Do you believe that would change if they would waste more money on that failed project?
That particular “failed project” has more orders on its backlog than the remaining European aerospace put together (throw in the Russians has well), not to mention that it also has more external orders that the two other european competitors put together.
If thats a failed project…
And yes, it will probably get a few more external orders, specially if the AESA radar proves to be decent.
As for the Eurofighter, I don’t know the taxes rules on UK, germany & co on that matter. If somebody know that, I would be interested.
VAT in GB is 20%, in Germany is 19%, and, yes, the numbers provided by the NAO for the RAF Phoon program do include VAT in the exact same way that the French MOD accounts its programs.
Cheers
I do believe that Eurofighter has already the best-integrated self defense subsystem of all combat aircraft available or in development.
Faith is all very well and nice but reality might be a bit diferent…
He might want to check something called the EA-18G Growler.
Cheers 🙂
The engine will be well under the $17 million it was estimated to cost last year. The exact engine price has not been specified and did not make it into the FY2012 budget docs.
It was reported to be 16% lower than LRIP3 engine prices, which would make the LRIP4 engines for the F-35A cost about $13 million each. This puts the total Rec Flyaway LRIP4 F-35A at about $124 million.
This, btw, is cheaper than what that Canadian report claimed would be the 2014-2020 F-35A flyaway price ($128.8 million).
We can put this to rest, the exact cost of the F-135 for LRIP IV was made public today, 14,99 million US$. The objective cost for the F-35A in LRIP IV is precisely 126,6 million US$, slightly less than the number in the Canadian report (I wonder if they are not counting has acquisition costs the 551 million US$ that Canada has already spent in R&D).
Cheers
Saudis with the Typhoons and F 15s can give Air Superiority while the Block 60s of the UAE can kick some ass A2G. If Egypt was more Stable she could have sent ground troops as well.
Saudis?!
Are we speaking of the Saudi Arabia?
An absolute monarchy that legislates by Royal decree based on a very strict version of the Sharia?!
And they are going to send sqn´s of Eagles and AWACS to maintain a no fly zone over an Arab Country that his currently in a civil war? Politicaly backing a group that wants to introduce some version of democracy (whatever that would be) over a dictatorship?
Next, Tom Burbage sends an email to Iran inviting them to be partners in JSF team… :confused:
Cheers
Meteor was quite impressive when it was designed… 10 years ago. I think I see a pattern here.
Yep, you are seriously needing glasses…
There are no “Government Funded Items” in the LRIP contracts. It includes everything from the airframe, engine, avionics, ect. IIRC, it came in at about $126 million. The LRIP4 contract came in two parts, LM (airframe & avionics) & P&W (engine).
No. The Government funded items, are Government funded items in every tranche, contract, whatever you want to call it.
The LRIP IV contract has been signed with LM, then the US Governement had to sign several other contracts with severall vendors for government funded items, the most important of it was with Pratt and Whitney, the F-35A “objective price” (it can go up 20%, up to 20% its the tax payer who, well… pays, everything over 20% its LM who foots the bill) is $111.6 million then you have to join the costs of things like the engine, i am pointing to a unit cost of roughly $128/129 million (thats the objective), and i am expecting a bit higher real cost.
“The Pentagon’s most recent per-unit target price for the conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is $111.6 million, according to program officials.
The target price for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) version, which has encountered the most challenging technical and testing problems, is $109.4 million, the F-35 Joint Program Office says. And the target cost for the most expensive variant — the carrier version (CV) — is $142.9 million, officials say.
The price data traditionally has not been publicly released, but the program office released these figures to Aviation Week in response to questions.
Neither price includes the cost of the Pratt & Whitney F135 engines; that contract is under negotiation. Based on the low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) III pricing, the average cost of a CTOL engine is about $19 million and the average Stovl engine and lift-fan system cost is about $38 million. Pratt has offered a price reduction of at least 10% for LRIP IV.
Negotiations for the LRIP IV contract began in October 2009 and continued for more than a year; the contract deal was announced Nov. 19 without data on the per-unit target pricing. During that time, the Pentagon learned of more delays in delivering test aircraft as well as a lag in the flight testing program itself. Pentagon procurement czar Ashton Carter and acting Air Force procurement chief David Van Buren shifted LRIP IV away from being a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract.
LRIP IV is the first fixed-price, incentive-fee contract on the JSF production program. Pentagon officials were planning to shift to a fixed-price arrangement in LRIP V, but accelerated that plan to reduce financial exposure to the government of potential cost overruns. LRIP IV also includes the first purchase of CV versions.
The target price is driven largely by quantities. The prices include 11 CTOLs, one of which is a priced option. The base buy includes 10 CTOL aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. The Marine Corps is buying 16 Stovl aircraft, with another going to the United Kingdom. London, however, recently announced it would not purchase a Stovl fleet and this aircraft will be used for testing. This leaves the U.S. Marines and Italy as the only potential Stovl customers.”
That Canadian report got the cost of the F-35A so wrong that they think it will cost more than what we just signed (LRIP4) for, and their deliveries don’t start till 2016.
The report is very clear, they based their report on 4th gen costs & weight growth, not what the F-35 has been actually costing.
The report is indeed a shody work…
But if i am not mistaken (i am taking the numbers from memory, feel free to correct me) if you include the costs of the government funded items on LRIP IV, the unit cost for the “Dave A” is (very, very slightly) higher than the one presented on that
Canadian report.
Cheers
Did you read the NAO report?
Go to the apropriate threads in wich that report was discussed. But cutting short a very long story, yes i´ve read the entire NAO report (unlike almost every one in this forúm) several times.
Do you realize that this figure includes “operating and support cost” ((14 billion $) and futures “overhaul and upgrade cost” (3.9 billion $)? This means all the $$ the Candians will spend in >30 years they will operate the F 35!!!
NO matter what cost you pick (unit flyaway/weapon system cost/lifetime cost/whatever), the F 35 is less expensive than EF…
Highly doubtfull
Its because the Draken is capable of high AoA maneuver and the Viggen is not. The Viggen is limited to I think around 15 degrees AoA.
AFAIK the Viggen could go to 30º AOA after that it stalled.
Why would anyone want it now ?
Because its a dam good platform?
What other reason could there be for dragging out a competition for years and years and years and years?
Heavy bribery normaly corresponds to competitions decided in a very short time, the F-104G is a good example.
Both the MMRCA and the FX2 smells a lot more to inconsequent political medling and burocracy than anything else.
All this talk of bribes…you would think the topic was MMRCA or FX-2. :rolleyes:
Why?