763), USN/USMC (>680) and RN (>150) have a requirement for up to 2593 aircraft in all three versions, however it's not realistic to divide the total program cost by this number to get an average aircraft price.

Firstly, you're forgetting the >1000 more aircraft required by the program partners and observer status nations like Australia, Denmark, Canada, Belguim, the Netherlands, Norway, Israel, Turkey, Singapore, and probably others.

Secondly, what people must also take into account when looking at an estimated average cost of the F-35, is that the CTOL F-35A, of which about 70% of the build run is projected to comprise, will be significantly cheaper than the more complex STOVL F-35B and CV F-35C.

So, to say F-35s will cost $113m each is an incorrect statement.

Similarly, if the numbers are reduced as most wowsers are predicting, this will be at the end of the production run, not at the beginning. Therefore, the price of the early aircraft won't rise a significant amount as these are the aircraft which traditionally amortise most of the development cost anyway - there will just be fewer cheaper aircraft sold towards the end of the build run.

Magoo

[Scorpion82]

This may be nit picking, but anyway...

The USAF (>1763), USN/USMC (>680) and RN (>150) have a requirement for up to 2593 aircraft in all three versions, however it's not realistic to divide the total program cost by this number to get an average aircraft price.

Firstly, you're forgetting the >1000 more aircraft required by the program partners and observer status nations like Australia, Denmark, Canada, Belguim, the Netherlands, Norway, Israel, Turkey, Singapore, and probably others.

Secondly, what people must also take into account when looking at an estimated average cost of the F-35, is that the CTOL F-35A, of which about 70% of the build run is projected to comprise, will be significantly cheaper than the more complex STOVL F-35B and CV F-35C.

So, to say F-35s will cost $113m each is an incorrect statement.

Similarly, if the numbers are reduced as most wowsers are predicting, this will be at the end of the production run, not at the beginning. Therefore, the price of the early aircraft won't rise a significant amount as these are the aircraft which traditionally amortise most of the development cost anyway - there will just be fewer cheaper aircraft sold towards the end of the build run.

Magoo

If the US is paying 276 billion $ and purchases the mentioned number of aircraft the 113 mio. $ is the programme units price. Further more we have to wait how many customers will finally commit to the F-35.

[Aeroeagle]

Dividing the projected $273 billion by the number of units that will be produced is pretty inaccurate figure. For one thing, that figure also includes R&D. So that $113 million figure includes R&D which of course will cause the price to go up. If we include R&D in the F-22 Raptor's price, it will be over $300 million, but that's not true because those costs have already been sunk and been paid. The cost of actually precuring another Raptor is less than half that price. Same with the JSF, it's actual cost of buying after the R&D has bene spent, will be far less than that $113 million figure.

[KWSN-Men]

I can say this, about comparing F-16 to the Typhoon and Rafale. Greece has a number of F-16's (Block-35, -50, -52+) and the pilots can't wait to get a hold on one of the two aforementioned ones.

[swerve]

Dividing the projected $273 billion by the number of units that will be produced is pretty inaccurate figure. For one thing, that figure also includes R&D. So that $113 million figure includes R&D which of course will cause the price to go up. If we include R&D in the F-22 Raptor's price, it will be over $300 million, but that's not true because those costs have already been sunk and been paid. The cost of actually precuring another Raptor is less than half that price. Same with the JSF, it's actual cost of buying after the R&D has bene spent, will be far less than that $113 million figure.

They're accurate figures & they're true (well, in the case of JSF, as far as any projected cost can be accurate or true). What they aren't is the production cost, the price of additional units, or the likely price to export customers. They're different measures, not one = true & one = false.

For F-22, the current procurement cost to the USAF is down around $120 mn each (was $130 mn 6 months ago). For JSF, we don't yet know what that price will be: we only have forecasts, & it's at too early a stage for them to be reliable. Yet.

[Aeroeagle]

They're accurate figures & they're true (well, in the case of JSF, as far as any projected cost can be accurate or true). What they aren't is the production cost, the price of additional units, or the likely price to export customers. They're different measures, not one = true & one = false.

