Could you blame them ?

Even if we use 150 Million $ lyaway cost (the current MY contract includes spares and other support equipment so not fully indictive of fly away cost) we get the cost at roughly 60% greater then those costs of the EF and rafale . However we must consider the added STEALTH coupled with LOW no of procurment (185 raptors compared to how many EF’s?) , No procured has an effect on Fly away aswell because streamlining of production cannot be done to an extent desired (because it costs $$) and also the vendors are looking to recover cost over a small order . Was the 2004 batch purchased the last for the EF ?

bring_it_on

The four Eurofighter European partners dont buy Tiffies on an annual bases, there are no “2004, 2005, 2006 batches”. In 2004 the four partners signed a fixed price contract for the delivery of the entire tranche 2 for 13 Billion Euros. The annual batches it´s a Pentagon “thing”. 😉
The official “Fly Away Cost” for the entire Fleet of Raptor´s his 154.267 million US$, and that´s a bit more than just 60%, even in today´s Dollar/Euro exchange. If we make a full comparison for all the years and the respective exchange rate between Dollar/Euro the actual relation would be something like one Raptor for every two Tiffies.
And yes, you are correct if the original 700 plus Raptors had been ordered the Fly Away Cost would go down.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf

Cheers 🙂

Originally Posted by aurcov
Another thing: the “official” source of 4.43 billion doesn’t say a word of what is in for this sum. So the price could be “flyaway” only.

No, but if you were a buyer of Air Forces Monthly and a reader of flight global you would find a LOT of what the deal covers in detail, and its a lot more than just the planes. Those articles are written by well known Aviation Journos (Graham Warwick, Jon Lake, etc, etc) and are citing Identified (with the name on it) Industry and Mod officials.
There´s an excellent three pages article in the “News Section” of AFM a few months ago that covers the entire “Project Rohan/Salam” (eg Typhoon sale to Saudi Arabia).
And for the last time, if you want the unit “Fly Away Cost” (cost of construction of airframe, avionics and engines, without development, training, logistics, etc) for the Typhoon that are being delivered now, the Tranche 2 contract was signed in 14 December of 2004, and it covers the construction and delivery of 236 fighters to the four consortium partners for 13 Billion Euros. That´s 57 Million Euros for Typhoon, EXACTLY what was promised to the Dutch MOD in 1999.
http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article183.asp?srcx=dev1

It doesn’t really matter what Ex rate you use, any published costs for any defence product of such magnitude have a massive amount of caveats behind them. I sell the darn things.
There is not really a “Fly-away” cost for any military A/c, it depends on the whole deal. Most deals have some sort of offset, a side deal of weapons (Not included in the same contract but a memo of understanding has been signed), special finance deals, who’s paying the initial spares provision etc. etc. etc..

You are absolutelly correct.

In the case of Libya, we have shut him out since Lockerbie, he’s had to buy Russian stuff. Since 2005 he is our new best friend he wants all the latest kit and has 25 years of oil savings to buy it with. The Col. will soon retire but Number 1 Son will be looking after most of the big future deals.
In dealing with the Son, it is clear that money is not the object, product is. The Libyans do a massive amount of research on each product, funding all the competitors with “Bid construction and product development” money. However, getting them to lay an egg and sign up is a bit like dealing with India!!!
BAe were into Libya within a couple of years of Lockerbie. It takes 15 to 20 years to develop a new military customer, so they weren’t going to miss that boat.

So BAE his serious in the Typhoon bid to Libya?
Bit surprised on that one, i alway´s imagined that BAE´s considered “Libyan eggs” as a “very looooong shot”!

(sorry about the dreadful English, it´s not exactly my “first language”)

Cheers 🙂

Are they comparing flyaway costs to lifetime costs or just pulling numbers out of the air?

Much worse than that…
They are comparing Foreign sales contracts with some HUGE cost multipliers like a factory (and a lot of other things) in the Saudi case, Financial loans from Banks equivalent to 1/4 of the total contract in the Austrian buy and decades of logistical suport and weaponry in the Libyan case, with the LM 2005 projected “Fly Away Cost” for the entire fleet of F-35A´s of 47 million´s US$… Yes, the Dutch Minister and several Defence official´s have been using Power point presentation´s made by Lockheed Martin (!) with this cost, as late as LAST MONTH!
This is political spin at it´s worst.

Well, thats the price most often quoted for the Raptor and is very close to FY 08/09. I can only assume the price goes up as the Raptor nears the end of production. Of course more orders for the USAF or a possible export contract could change that? Regardless, the Raptor will never be close to the price of its cheaper cousin the F-35.:D

Actually, Stephen Trimble from “Flight International” in his Blog “The Dew Line” made a direct quote from the USAF for exactly that situation, the cost of another batch of 20 Raptor´s being bought after the delivery of the entire 183 F-22 fleet.

F-22 = $220 million
You knew this would happen eventually: The F-22’s program acquisition cost and its numerical designation are roughly in synch.

The US Air Force wants to extend the F-22 production line one year past its scheduled closure date at the end of fiscal year 2010.

I asked the USAF to tell me how much it would cost. One week later, the response is: $526 million in fiscal year 2009 and $3.892 billion in fiscal year 2010.

That adds up to $4.418 billion for 20 aircraft, or exactly $220.9 million per copy, including spares, overhead, etc.

I also think it’s interesting that the F-22 and the C-17 each cost about $220 million.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/f22/

Cheers:)

We’re talking different price bases here. The “to completion” cost, after low-rate initial production, of $80 mn flyaway, is in “then-year” dollars, & includes a forecast future inflation rate. Therefore, if you buy more early on & few late on, that price is lower than if you buy few early on & more late on. I think that’s a silly notion, & it would be better to use constant-price numbers.

BTW, this is the F-35A. The F-35B & C will be more expensive.

Swerve

What you are saying his correct, but THAT number (to completion” cost, after low-rate initial production, of $80 mn flyaway) his meaningless.
The F-35A production was “caped” by the Congress and the USAF for 48 units a year. That means that the last of those 1763 “lightnings” will be delivered to the USAF in… 2043… Trying to calculate an APUC or an PUAC in that time frame his… well, impossible?!
The production can be doubled or tripled, of course, but what are the chances of the Pentagon budget getting a raise in the next few years? And what his the biggest Pentagon Program, and what are the chances of that program getting partly “axed”?

Cheers 🙂

I would love to see the original document that Reuters used to write the story.
So, the USAF just released a document with completely diferent numbers from it´s official budget from February 2008…
Right, and my name his Napoleon…

2009 Budget

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf

2008 Budget

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf

2006 Budget

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070214-050.pdf

Strange, i would be expecting such a “document” would appear in some specialized press, like “AW”, or “Flight Global”, but “Reuters”?!!!!