SintraThe second factor is that the F-35A will quite possibly be the UK’s Typhoon replacement down the road. The Typhoon is way too expensive to keep around as a second line fighter. Ten years from now when we are talking about F-35s with laser weapons, variable cycle engines, etc, I expect to see the Typhoons retired.
In a decade? Not a chance.
SintraAs we speak F-35B’s are partaking in Red Flag and are likely having a similar result as the F-35A’s did when they shot down 8 F-15E’s AESA fighters in a recent exercise.
Can you provide any source for that except “Pew, Pew, Pew”?
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/
I love how the F-35-contra’s tried their hardest to spin those results. In two years these anti-F-35 haters will likely no longer post on these forums.
If you want to make claims, better check the facts, the exact USAF claim is “0 losses in dog fights against F-15 Red Air” and “Pew, Pew, Pew”, how thats turn out in “the F-35A’s did when they shot down 8 F-15E’s AESA fighters in a recent exercise”, only god knows.
SintraAnd remember, all this technology is available now. The risk is very low. The F-16/AGILE is easily recognizable from the F-16 Block 50’s that Pakistan operates. And it gathers the technologies not found in Rafale that get India more quickly to an AMCA product.
What technologies are there in the Mitsubishi F-2 that are “not found in Rafale”?!
SintraThere is zero chance of a new Western fighter arriving until at least the late 2020s, and even that would require the US to embrace something unlikely like putting an F-22 variant back into production. Any such aircraft would be far more expensive than Canada would be willing to fund anyway.
The Koreans or the Japanese might have something circa 2030, that or (for the same time frame) Russia goes into full “Ukraine is ours” mode (highly unrealistic, thank the gods) and that might propel Germany, France and the UK to actually do “something”, but yep, you are almost certainly correct.
SintraThat’s certainly possible.. it’s just these things don’t seem to stand out for an average buyer like myself.. I am sure they are excellent and well engineered, they just don’t add to the image of Britain as a high-tech nation.. you simply won’t notice them.. Britain needs to step out of the shadow of a subcontractor and start to create things that are wanted and genuinely British..
Agree to a certain point, but things like Jag´s, Aston´s, RR´s, Triumph´s, etc, have quite an appeal, at least to me. 🙂
A beautiful car, indeed.. and it sounds like a pi$$ed Spitfire.. But I am already driving its slightly-less powered closest competitor (you surely get an idea), therefore a switch would not make much sense..
Oh my, my, German and starts with a “P” and ends with an “E”… Nice one!
Lets be honest the best British export, EVER, is “Top Gear”…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246832[/ATTACH]
Oh, it was… 🙁
There will alway´s be Monty Python
ps- Feeling a bit like an idiot, i was lambasting a few chaps for not doing “Aviation HERE” and then Sintra enters into “Top Gear” mode… Sorry folks
SintraSimple.. UK don’t make anything that is worth having… I personally haven’t seen or bought anything labeled Made in England in years… It’s your own fault, EU has absolutely nothing to do with this..
Look to your smartphone, there is a very fine chance that the CPU and GPU are a product of ARM, your car might have quite a bit of British content and the last plane in wich you flew dito.
And if you dont want a Jaguar Type F, well i do!
SintraI believe people don’t understand that the Flanker is a completely different machine than the F-15/14 planes.
More or less like an Airbus 320 is a “completely different machine than” a Boeing 737 and vice versa.
SintraWhy were the swiss numbers so high? Did they have a new pit, line, data link etc?
First the Swiss numbers are not particulary high, quite the oposite, second, its entirely dependent on what they´ve asked, if they´ve asked suport for a number of years, the costs can go through the roof with ease.
An exercise, pick any external sale of a US military jet, a great big chunk of them are described in the FMS site (http://www.dsca.mil/programs/foreign-military-sales-fms), in the last decade, be Vipers, Super Hornet´s, Eagles, JSF´s and compare with the Brasilian and Swiss offers, sudenly you realise that the SAAB numbers are on the “cheap” end of the business.
Here, a few examples:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/brazil-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-fa-18ef-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/saudi-arabia-f-15sa-aircraft
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/oman-f-16-aircraft
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/iraq-f-16-aircraft-0
In the last decade, the single fighter jet sale conducted through the FMS mechanism that had a lower unit cost (that i am aware) than those two Gripen sales was the recent offer to Pakistan of a handfull of Vipers (http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/government-pakistan-f-16-block-52-aircraft) and this because they asked for the airframes and nothing else.