For F-22, the current procurement cost to the USAF is down around $120 mn each (was $130 mn 6 months ago). For JSF, we don't yet know what that price will be: we only have forecasts, & it's at too early a stage for them to be reliable. Yet.

Yes I'm talking about using those as production cost. They wont' cost over $100 million to get a new F-35 but more like in $40-60 million range (depending on range). Just like you can't say that you will buy a F-22 Raptor for $331 million.

[rjmaz1]

Yes I'm talking about using those as production cost. They wont' cost over $100 million to get a new F-35 but more like in $40-60 million range (depending on range). Just like you can't say that you will buy a F-22 Raptor for $331 million.
Yes but the Development cost SHOULD be included in the airframe cost.

You can spend 500 billion dollars to develop a fighter for 100million each and buy 1000 of them. 600

You spend 200 billion dollars to develop a fighter that costs 200 million each and buy 1000 of them. 400

Is the First Aircraft cheaper? HELL NO!! the purchase price is HALF the price but the for 1000 aircraft costs a total of 600 billion. The second aircraft costs only 400 billion for the 1000 aircraft.

Thats why only stupid people dont include the development cost. So infact the F-22 is cheaper

If the JSF was not developed and half of the development money went back to the Air force the USAF could have purchased over 2000 F-22's for the same cost of 200 F-22's and 1,700 JSF's.

If the JSF wasn't developed and a third of the money from development plus aircraft purchase, the Navy could be running twice as many aircraft carriers, or just upgrade the superhornets to an even higher standard and save a bucket load of money.

[swerve]

Yes but the Development cost SHOULD be included in the airframe cost.


That's true when you're making the decision whether to proceed with development, but not once the development money has been spent.

This is one of the many things where the answer is completely context-dependent. Ask me how much a fighter (or bomber, or airliner) costs, & I'll ask straight back "Which cost are you interested in?". Manufacturing cost, project cost (includes development cost & tooling, & the latter depends on how fast you want to build them), procurement cost for an export customer (& even that depends: unit cost drops as numbers go up), lifetime cost (depends on operating cost: makes Gripen look very cheap), etc., etc.

[McZosch]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-2702,00.html
16 billion Aus$ for "up to 100 aircraft". Makes 160 million Aus$ per airframe, at best.

Austria pays 1,8 million € for 18 EF-2000. Makes 100 million € per unit, roughly 165 million Aus$.

If I assume the same number reduction as in Austria (from 24 to 18 at the same cost), Australias purchase will be reduced to 75 aircraft (which is barely enough) at 16 billion Aus$, raising unit cost to 213 million Aus$.
R&D not included!;)

For a single-engined aircraft, which is most likely not suited for a large territory like Australia!

[zetruz]

Since I'm from Sweden, and yes, I'm pretty proud of the Gripen, you maybe can't trust me to 100% right now.
But isn't it true, that it isn't just the price and perfomance that are the factors when buying an aircraft? I mean, when you choose the F-16, you know what to expect. You know what it actually can do. And it can't be that expensive, since over 4 300 of them have been built in different versions. And it may be better to be friends with the Americans than with the Swedes, if you know what I mean.

And I know that there's more. In the FIA, the Gripen hasn't actually been able to show what it can do, because one of the other producer's didn't want it to. So 'he' went to the FIA administration, and complained. 'He' did this, because in the Gripen's program there were a few moves that 'his' own plane couldn't do. So the Gripen wouldn't be able to do it either. This may have led to the Gripen not being sold to a few countries. I don't which this other producer was, but it must have been something big. I'll see if I can find out.
By the way, the same thing happened with Viggen.

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-2702,00.html
16 billion Aus$ for "up to 100 aircraft". Makes 160 million Aus$ per airframe, at best.

Austria pays 1,8 million € for 18 EF-2000. Makes 100 million € per unit, roughly 165 million Aus$.

If I assume the same number reduction as in Austria (from 24 to 18 at the same cost), Australias purchase will be reduced to 75 aircraft (which is barely enough) at 16 billion Aus$, raising unit cost to 213 million Aus$.
R&D not included!;)

For a single-engined aircraft, which is most likely not suited for a large territory like Australia!

