It sounds like a standard upgrade to me. Unlike the EF, the Tornado isn’t really a multi-role aircraft, and these upgrades simply make it more efficient strike/recon aircraft, the only role it can currently perform.

Therefore I don’t see why this is an either or case for the Luftwaffe. They need to keep the remainder of the Tornado fleet modern, while at the same time continually upgrading the Eurofighter, adding up to the same net strike capability as before the Tornado fleet got culled.

In the long term it appears the Eurofighter will become the Luftwaffe’s primary strike aircraft as well.

http://defense-technologynews.blogspot.in/2008/10/germany-awaits-new-capabilities-of-air_06.html (original article – dead link)

Right now the Tornado is certainly more multi-role than the Typhoon. Right now the Typhoon has more modern avionics which is probably what is going to be upgraded first on the Tornados. Since both aircraft are using ESM in pods that might be very advantageous for the Tornado, but I supposed new computers etc would be needed which might be expansive…

Actually, no such thing is ‘clear’. We can argue all day about the figures – you can pick the Typhoon and Rafale cost figures that best support your argument, and I could pick different, equally official figures that show the exact opposite.

Actually most officials documents clearly demonstrate the Typhoon has been greatly over budget with cost effective measure hard to come by. Brazil dismissed the Typhoon on cost not once, but twice, and in every other competitions or official reports by national spending watch dog, the Typhoon is reported has been overpriced.

Now it has been said already that the cost of the Rafale program for the French govt include the M version as well as the development of nuclear capability. One other thing to take into account is that there are 3 fully operational version of the Rafale out there: C, B and M. The B isn’t just a trainer it’s a fully operational version with mission computers, two cockpits etc. Typhoon do not have an operational two seater. While this make exact numbers impossible to compare, it stand to reason that it’s not in Typhoon advantage to consistently propose a higher price while only having one under developed aircraft.

Even dassault’s CEO is claiming it loudly (see original article above on this page) :

I agree with what you’re saying about the airframe simplicity over complexity etc. However quoting Dassault’s CEO as proof isn’t very serious. Of course he’s going to say that no matter what the thruth is. Fortunalty events have given him right, but ET are also claiming the same with a whole lot of other baseless claims which are not true. Typhoon isn’t superior to Rafale because after all David Cameron said so…

Rafale is being built at a lower-than-optimal rate., for example.

The cost of development, of the radar, engines, OSF, SPECTRA, etc. is spread over a smaller production run.

Same baseless statements is business as usual for you I’m starting to think. Rafale is built at the minimum economical viable rate. Last year Dassault did only ~27% of its profit from the Rafale program. While India and other exports might raise that number somewhat it show that Dassault doesn’t depend on Rafale to make money and remain a viable aeronautical company. The fact that despite all this they are able to kick the *ss of much bigger companies like BAE (the 2nd biggest defence company in the world) with much competitive financial and technical offers is nothing to be proud of for ET.
Typhoon is losing all economy of scale by having 4 final assembly line and countless of redundant supplier. Even if they win India that would be 4.5 aircraft off the shelf for each nation plus more bickering over who get to send what as spare part to India. Hardly what you would call economical.

The case is : which of the respective standard offered on the export market with AESA and full multirole capability is cheaper ?
By all accounts the answer is the rafale by a significant margin.

100 % right IMO. Even when the 2015 configuration offered do not necessarily offer AESA the price tag for ET remain the highest no matter what.

Question thereafter is how much of difference to the lifecycle cost does that make. As a rule of thumb the operating cost of a fighter aircraft over its lifetime generally equals its cost of acquisition. And fuel can be taken to contribute about half the operating cost. Point being, the difference in lifecycle cost is not that substantial.

The reports so far quote 5% difference per fly away cost and even jane quote ~17% on the overall deal. When buying 126 aircraft such difference isn’t negligible. Indian officials also stated that Typhoon is far more expansive on life cycle cost. The only part of the Typhoon that has less complex part and as such a chance of been cheaper are the engines. But so far not even that seems to be the case.

With the Eurofighter you have greater economies of scale in production of spares and parts and an arguably cheaper MLU.

Let’s see if they can terminate with developing the aircraft then we will talk about MLU. About the spares part let’s see if they can get their hand on some :p , then we will talk about their prices.

I’d like to know Ajai Shukla’s views on the signing of that Indo-French de-facto M-88X joint development and manufacture, due in summer. An engine which will be destined for not only IAF Rafales but also AMCA (i.e. a major headache for the Indians- solved).

I beleive the Indo-French JV involve the Kaveri engine not the M-88X. Sure the new Kaveri (K10 IIRC) will use the M-88 core but it’s primarily intended to power the Tejas, then maybe the AMCA and Rafale.

Howarth said: “If the decision turned only on price, Cassidian will put in a revised price offer. The four nations [constituting the Eurofighter consortium: Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK] can produce a winning financial proposal, and I fully expect that Cassidian will be doing that.”

Hum what did they expect the decision to be based on ? I thought a winning financial proposal was exactly what they were supposed to have done in the first place !

At the same time the man doing the complaint “MP M.V. Mysoora Reddy” doesn’t seem trustworthy to me at all. Here is his statement :

He stated, “I am also given to understand that the Rafale aircraft has not been sold to any country. Why should India buy a combat aircraft that no other country has purchased? In Libya, in the war against Gaddafi, the Rafale had failed in precision bombing and finally the Typhoon was inducted. The UAE too has rejected the Rafale.”

Is he really trying to say that Typhoon went into Libya because Rafale failed to deliver precision bombing or am I reading that wrong somehow ?

Anyway I find his comments to be partisan rather than professional. I wouldn’t mind taking a look at his bank accounts…

@ JSLLL4 : Sorry I don’t understand a single word. I think I read somewhere that DSI limited flight speed to about Mach 2. But I guess it’s irrelevant since nowadays few aircraft are flying above that speed.

Doesn’t DSI limit Mach number or something ?

Manpad is 15000 feet. And man sitting at mountain top will at most give it 25k. Nuclear capable is lose term without specifying weight.. And how do u know big bombs are not required or not most efficient? Big bombs open the way for smaller bombs

Maybe you wanted to say between ~1500m to ~2300m. Now care to explain to me how big bombs open the way for smaller one ?

M2K hasn’t moved from this place. It means it is not easy or cheap to maintain at another place.

Maybe the IAF realize it was cheaper and easier to keep their aircraft on the one base that had infrastructures specially built for it rather than duplicate these infrastructures without reason ?:rolleyes:

Israel Aerospace Industries, for example, foresees opportunities to participate in major upgrades and redesigns for the currently single-seat F-35 stealth fighter. IAI has even considered playing a role in the development of a two-seat variant.

“That’s possible,” an IAI executive says. “There is a known demand for two seats not only from Israel but from other air forces. Advanced aircraft are usually two seats rather than single seats.”

Wait and see I guess.

@ SpudmanWP: There are two seater F-16. And I’m not talking about those countries that are going to buy US no matter what. I mean how would countries like India test fly the F-35 ? Would they only be offered simulator flight ? Or would they be allowed then to fly the real thing ?

In January 1975, the Air Force ordered eight full-scale development (FSD) F-16s – six single-seat F-16A and a pair of two-seat F-16B – for test and evaluation. The first FSD F-16A flew on 8 December 1976 and the first FSD F-16B on 8 August 1977. Over the years, these aircraft have been used as test demonstrators for a variety of research, development and modification study programs.