MildaveYou obviously never heared about P1E and CP193 wasn’t part of the development forecasts either.
P1E was signed off in 2007 when Eurofighter finally understood that they needed an multirole aircraft and they decided (finally) to implement the CP-210 modifications to provide the Typhoon with AtG capabilities which lead to the T2 standard.
In 2006 the RAF wanted to deploy the Typhoon in Afghanistan and decided they couldn’t wait on Eurofighter to get AtG capabilities so they implemented CP-193 which was to be an “austere” AtG capability introducing early the CP-210 modifications that later became known as P1E in the T2 Typhoon.
Those modifications proven to be so “austere” that the Typhoon was never deployed in Afghanistan. Later in Libya it didn’t impress either.
So currently the RAF has Tranche 1 Block 5 with P1E and Tranche 2 Block 8 with P1E (most recent as of 2011). Tranche 1 cannot be upgraded to Tranche 2 due to physical differences. So if you still wonder were the money has gone, it has gone into making a new aircraft that would be able to be multi-role (similarly to M-2000C and M-2000-5f mk2 in fact.)
In both Tranches, P1E refers to the “austere” AtG capability while the blocks refer to software upgrades (obsolescences mostly and the capability to actually use the “austere” AtG mode).
So according to you I’m supposed to be impress by the P1E (“austere” AtG) which (again according to you) wasn’t even part of the development forecasts ?! Well let’s celebrate !!
And now Eurofighter is telling us we need to wait 7 years to see the ”austere” capability become full ? Lol I just can’t laugh loud enough !
They must have such a party at Eurofighter, I’m almost jealous not to have been invited !
Let’s be serious for a moment. Typhoon of today is a joke. Its public price is 6 million less than Rafale for capabilities that any early variant of the M2k or F16 could provide. It is only saving face thanks to a more modern airframe and a huge PR service.
MildaveBaring in mind the title of this thread, I wondered about this element……..
Playing :dev2: advocate, this statement tells me that Rafale has indeed been subsidised by the french government and although I am in no position, nor wish to be, to determine whether it’s illegal or not, it certainly would seem to be an advantage factor that would absolutely help make the Rafale being purportedly cheaper than the typhoon.
Even if it is a legal subsidy, it has clearly helped dassault be able to offer Rafale “cheaper” for the indians than the typhoon.If this wasn’t the case, how would Rafale have stood up to it then in both costs and/or capability?
I just thought i’d chuck this in :diablo::diablo::diablo:
Of course I could be typing complete b******s, but I enjoyed it never-the-less.
Yes you wrote complete non sense as far as I’m concerned. Rafale stoop up because the Typhoon program is badly managed.
MildaveSources in India have stated time again that the Rafale was cheaper in fly away cost AND in life cycle cost with a difference quoted to be about 25%….
MildavePerfectly demonstrating the stubborn ignorance and lack of knowledge wrt the aircraft and the programme as a whole. If you seriously believe that Typhoon hasn’t evolved a bit over all the years you simply have no clue what you are talking about. Stretching out production is certainly not going to lower costs either, but more importantly the numbers have been cut by more than 1/3 and fixed programme costs including R&D are spread over a smaller number of ac. There you go with a higher unit programme cost. The development costs remain the same whether you end up buying 100 or 1000 ac. The UK MoDs forecasts were unrealistic anyway, not taking obsolescence removal or upgrades into account. What a surprise that an aircraft is being further developed and upgraded throughout a several years long production run and several decades long service. But why bother, if “logical explanations” are so much easier. Oh aircraft X hasn’t been seen with new weapons being integrated = no development at all. :rolleyes:
I said “little capabilities” and you managed to read “hasn’t evolved a bit”… Well your words not mine.
Let me make myself clear. Unless the HMD was so expansive that you’ll explain a difference of 6 million between T2 and F3 by it, most of the upgrades on the Typhoon T2 were about obsolescences. When I’m talking about capabilities I’m not talking about upgrading what the aircraft was supposed to do previously anyway. I’m talking about “N.E.W:
not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time” capabilities.