You are forgetting that acquisition cost of a platform in a project is approximately 70% of the budget. A whopping 30% is devoted to support, training, weapons etc. Woeking out the budget for a program and the dividing it by the number of aircraft sought does NOT give you the price of the actual aircraft.

Australia is obviously very keen and has chosen not to look at buying F-22 because A) it is considered unavailable and B) it is TOO expensive. The AVERAGE cost of the F-22 platform is US$157m per plane.

JSF will come in FAR under that and conduct a far wider range of missions than F-22A could manage.

Similarly it is likely to be a far more effective strike aircraft given it's stealh and advanced avionics over "earlier" aircraft such as Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen etc.

As such it is IMHO the best option for Australia, if everything goes as planned with the project.

[rjmaz1]

The JSF is crossing the line between Australia not being able to provide a single aircraft fleet of aircraft. Unless more money is allocated i dont see how we could get more than 80 JSF's at current costs.

With the cost of the first 424 JSF's we would struggle to get 60 JSF's with our 16 billion dollars let alone the 100 that we need.

One aircraft that we can definitely afford a fleet of 100 aircraft are the trusty classic hornets. With the APG-73 radar and small diameter bombs a fleet of 100 classic hornets would have awesome firepower.

Our classic hornets would easily outkill any operational suhkoi. Sure the F-15's lost against india's SU-30's but that was intentional.

None of the F-15's had AESA radar
AMRAAM range was limited to only 32km despite its range being nearly tripple that
When firing F-15's had to keep the radar on the target like an old Sparrow missile
F-15's were outnumbered 3 to 1
India has a simulated AWAC to tell the aircraft where the F-15's were


If you put an AWAC on our hornets side and allowed them to fire their AMRAAMS at max range the Su-30's would be dropping like flies.

I think our classic hornets are the best option for ATLEAST the next 10 years.

Here are the Unit Procurement costs in the current production contracts.. Remember all cost estimates are wrong because every price includes extra's etc.

Rafale M - 67/144 - $86 million
Saab Gripen C - 68/76 - $70 million
F/A-18E - 78/95 - $82 million
F-15E (US) - $108 million
JSF - 115/112 - LRIP - $90 million (guess)
Eurofighter (UK) - 118/143 - $124 million
F-22 - 177/338 million - $217 million

Aircraft - Unit precurement / program unit cost - Estimated export price (Flyaway + quarter of difference). All in US dollars

The JSF price is still competitive with the Eurofighter and Strike Eagle even in initial low rate production thats the first 424 aircraft cost 115 million each. Price of the JSF should then drop to 80-90 million depending on the death spiral. So much for the JSF costing 40 million dollars when the first 424 aircraft cost a 115 million.

If we cannot afford a single aircraft fleet of JSF's we cannot afford a single aircraft fleet of the F-22, Eurofighter or F-15E. So anyone who suggests Eurofighters or Strike Eagles must understand that we cannot afford them. So we'd have to keep the classic hornets to make up numbers.

The Super hornet, Rafale are also pushing the price limit and the gripen is too small ruling it out. The superhornet would have a lower startup cost as we currently operate hornets so it may work out cheaper once maintenance and support is included. I could nearly bet money on that our "backup option" are new super hornets.

However the ONLY cheap option is buy another 20-30 second hand classic hornets and upgrade them to our standard. That would give us a big enough fleet for the next 20 years.

[atulbansal]

i dont know who told u that F-15 went up against Su-30...... F-15 faced 3 Mig-21 bisons and the Su-30 faced F-16 (pakistan has F-16s remember)

And as far as F-15 with AMRAAM goes and Su-30 with R-77ve you can go read the study conducted by BAE systems

[rjmaz1]

i dont know who told u that F-15 went up against Su-30...... F-15 faced 3 Mig-21 bisons and the Su-30 faced F-16 (pakistan has F-16s remember)

And as far as F-15 with AMRAAM goes and Su-30 with R-77ve you can go read the study conducted by BAE systems
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004101421.asp

http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html

The US used F-15's against the Su-30k's in cope india 2004. Singapore has flown their F-16's against the SU-30Mk1's thats probably where u got confused. The latest Mk1 suhkois did not fly againsts the F-15's, however they still flew against the SU-30.