The best comparison (and its flawed) that i can offer between a F-35A acquisition and the Brasilian deal its Japan, 42 airframes, a FACO and some bits and bobs along the way:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/japan-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-aircraft
SintraBy all means explain the difference. I went with the most basic method, cost divided by units. I then specified the projected 85 million flyaway for F-35 vs the 80 million the swedes are supposed to be paying for Gripen E. And that is being generous, one report said the Swiss were going to pay 107 million flyaway with RandD waived years ago (the story is no longer on website)
The point is, gripen NG is no cheap. Neither is F-35, super hornet, or tiffie. Or is brazil just overpaying and the swiss were being ripped off?
Where to start?
The “85 million uS$” its the estimate (and far from certain to be met) by the JPO for the 2019 F-35A “Recurring Fly Away Unit Cost”, this measure doesnt even guarantee to cover the cost of one single functioning airframe (just an example, in FY 2014, the cost to redesign and build a defective titaniun spar was put into the non-recurring budget, in the following years, it was in to the “recurring” budget). The “Recurring Fly Away Unit Cost” plus the “Non Recurring Costs” (think of non recurring equipment, non recurring pieces and bits, concurrency, etc) and “Ancillary Equip” will give you the “Fly Away Unit Cost”, this one is the actual number that covers all costs associated with the production of one single airframe. The diference from the “Recurring” to the “other” in 2019, is from “85.892 million US$” to “102.406 million US$”, the numbers are taken directly from the 2017 USAF Budget (pages 71 to 75) right here: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-160208-044.pdf
A typical fighter jet sale from LM or Boeing, covering the airframes, two to three years of suport, plus training, manuals and some bits and bob´s, enough to actually start using the jets and the cost will have a 50% hike (if you have any doubts, compare the numbers in the Pentagon budget with the documents describing the external sales in the Foreign Military Sales site), this without any kind of TOT or anything complicated like weapons, from them on its alway´s going up. With ease you can triple the costs over the “Fly Away Unit Cost”, a directly related example, in the case of the FAB competition that SAAB won, Boeing asked Brasil for 36 Super Hornets built in the States, plus a handfull of weapons seven billion US$ (http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/brazil-fa-18ef-super-hornet-aircraft)… Sudenly those 4.68 billion US$ seem very cheap dont they?
So, no, the idea that the Danes are actually going to pay only 3 billion US$ to acquire 27 F-35A´s is… “interesting” and the idea that the Brasilian deal is comparable with the Dane future contract is irrealistic to say the least.
SintraIndeed, of course it will still found to be the cheapest option compared to Super Bugg and Tiffie . Gripen NG wasn’t there, and even then its not looking particularly cheap to acquire. Typical sour Grapes, from Saab who had their hearts set on Denmark.
http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Photos/download.jpg
NG hasn’t netted an export sale in Europe yet… When do we think that will happen BTW? F-35 just got another…
“27 F-35As to succeed the F-16. The price tag is 3 billion USD.” (111 million unit)
vs
“Brazil has finalised a $4.68 billion deal for 36 Saab Gripen” (130 million unit) For only 1.68 billion more they could have received 9 more aircraft!! LOL silly Danes. win will they learn? What was the Swiss deal for? 22 for 3.5 billion USD? (159 million unit)
so:
What do you do when the the uber expensive F-35A is only 5 million more flyaway than the 80 million dollar “affordable light fighter”?? The Answer is don’t think, keep calm and just buy Saab. Gripen Ng is going to be great, but I think we can put it behind us that it will be inexpensive. its going to cost as much as an F-35. Which is amazing irony. before I here all about “but operational cost!!” Sure it will be less to fuel, but when your light fighter parts cost as much as an F-35? Depending on how you look NG is insanely expensive cost vs capability, why not just buy a late block F-16 ?but lets not think about that. Stealth bad, sensor fusion overrated, light fighter=cheap fighter, evolution= revolution.
Are you trully comparing a reported Danish acquisition number cost based on a “interesting report” (and to put it mildly, questionable) without a signed contract with the Brasilian program that includes the development of a twin seater, an in house building line, a new data link and a new cockpit?
SintraZ-10 does not look like any Kamov design
this is a Kamov
Here you go:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-chinese-wz-10-attack-helicopter-based-on-kamov-383147/
http://aviationweek.com/defense/russian-roots-revealed-chinas-z-10
SintraI think this discussion has missed a point of the post that it was us the west missing out by not having a flanker sized aircraft.
