toanmaybe just maybe they are planning on turning the typhoon into the ATD-X, if they sign up for AESA, TVC, conformal fuel tanks, meteor and A2G . add to that exterior makeover to make it full stealth maybe find a way to make some internal bays, it would be a hell of a aircraft and a hell of a lot cheaper to do than developing a brand new aircraft!!.
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/news/2010/08/25a_01.pdf
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/news/2010/08/25a_02.pdf
According to the JASDF current plan, the next generation Japanese domestic fighter shall be:
1. A 5.5th Gen or 6th Gen fighter for the era of 2030s to 2050s.
2. A fighter with the technological requirement and capability that are no less than the Boeing’s F/A-XX plan.
3. A fighter with enough capability to conquer the 5th Gen threat like PAK-FA and J-20.
If European countries wish any chance to join such kind of plan, they should formally start the R&D projects for the successor of Eurocanards at first.
toanLOL.. What would have happened to RAFALE’s if Kaddafi had installed the S-300 around these targets?
1. Time for using more SCALP-EG.
2. Time for proving whether the combination of Rafale’s reduced RCS design + Spectra EWS is as good as the French declaration or not.
toanAll right, for the wish of Mr.Sign, let me make another “fair comparison” for Mr.Sign:
According to the Mr.Sign’s data (Personally, I think this data is very pro-Typhoon and extremely unfair to Rafale ~ Do someone here really believe that the fuel consumption of Rafale is > 16% higher than Eurofighter ??):
EF-2000: 4,996 kg fuel for 2600km ferry range –> 3,843 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.
Gripen NG: 3,500 kg fuel for 2500km ferry range –> 2,800 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.
F-18: 6,780 kg fuel for 2,346km ferry range –> 5,780 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.
Rafale: 4,700 kg fuel 2,100km ferry range –> 4,476 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.
Mig-35: 4,800 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.
F-16: 3,160 kg fuel for 1,750km ferry range –> 3,611 kg fuel for 2,000 km ferry range.
And according to the data mentioned above:
Empty Weight:
F/A-18E: 14,552 kg
MIG-35: 12,000 kg
EF-2000: 11,150 kg
Rafale C: 10,000 kg
F-16 IN: 9,979 kg
Gripen NG: 7,100 kg
Internal Fuel:
F/A-18E: 6,780 kg
EF-2000: 4,996 kg
MIG-35: 4,800 kg
Rafale C: 4,700 kg
Gripen NG: 3,500 kg
F-16 IN: 3,160 kg
A2A Combat Taking-off Weight (fuel for 2,000 km ferry range according to Mr.Sign’s data+ 6 MRAAM and 2 SRAAM):
F/A-18E: 21,700 kg
MIG-35: 18,300 kg
EF-2000: 16,350 kg
Rafale C: 15,675 kg
F-16 IN: 14,950 kg
Gripen NG: 11,200 kg
Sea-level Static Thrust, AB and Max Mil:
F/A-18E: 9,980 kg*2 / 6,395 kg*2 (F414-GE-400*2)
EF-2000: 9,185 kg*2 / 6,125 kg*2 (EJ-200*2)
MIG-35: 9,000 kg*2 / 5,400 kg*2 (RD-33MK*2)
Rafale C: 7,650 kg*2 / 5,100 kg*2 (M88-2*2)
F-16 IN: 14,740 kg*1 / 8,620 kg*1 (F110-GE-132*1)
Gripen NG: 9,980 kg*1 / 6,395 kg*1 (F414G*1)
Sea-level A2A Combat Taking-off T/W ratio, AB and Max Mil:
EF-2000: 1.124 / 0.749
F-16 IN: 0.986 / 0.577
MIG-35: 0.984 / 0.590
Rafale C: 0.976 / 0.651
F/A-18E: 0.920 / 0.589
Gripen NG: 0.891 / 0.570
toanEF goes 2600km with specifide fuel amount.
Gripen NG goes 2500km
F-18 goes 2346km?
Rafale 2100km
Mig-35 2000km
F-16 1750km?Fair comparison??
Well, if that can make you feel better, just use 2,940 kg internal fuel for Gripen NG (2,940 / 3,500 = 2,100 / 2,500 = 0.84) and see what will happen for its own T/W ratio.