All those facts are true, that they put limits on the amraam, had no AESA radar and india had 3 times as many aircraft with a simulated awac. :lol3

Even the pakistani defence forum has its fact right :p

Cope inda 2006 saw the US put even more inferior aircraft in the air. F-16's and India flew the SU-27Mk1. Very one sided but intentional.

Then next time the US will bring out the F-22 and get a 100:0 kill ratio and it will make headlines. The F-22 will get its production extended for another 5 years. Very smart move.

[powerslavenegi]

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004101421.asp

http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html

All those facts are true, that they put limits on the amraam, had no AESA radar and india had 3 times as many aircraft with a simulated awac. :lol3
Even the pakistani defence forum has its fact right :p


NO Aesa so you concede Russian Mech steered array is better than the US stuff,Amraam with range reduced to 1/3rd go and tell that to a school boy they should have gone in for a Sidewinder(why this consideration) guess what might have saved fuel and increased range too.Awacs simulated hey did we have one ,then why are we interested in Phalcon,eh......... dude that's just loose talking.Your last comment sums it up man:fly

[McZosch]

You are forgetting that acquisition cost of a platform in a project is approximately 70% of the budget. A whopping 30% is devoted to support, training, weapons etc. Woeking out the budget for a program and the dividing it by the number of aircraft sought does NOT give you the price of the actual aircraft.
:confused:
I have compared total program-costs and devided this by the number of aircraft sought. So it's a fair comparision.

If you want to tell me the Australian estimates are only 70% of the JSF-price-tag, then it will grow even worse. Then you have to add 42% to the figures I stated.

That makes 228 million Aus$ at best or 304 millions at worst. OUCH, I would say.

If my figures are false, then - please - tell me where.

[atulbansal]

I have seen indian papers claim a victory of 9:1, pakistani papers saying loosing ratio of 1:3 and americans explaining how their awesome F-15 kicked Sukhois even when outnumbered
and the two links you provided.... one is blog... so creditable that i can eat a bullet for it and the second quotes from a source it doesnt even mention..... all these are a mix of reports that came in from various sources....... all wrong

I live in IIT kharagpur.... thats 15 km away from the Kalaikunda airbase these execises were held..... go look up the map.... ppl from the base regularly visit our campus and i personally know some of them.... so dont u tell me wat happened

[atulbansal]

and yeah..... the indians side had the same restriction of maintaning a radar lock while fire and a max. range of 32km for a missile use

if indians had been allowed to use their missiles at any range..... even a mig-21bison which can fire R-77 at 50+ km will make a toast out of a F-15 when they are limited to a 32 km range

[rjmaz1]

atulbansal and powerslavenegi nice biased opinions i take it you are both from india?

Im not going to argue about Cope India anymore as we are getting off topic.

:confused:
I have compared total program-costs and devided this by the number of aircraft sought. So it's a fair comparision.
No thats now how it works, not a fair comparison at all. Most of the development cost has already been paid. I just posted the cost of all the fighters a few posts before.

Heres an example of a Super hornet.

Fly away cost of a super hornet is only $53.8 million US according to boeing
The Unit flyaway cost in the Navy FY07 budget costs $78.4 million US
Add the development cost to that and the cost is now $95.3 million per aircraft.

Now if Australia bought a Super hornet we would not pay the same price as the US, which is 78.4 million. We'd have to pay a royalty fee a little bit extra to recoup all the development money. Based on history and an "average order" a customer generally pays a quarter of the way between Unit cost and Program Cost for each aircraft.

However If you ordered 5 aircraft u'd probably have to pay the full $95 million. If you ordered 1000 u'd probably pay only $80 million. Australia would pay low 80 million per aircraft in US dollars.

So based on that i doubt the JSF will cost more than $100 million US based on current orders. If alot of orders do get dropped then maybe it will creep over the $100 million mark.

[Grand Danois]

atulbansal and powerslavenegi nice biased opinions i take it you are both from india?

Im not going to argue about Cope India anymore as we are getting off topic.


No thats now how it works, not a fair comparison at all. Most of the development cost has already been paid. I just posted the cost of all the fighters a few posts before.

Heres an example of a Super hornet.

Fly away cost of a super hornet is only $53.8 million US according to boeing
The Unit flyaway cost in the Navy FY07 budget costs $78.4 million US
Add the development cost to that and the cost is now $95.3 million per aircraft.

Now if Australia bought a Super hornet we would not pay the same price as the US, which is 78.4 million. We'd have to pay a royalty fee a little bit extra to recoup all the development money. Based on history and an "average order" a customer generally pays a quarter of the way between Unit cost and Program Cost for each aircraft.

However If you ordered 5 aircraft u'd probably have to pay the full $95 million. If you ordered 1000 u'd probably pay only $80 million. Australia would pay low 80 million per aircraft in US dollars.

So based on that i doubt the JSF will cost more than $100 million US based on current orders. If alot of orders do get dropped then maybe it will creep over the $100 million mark.

Correct, if you buy the JSF through the FMS, which Australia doesn't. As a partner Australia will get it at clean unit procument cost/fly away cost. And gets a share of development, offsets on investment and ownership of the fighter.

That ain't the case of the Super Hornet. A purely imported plane is much more expensive to a national economy.

[Grand Danois]

Double post.

[hybrid]

NO Aesa so you concede Russian Mech steered array is better than the US stuff,Amraam with range reduced to 1/3rd go and tell that to a school boy they should have gone in for a Sidewinder(why this consideration) guess what might have saved fuel and increased range too.Awacs simulated hey did we have one ,then why are we interested in Phalcon,eh......... dude that's just loose talking.Your last comment sums it up man:fly

Might want to re-read what he posted along with the link, he specifically said the DACT excercise had the US forces in a "toned down" engagement mode that they wouldn't normally ever fly. The lack of AESA is obvious but might want to also note the Indian AF had AWACs and ground control radar which also simulated as AWACS for the entirety of the excercises. The US forces did not. Also of note in that first excercise is that they weren't using AMRAAMs on the F-15s, but rather simulating Sparrows with semi-active homing. At that even they upped the percentage to miss targets as well assuming degradation in range and target acquistion. Quite simply the US side is told to lose. Its the point of the engagement. Heck there's a sticky on what the DACT stuff is all about. Hence don't take DACT excercises as 'gospel truth' as to whats going to happen in any realistic combat scenario.

[hybrid]

atulbansal and powerslavenegi nice biased opinions i take it you are both from india?

Im not going to argue about Cope India anymore as we are getting off topic.


No thats now how it works, not a fair comparison at all. Most of the development cost has already been paid. I just posted the cost of all the fighters a few posts before.

Heres an example of a Super hornet.

Fly away cost of a super hornet is only $53.8 million US according to boeing
The Unit flyaway cost in the Navy FY07 budget costs $78.4 million US
Add the development cost to that and the cost is now $95.3 million per aircraft.

Now if Australia bought a Super hornet we would not pay the same price as the US, which is 78.4 million. We'd have to pay a royalty fee a little bit extra to recoup all the development money. Based on history and an "average order" a customer generally pays a quarter of the way between Unit cost and Program Cost for each aircraft.

However If you ordered 5 aircraft u'd probably have to pay the full $95 million. If you ordered 1000 u'd probably pay only $80 million. Australia would pay low 80 million per aircraft in US dollars.

So based on that i doubt the JSF will cost more than $100 million US based on current orders. If alot of orders do get dropped then maybe it will creep over the $100 million mark.


Don't forget systems package cost, namely what you're paying for the aircraft + maintenance items + electronic/avionics suites if any + weapons packages. That can be well above anything else or lower than might seem obvious (i.e aircraft cost might be high but say the weapons package cost might be lower).

[Aussie Digger]

:confused:
I have compared total program-costs and devided this by the number of aircraft sought. So it's a fair comparision.

If you want to tell me the Australian estimates are only 70% of the JSF-price-tag, then it will grow even worse. Then you have to add 42% to the figures I stated.

That makes 228 million Aus$ at best or 304 millions at worst. OUCH, I would say.