Now the west (maybe not the best term) is bigger than America. Basically in this discussion it should include European countries including turkey, NATO countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. People have said the f-15e fits the flanker profile. A few problems with this are it is and always has been really expensive to purchase and operate. This has limited most western airforces to get f-16, f-18. While some countries have developed aircraft like typhoon, rafale, mirage 2000, F-1, tornado and some countries have bought these aircraft most countries do not have large fighters. The price difference between west aircraft and flanker is a topic for discussion in its self. It’s hard to actually get an acurate price for all aircraft and to get operating costs.
All the flanker variants I think points to a good airframe. It is agile carries a good amount of fuel and weapons and I believe a good platform. Now a western equivalent would have to be roughly the same capabilities and the same price. The flanker variants offer a good range of capabilities, rough field performance, good power, agile, loiter time and range. Now a western development would obviously have western engines and systems but these would have to be able to provide the same amount of power and systems deliver the same capabilities. I’m not saying they are top of the range but the goal would be to have 50 aircraft rather than 10 aircraft with half grounded.This is all obviously guess work and a lot of what ifs. Now say Germany, UK and France had 50-100 flanker (ish) aircraft in the 80’s instead of what they got (Germany non bvr phantoms) (UK Tornado F2 then from 88 onwards F3) I think would have made a big difference in what they were able to demonstrate over Europe.
Why would Western European Countries sadle themselves with a freaking massive 17+ ton airframe in the eighties when their major concern was the 4000 tatical fighter bombers of the Soviet Frontal Aviation groups that were right at their border?!
Western European Countries are tiny in terms of area by comparison with the like of the URSS and China. With the sole exception of the UK Giuk mission (arguably) there was no mission for such a big beast in the West European Orbat´s in the eighties, they didnt need the range (and the associated cost) of something so big, thats why everyone and their dog bought the Viper or Hornet and not the Eagle, or the Tomcat (or the Mirage 4000).
SintraI’ll add aerospace context. Between Airbus (UK bases), MBDA, Eurofighter, Eurojet, ESA and several other joint ventures/companies/projects, there is far too much integration for anything other than free trade, that simple. There are also other companies like Selex and Thales with UK bases, who would want UK intellectual property to be available for European defence contracts. Ditto AugustaWestland. It’s far too joined up for tariffs to be considered.
I am not wrong at all. Unscrewing all the moving parts is a nightmare that even no bureaucrat wants. They will agree a new net subscription fee and immigration arrangement and that will be that.
You´re probably right and if the Norwegian and Swiss examples are anything to go by, UK will end up paying more or less the same that it already payed.
Cheers
SintraDanish Defmin: 27 F-35 not enough to meet all requirements that are currently met by today’s F-16:
So 27 F-35A´s cant do the same requirements that two sqn´s of Vipers (15 aircrafts each) plus the handfull of airframes that were not canibalized?!
How many Danish Viper´s are still on the Orbat, around 40?
Oh my, my… Let me guess, the RDAF just found out that it needs more airframes…
This right after the Folketing confirmation of the F-35A procurement.
The reason is primarily
that the airframe of the Joint Strike Fighter is designed
to be capable of flying 8,000 hours, whereas the Eurofighter
and the Super Hornet are both designed to fly
6,000 hours. In order to perform the required portfolio
of tasks over a period of 30 years, fewer Joint Strike
Fighter airframes are therefore required compared to
the Eurofighter or the Super Hornet. The calculations in
the economic model have identified a need for 28 Joint
Strike Fighter airframes, 34 Eurofighter airframes and 38
Super Hornet airframes, respectively, in order to perform
the same portfolio of tasks. Another reason is that
the Super Hornet is a two-seat aircraft, which implies a
greater need for flight instruction hours and training of
crews than the Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter.
Clap, clap, clap…
Why do i have the feeling that 38 Super Hornets would have no problem in meeting those requirements?
Oh, never mind, i´ll get me hat.
Sintrasigma4 you are wrong.
fundamentally you should not wind up other contributors and you are clearly motivated to spout your politics over all of us, but please stop it unless you can talk about aviation in this context.
X2, if someone wants to discuss the impact of Brexit on GKN, BAE and RR, go ahead, but immigration and the NHS belong in the “General” part of Key Publishing, not here.
Cheers
Sign In