All I want to prove is that there is simply no evidence that Rafale is the underpowered one among the six competitors. And even the data that I use is not very fair to Rafale (but very pro-Viper), its T/W ratio performance is still not bad.
toanI see no obvious evidence that Rafale is significant underpowered in the six competitors of MMRCA project today………
Empty Weight:
F/A-18E: 14,552 kg
MIG-35: 12,000 kg
EF-2000: 11,150 kg
Rafale C: 10,000 kg
F-16 IN: 9,979 kg
Gripen NG: 7,100 kg
Internal Fuel:
F/A-18E: 6,780 kg
EF-2000: 4,996 kg
MIG-35: 4,800 kg
Rafale C: 4,700 kg
Gripen NG: 3,500 kg
F-16 IN: 3,160 kg
A2A Combat Taking-off Weight (100% internal fuel + 6 MRAAM and 2 SRAAM):
F/A-18E: 22,700 kg
MIG-35: 18,300 kg
EF-2000: 17,500 kg
Rafale C: 15,800 kg
F-16 IN: 14,500 kg
Gripen NG: 11,900 kg
Sea-level Static Thrust, AB and Max Mil:
F/A-18E: 9,980 kg*2 / 6,395 kg*2 (F414-GE-400*2)
EF-2000: 9,185 kg*2 / 6,125 kg*2 (EJ-200*2)
MIG-35: 9,000 kg*2 / 5,400 kg*2 (RD-33MK*2)
Rafale C: 7,650 kg*2 / 5,100 kg*2 (M88-2*2)
F-16 IN: 14,740 kg*1 / 8,620 kg*1 (F110-GE-132*1)
Gripen NG: 9,980 kg*1 / 6,395 kg*1 (F414G*1)
Sea-level A2A Combat Taking-off T/W ratio, AB and Max Mil:
EF-2000: 1.046 / 0.697
F-16 IN: 1.016 / 0.594
MIG-35: 0.984 / 0.590
Rafale C: 0.968 / 0.646
F/A-18E: 0.879 / 0.563
Gripen NG: 0.839 / 0.537
toanI think with the Typhoon AMRAAM is the bigger worry. But Meteor will probably be available by the time the first IAF MRCA enters service,
Some choices for solving such possible problem:
1. Introducing Meteor BVRAAM after 2015.
2. Integrating DRDO’s Astra BVRAAM onto Indian Typhoon.
3. Integrating Russian R-77 BVRAAM onto Indian Typhoon.
4. Integrating Israeli Derby BVRAAM onto Indian Typhoon.
toanWell, right now we can still not be sure if pakinstan will be able to introduce AASM finally, while the American has already sold hundreds of AIM-120, AGM-88 HARM, JDAMs, Link 16, JHMCS, and Sniper pod to Pakistan Airforce with the sale of F-16C/D Block52…..~But the Indian government and airforce still let these already confirmed “Enemy’s equipments” to join the MMRCA competition with F/A-18E/F and F-16IN, don’t they??:D
In addition, the Pakistan navy already has EXOCET SM39 missiles in its own French SSKs, and this missiles shall be also sold to Indian Navy in the near future with Scorpene SSK project……….
toanIndia airforce should be impressed by A2SM, since its “actual” effective range (55 km proved during the Lybia conflict or 75 km declared by the FAF’s pilot) is longer than almost all Pakistain army’s AA weapons today and in the foreseeable future (Except the HQ-9 system). I think IAF should have the interest to buy such kind of relatively cheap (the price for one STORM SHADOW / SCALP-EG is enough for six A2SM) but long-legged (three to five times of the effective range compared with the traditional LGB or JDAM, which is long enough to deal with the most medium range surface-to-air missile defense systems in the world today) A2G weapon ~ although it doesn’t necessarily mean that IAF must also introduce the Rafale.
toanSince the successor of F-15E shall be something new after 2030, I think the most probable candidates shall be:
1. Derivative of the 6th generation fighter of LM or Boeing.
2. Some kind of future UCAV (Derivative of X-47 or something else).
3. Something originated from DARPA’s Falcon Project / post-2025 Global striking concept.
toanVAT 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
So, in summary:
1. F-22A is still much, much more expensive than EF-2000 ~ Even without considering the factor of VAT (Increasing 20% extra-procuring cost for RAF’s EF-2000 and 19.6% extra-procuring cost for FAF’s Rafale, while USAF/USN’s F-22A, F-35, and F/A-18E/F have no such extra-procuring cost), the unit total program cost of F-22A today has already been 209% of Typhoon’s unit total program cost today (411.6 million USDs v.s 197.0 million USDs).
2. The difference of price between Typhoon and Rafale is insignificant, and it is very meaningless to argue which one is more expensive.
3. The Uncle Sam promises you that the ultimate unit total program cost of F-35 will be around 80% of EF-2000 without considering the factor of VAT, but if you considering the factor of VAT, the difference of “actual” unit total program cost between F-35 and EF-2000 shall be also insignificant. Moreover, what we can see now is that the procuring cost of LRIP F-35 is still much higher than EF-2000 and Rafale before 2015 at least. Only God knows if Uncle Sam well be able to keep the promise today for F-35’s ultimate unit total program cost…….
4. I think F/A-18E/F should be a good candidate for replacing the retired Harrier and even the retired Tranche I Typhoon after 2019 for the A2G missions, if UK’s new plan of introducing JSF (F-35C) fails again…….
toanhi toan, i don’t want to be picky and i appreciate your effort, but what was the point of these prices? was it to back something up from an earlier discussion or perhaps just to be informative?
Some anti-Eurofighter “Military Experts / Analysts” declared that the cost of EF-2000 had been already higher than the cost of F-22A according to the NAO’s 2011 report for Eurofighter, and Mr. Austin Mitchell had also queried the same thing to Air Vice Marshal Stephen Hillier in the House of COMMONS this month. Since I think that Air Vice Marshal’s reply for this query is not good enough, I decide to provide “What would I like to reply for this query if I were the Air Vice Marshal of UK”………:D
toanFor the F35, we don’t really know what will be the price, recents events even said that US will probably cut hundreds of units. But, that said, I will not do any prediction of the final unit cost, its just impossible to know.
Well, at least you can still get some idea of the unit procuring cost for F-35 today:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10382.pdf
To 2010: 14.4 billion USDs for 58 F-35 –> 248.3 million USDs per fighter.
To 2015: 72.4 billion USDs for 420 F-35 –> 172.4 million USDs per fighter.
toanhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/c860-i/c86001.htm
Q38 Austin Mitchell: Okay, the combats it was designed for have not actually happened, but it might have been useful. But to go back to 1985, it seems to me that you had three alternatives: going with the Americans, as we were offered, on the F-22, which is not yet in production but has a greater stealth capacity, which is the thing we now need in the new age; go it alone, like the French with the Rafale, because they decided not to come in; or go for a co-operative European venture, which predictably was going to be more expensive, because European Committees always produce camels when they are trying to design horses. Inevitably, European co-operation was going to be more expensive. Why, of those three alternatives, did we choose the most expensive one?
A：
Unit total program cost:
F-22A:
* 411.6 million USDs per fighter (209).
* $77.4 billion USDs for 188 aircraft.
* 2011 GAO’s report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-233SP
EF-2000:
* 197.0 million USDs per fighter (100).
* 20.2 billion pounds or 31.5 billion USDs for 160 fighter.
* 2011 NAO’s report: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/02/353798/nao-report-slams-uks-typhoon-acquisition.html.
Rafale:
* 193.5 million USDs / 142.3 million Euros per fighter (98).
* 2009 French MoD’s report: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/tab1-18-02-10.jpg
F-35:
* 156.7 million USDs per fighter (80).
* $385.0 billion USDs for 2,457 aircraft.
* 2011 GAO’s report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11450t.pdf
EA-18G:
* 101.3 million USDs per fighter (51).
* $11.55 billion USDs for 114 EA-18G.
* 2010 Pentagon’s report: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/features/SAR_April2010_table.jpg
F/A-18E/F:
* 93.4 million USDs per fighter (47).
* $48.09 billion USDs for 515 F/A-18E/F.
* 2010 Pentagon’s report: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/features/SAR_April2010_table.jpg
toanhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-233SP
In terms of total program costs：
1. Each F-22A will cost $411.6 million ($77.4 billion for 188 aircraft）.
2. Each V-22 Osprey will cost $122 million ($56 billion for 458 aircraft).
3. Each DDG-51 Flight III destroyer will cost $1.88 billion ($16.9 billion for 9 ships).
toanI assume that AASM really is much more expensive than Paveway IV, but it’s also more capable…..
According to the French airforce’s declaration for its Afghanistan mission during 2008:
AASM:
* Unit cost: 143.3 thousand Euros per missile, or around 223.6 thousand USDs per missile in 2008.
* Mission success rate: 96% (“Mini-cruise missile”).
* Strong immunity to bad weather and smoky condition.
* Effective range: 15 (low altitude) ~ 75 km (high altitude).
GBU-12:
* Unit cost: around 19.0 thousand USDs per bomb in 2008, or around 1/12 of AASM’s unit cost.
* Mission success rate: 72%.
* May become useless in bad weather or smoky condition.
* Effective range: 8 NM / 14.8 km.
Sign In