If my figures are false, then - please - tell me where.

Okay, for starters inclusion in the JSF SDD program excuses Countries from paying the cost of the development in the aircraft. No other aircraft program offers such a benefit, or do you think Countries spend billions of dollars developing new weapon systems and then not passing this cost on to customers as much as possible?

As such the enormous cost of the JSF development is not at ALL relevant to Australia because our initial $300m investment in the program means we don't pay those costs...

Secondly the need for weapons packages with JSF are negligible for Australia because we already do or will before the first F-35A is inducted into the RAAF, operate the weapons that are likely to be integrated on it.

Even SDB is likely to to be in the RAAF inventory prior to the introduction of F-35A, from what I hear, RAAF is simply awaiting for USN/USMC to integrate it onto the F/A-18A/B platform for us... ;)

So subtract the development/weapons packages cost and then factor in that Australia is only interested in F-35A at present (the CHEAPEST version of the JSF) and I think even you would have to agree that your estimates are looking a little "bloated"...

IMHO, the F-35A will prove to be little more expensive than any of the current generation fighters (with the exception of F-22) yet provide a significant capability enhancement, which is afterall it's design brief...

[McZosch]

So subtract the development/weapons packages cost and then factor in that Australia is only interested in F-35A at present (the CHEAPEST version of the JSF) and I think even you would have to agree that your estimates are looking a little "bloated"...

IMHO, the F-35A will prove to be little more expensive than any of the current generation fighters (with the exception of F-22) yet provide a significant capability enhancement, which is afterall it's design brief...
Oh, I haven't included R&D. I never mentioned it.

Also, these are not my estimates. It's a simple task of math, calculated on basis of the program-cost figures both of Australia and Austria. My worst-case numbers will become relevant, if the program-cost will develop like in Austria (only 18 instead of 24 aircraft for the same money). That's called statistics.

In fact, we will have to wait. JSF was designed as a "low cost" plane. Today, i would like to say even 40m US$ are not low cost. The whole shit began, when aircraft companies where merged. Converting a oligopolist market into a monopolist market is always bad for prices.

[Aussie Digger]

Oh, I haven't included R&D. I never mentioned it.

Also, these are not my estimates. It's a simple task of math, calculated on basis of the program-cost figures both of Australia and Austria. My worst-case numbers will become relevant, if the program-cost will develop like in Austria (only 18 instead of 24 aircraft for the same money). That's called statistics.

In fact, we will have to wait. JSF was designed as a "low cost" plane. Today, i would like to say even 40m US$ are not low cost. The whole shit began, when aircraft companies where merged. Converting a oligopolist market into a monopolist market is always bad for prices.

Agreed. "low cost" is something of a misnomer when referring to modern combat aircraft... :D

I stand by my claim though that JSF should not greatly exceed (if at all) the cost of existing "4th Generation" designs but offer significantly enhanced capability...

[swerve]

had no AESA radar

So? Do you know how many USAF F-15s have an AESA radar? 18, m'boy - though more will be refitted, none are in service yet, nor will be this year - the first APG-63(v)3 radar for the F-15 was delivered to Boeing last week. At present, most of the USAs AESA-equipped fighters are F-22s. The F-18E with APG-79 AESA is undergoing acceptance tests, not yet declared operational.

AFAIK, no US AESA-equipped fighter has participated in an exercise abroad. Or, for that matter, ever been deployed outside the USA.

[swerve]

Our classic hornets would easily outkill any operational suhkoi. Sure the F-15's lost against india's SU-30's but that was intentional.
[LIST]
None of the F-15's had AESA radar


Nor do any operational F-18s, or any F-15 deployed outside the USA (& exactly one squadron of 18 inside the USA), or any other operational fighters except the F-22, the Japanese F-2, & the handful of F-16E so far operational in the UAE. Pretty hard to find an AESA-equipped fighter to exercise against, so it would be worthy of note if they did have AESA, not that they didn't.

[aaaditya]

hey guys here is an interesting article on the history and the future of the jas39 gripen,the article is from defence news.

here check out this link:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/the-jas39-gripen-swedens-4th-generation-wild-card/index.php#more