Supercruise performance : Not yet invented when the EJ-200 was designed.

😀

Just to add a bit more text (from nº10):

Defence equipment

16. Unmanned air systems are crucial to success in the battlefield, as the Libya and Afghanistan campaigns have shown. We have agreed today to take forward our planned cooperation on UAS within a long term strategic partnership framework aimed at building a sovereign capability shared by our two countries. This framework will encompass the different levels from tactical to MALE in the mid term and UCAS in the long term:

Medium Altitude Longue Endurance (MALE) Drone: The Joint Program Office was launched in 2011. We will shortly place with BAES and Dassault a jointly funded contract to study the technical risks associated with the MALE UAV. We look forward to taking further decisions jointly in the light of the outcomes of this risk reduction phase to ensure that our respective sovereign requirements will be met in a cost effective manner.

– Watchkeeper drone: France confirms its interest for the Watchkeeper system recognising the opportunities this would create for cooperation on technical, support, operational and development of doctrine and concepts. An evaluation of the system by France will begin in 2012, in the framework of its national procurement process, and conclude in 2013.

– We affirm our common will to undertake in 2013 a joint Future Combat Air System Demonstration Programme that will set up a co-operation of strategic importance for the future of the European Combat Air Sector. This work will provide a framework to mature the relevant technologies and operational concepts for a UCAS operating in a high threat environment. We will begin as soon as 2012 the specification of this demonstrator with a jointly funded contract under the industrial leadership of our national fighter aircraft industries (Dassault-Aviation in France and BAE Systems in the UK).

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/uk-france-declaration-security/

F-16/M2K/MIG-23 are not so great.

In fact, I’m pretty sure the UK is one of very few (quite possibly the only) countries which includes depreciation, largely because the very relevance of that concept to something like a combat aircraft is rather tenuous.

Yes, AFAIK the UK GAO his the only one who uses depreciation to compute costs in defence maters (quite nuts really, “let me check, this Challenger Mk2 was built in 1999, so its depreciation was 85% so let add this to the maintenace budget of the Army”)

EDIT: You owe Sintra a beer for doing your homework, although it is quite plain to see why you were so reluctant to deliver the goods yourself 😀

I do like a good beer

Cheers 🙂

Considering he insinuated that I was talking out of my a**hole i’m pretty sure he’s not too mature. But lets go look at that Lord hansard doc again and re-read it. Here it is for all to see
“The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position”

Note “he MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour” – so from that we know IT IS THE CPFH being talked about. I really don’t need to add anymore, it’s so self explanatory a five year old could understand it.

Read carefully the parts in bold:

“The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position”

The USAF uses three variables (or four, depending on the report) to compute CPFH, those variables are Consumable Supplies, Aviation Fuel, and Depot Level Repairables (the fourth being manpower) (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA436138 page3), now compare with that text above…

The typical RAF numbers for flying hour cost are multiples of the ones used in the USAF, the methodology is diferent. Just look at the Hansard numbers for the Harrier, following your logic the RAF Harriers would have an identical/slightly higher CPFH to the USAF Raptors…

The reason why the Typhoon numbers are so high in comparison with the ones of the Tornado GR4/FMK3 and Harrier have already been (very well) explained by Sens in this same thread.

And just to finish this entire story, i am going to quote Stephen Trimble, CPFH “numbers can fluctuate wildly as production deliveries are completed and supply chains mature.”

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/what-does-it-cost-operate-f-22.html

Wrong on both counts – the US never offered the F-16. India wanted the F-20 but was denied it, also wanted the Swedish Viggen, but that had US engines and that was also denied.
Small wonder that Indian politicians and military planners are wary of putting anything critical in the US basket!

On the 1982 GD F-16 offer ro India my source his 1988 January Air International article covering the Indian Air Force.

On the “also wanted the Swedish Viggen”, the Viggen was evaluated with the Mirage F1 and the Bac Jaguar for the DPSA program, it lost to the Jaguar.

On the “India wanted the F-20”, Northrop offered the F-5E and the F-20 multiple times for the best part of two decades, the first offer of the Tigershark was in 1984, the last was in 1991 including the two prototypes,tools, drawings and know how. The Indian Air Force didnt seem particulary interested.

Cheers

We don’t know at this stage if this is true or just speculation but the actual cost of ToT of RBE2 AESA and eventually SPECTRE along with Rafale’s complete EW kit to INDIA will be enourmous.

I would go for speculation.
I think its just the typical article on the generalistic press, probably full of mistakes and wrong assumptions. For starterrs, where did the “Le CE” journo got those “80 to 87 million Euro” unit price?