These new capabilities will only come with the T3 standard. Until then we can talk about “improved” capabilities (or fixes).
MildaveI hope you don’t think that I’m being rude, but can’t you read?
Lol I was wondering the same question…:cool::rolleyes:
EDIT: Every time you quote a price for Rafale you seem to add a few millions lol. The price is €142, and Typhoon is 136 truncated (for the UK alone). That mean 142-136 = 6. Not 12. And €6 m is the difference between Typhoon T2 which is as multi-role as the M2k was when it was first inducted and Rafale F3 onmirole.
MildaveThe point is that Rafale is more expensive than Typhoon, and not, as we’d always been led to believe, cheaper.
It’s only €12 m per aircraft (just less than 10%), and if I were French, I’d be sanguine that my Government had bought an aircraft better suited to French needs, and had managed a complex programme better, resulting in the earlier delivery of important capabilities.
The disparity in unit production prices is bigger (closer to 20%), and it’s that that makes Dassault’s ability to be L1 in India the more interesting, and it’s that that makes people suspect subsidy or dumping.
Lol my dear friend, the Typhoon offered to India was the T3b standard whose true cost only God knows for sure. Not the T2. You are only quoting the unreliable price of the T2 standard. I’m only surprised the difference in cost wasn’t higher. And if any dumping was done, everything point toward Eurofighter. They were the one claiming to have consented to make high sacrifices…
Hmm. In the past, Achilles heel of French military aircraft exports has always been the cost and I understand that several previous losses for export orders were largely due Rafale’s cost. It was same thing which hampered Mirage 2000’s export sales – its flyaway cost was higher than F/-18’s, for example.
So if Rafale now suddenly is cheaper than Eurofighter (which also has the advantage of larger production run), it does raise few eyebrows, even though it obviously proves nothing in itself.
That is only against US fighters whose large economy of scale allow them to price their products and weapons cheaper than any other western power.
They also often sweeten the deal with economic aid, political support etc.
MildaveAs far as the cost “all inclusive” is concerned the higher the cost the better it is in a way. It simply reflects the will of a country to invest in its own jet-fighter. I don’t mind seeing that figure raise if they can go to the next standard with full GaN AESA technology for instance.
I disagree. You need to compare the cost with the capabilities offered. The Typhoon program cost is in constant increase and in general as of today 70% over budget yet you see little capabilities been introduced. They only logical explanation is that the money is spent fixing problems.
The cost for the Rafale of 142 quoted include the F3+ standard development cost. While the cost of 137 quoted for the Typhoon doesn’t include development cost like AESA since to date the different govt. are yet to order.
Development influence the fly away cost. But since most nation buying Typhoon or Rafale are going to demand ToT the program cost is necessary to have an idea of the ToT cost since no govt. will sell its tech without making a small profit on what it spent to acquire them.
So when if we want to find out the real cost of ToT of the Typhoon we need to keep in mind that the UK share was only 33% of the cost for development. We need to add another 33% for Germany and the rest is between Italy and Spain. So if India had bought the Typhoon, the money for the ToT would have gone to those 4 countries according to their share and their willingness to make profit. No wonder the Indians were dismay by the cost of ToT of the Typhoon.
That’s also why BAE need to have talk with the other in order to attempt to offer a lower bid. But good luck to them…
MildaveI’m grateful for your input, though, as I notice that the total programme cost includes only 25% of the R&D, and not all of it, unlike the UK Typhoon figure.
The true total programme cost is therefore more than €43.567 Bn for 294 aircraft – making the unit programme cost €148.187. That’s a bit more than the €142.3 m quoted by the magazine.
You read that wrong. The figure of 2011 were actualised with inflation, and with the 25% of R&D paid by the industry. Which mean the cost of the Rafale’s program is actually 25% cheaper for the tax payer since the French govt did only pay 75% of the R&D.
MildaveThat would give a Unit Programme Cost of €137 m (cheaper than €142 m for the Rafale).
I just corrected that for you.
Now to be serious, credible and scientific since that is the cost of Typhoon T2 it should be compared with the cost of Rafale F2…
But since we are comparing T2 with F3, then the comparison should be that the Rafale F3 is only 5 m more expansive, while also been navalised, with full AtG weapons (that only took 2-3 years versus 8 years for the T3 that might see day of light), anti-ship capability, nuclear capability, reconnaissance etc.
When you get the total cost of the T3 program (not forgetting the cost of the other 3 countries for the development part) I would be happy to see them :p
MildaveI would like to add never mind that the more accurate prognostics state 15-20b and that we will likely never know the true cost of the contract…
MildaveEuh… the DGA orders the engines, FSO etc. to different suppliers ? Can you explain please ?
I think the actual cost of Rafale that is been advertised (with AESA etc.) is closer to €80-90 range by the way. But since most countries that are today considering the Rafale will want ToT with it…
@ merlin2 : the ToT on spectra, RBE etc. might not come cheap but apparently it was still cheaper and more extensive than for the Typhoon…
MildaveAt least the UK will have a proper stealth fighter if they do this, unlike that god-awful F-35 contraption.
Let’s hope my friend let’s hope…
MildaveThe cost of buying the land and setting up the factory facility is the responsability of HAL and the Indian govt.
The price for the Rafale in India would not have included man power for assembling the plane and we know France has one of the highest wages rate in the world. The differences in prices between India, UAE and Brazil is that UAE aircraft will be assemble in France AND they were asking for upgrades.
Brazil is going to buy only 36 so obviously the cost of ToT spread between 36 platform will be higher than spread between 126+.
The tooling etc. will be quite similar between Dassault and Eurofighter and India is likely to buy them were they cost less so I don’t see that as been an argument. And since most of the tooling for Rafale will have to be bought for the M2k upgrade anyway so that’s a +1 for Dassault…
Then If I understand correctly in India Dassault’s strategy was to price an aircraft answering the Indian specification. No more. Now within that price tag the IAF will have to choose what exactly they need or not. If they want more they will have to pay for it. The IAF made it clear that they were looking for aircraft that meet the minimum requirement, not necessarily exceeded them.
I think that’s where the Eurofighter messed up. They tried to propose a version of the Typhoon that doesn’t exist yet, with wonderful (yet unproven) capabilities that could only be but expansive if they ever made it to the realm of reality.
Dassault was smart. Since their aircraft passed the technical tests they proposed a bid that cut all expanses to the bone, rather than some miraculous but expansive gadgets.
MildaveVAT is included in both Rafale and Typhoon costs quoted by me.
The figure you quote is, in any case, out of date.
I say again, for the purposes of clarity:
Rafale Unit Programme cost is €142 m.
Rafale Unit Production cost is €101 m.
Typhoon Unit programme cost is £99.14 m. That’s working on the latest NAO figures, and takes account of Saudi costs.
Typhoon Unit production cost is £70 m.Anything else is nonsense!
Where I come from we call that intellectual dishonesty.
So from what you quote the comparison should be:
Rafale Unit Programme cost is €142 m.
Rafale Unit Production cost is €101 m.
IN EUROS !
Typhoon Unit programme cost is ~€120.6 m.
Typhoon Unit production cost is ~€85 m.
Note that the price of the Rafale is for the F3 standard with full AtA, AtG and Nuclear capabilities PLUS the naval version.
The cost given by our friend for the Eurofighter is highly inacurrate and AFAIK the true cost for the UK is classified due to “national security” !
I would also add that the price for the Rafale for export would not include the development cost of the nuclear capability.
I also add that you need to add the cost of program development from Germany, Italy and Spain to have the true cost of the total program itself.
Now anything else is indeed nonsense and intellectual dishonesty..
EDIT: thanks snafu352 for more accurate figures.
MildaveDon’t forget huge price tag on Mirage-2000 upgrade.
Spread over 10 years with full ToT and the upgrade to be done in India, to make what in essence will be new planes and you still stick with propaganda about the “huge” price tag ?
Same goes for the MICA deal.
Sign In
