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 said:You mean that out of 200 Gripens built, the Swedish Air Force will only keep a hundred ? that's a shame !
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
Eurofighter Rafale and Gripen v. JSF
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
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.RA1911 said:
Let's see who wins
cheers
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.
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.
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.RA1911 said:
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.
Scorpion82
New Member
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.
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.
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!!Scorpion82 said:
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.
Last edited:
This may be nit picking, but anyway...Scorpion82 said:
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
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
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.Magoo said:
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.Aeroeagle said:
For F-22, the current procurement cost to the USAF is down around $120 mn each (was $130 mn 6 months ago). For JSF, we don't yet know what that price will be: we only have forecasts, & it's at too early a stage for them to be reliable. Yet.
Yes but the Development cost SHOULD be included in the airframe cost.Aeroeagle said:
You can spend 500 billion dollars to develop a fighter for 100million each and buy 1000 of them. 600
You spend 200 billion dollars to develop a fighter that costs 200 million each and buy 1000 of them. 400
Is the First Aircraft cheaper? HELL NO!! the purchase price is HALF the price but the for 1000 aircraft costs a total of 600 billion. The second aircraft costs only 400 billion for the 1000 aircraft.
Thats why only stupid people dont include the development cost. So infact the F-22 is cheaper
If the JSF was not developed and half of the development money went back to the Air force the USAF could have purchased over 2000 F-22's for the same cost of 200 F-22's and 1,700 JSF's.
If the JSF wasn't developed and a third of the money from development plus aircraft purchase, the Navy could be running twice as many aircraft carriers, or just upgrade the superhornets to an even higher standard and save a bucket load of money.
Last edited:
That's true when you're making the decision whether to proceed with development, but not once the development money has been spent.rjmaz1 said:
This is one of the many things where the answer is completely context-dependent. Ask me how much a fighter (or bomber, or airliner) costs, & I'll ask straight back "Which cost are you interested in?". Manufacturing cost, project cost (includes development cost & tooling, & the latter depends on how fast you want to build them), procurement cost for an export customer (& even that depends: unit cost drops as numbers go up), lifetime cost (depends on operating cost: makes Gripen look very cheap), etc., etc.
Some further numbers....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-2702,00.html
16 billion Aus$ 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$.
R&D not included!
For a single-engined aircraft, which is most likely not suited for a large territory like Australia!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-2702,00.html
16 billion Aus$ 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!
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.
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.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
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.McZosch said: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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited: