VnomadAre you comparing like to like though (a) Rafale and F-35 without engines but with extra concurrency costs or (b) Rafale and F-35 with engines and no extra concurrency costs?
With engines. No concurrency cost. At FRP.
I think you have to separate out associated costs when extrapolating. A package deal including 50 F-35’s would not cost 50/22 the cost of a package deal including 22 F-35’s. Likewise a package deal including 50 Gripens would not cost 50/22 the cost of a package deal including 22 Gripens.
I understand that. If I were to use the exact same cost as quoted to the Swiss, $6 bn would buy just 42 Gripen Es. I’m rounding it out to (a generous) 50 units to account for such discrepancies caused by scale, offsets etc.
VnomadUnit procurement price for rafale c, as per french parliament report, was 42 million euros without VAT. That was in 2005. Assuming no drop in price due to better manufacture process and assuming inflation in today’s euros that’s some 49,7 million. Converted in dollars that’s some 62 million dollars. Also assuming f35a prices us dod is paying are without any tax, that’s roughly close to 50% of latest f35a price (one with basic nonrecurring systems and refit cost). Not really 85 planes instead of 37 but still considerably cheaper.
Its a big assumption you’re making vis a vis inflation. Defence inflation typically runs ahead of regular inflation. In addition, the later Rafale tranches will have more expensive kit added on – AESA radar, GaN Spectra, Scorpion HMD, Talios pod etc.
And IIRC recent figures put the Rafale cost over 85 million, or around 70 million minus VAT. That’s still about quarter or so less than the F-35A, but at FRP the F-35A should be able to beat that figure quite handily.
Extrapolating from the Swiss contract, for $6 billion you’d be able to get no more than 50 Gripen Es (if not much less). If the Rafale was in the same cost bracket as the Gripen E, it would probably have been the primarily competitor for the F-35A in European markets instead of the Gripen. Brazil would have been a lock as well, considering the ready availability of a carrier variant.
VnomadTodays statement from Dassault CEO : for the price NL paid 37 F-35 they could have acquired 85 Rafales.
So.. 85 Rafales for $6 bn. Do you believe him?
Vnomad13 units is a odd ‘compromise’. Should have been closer to twenty to at least retain two full strength squadrons. Does anyone know the average strength of an IAF fighter squadron?
VnomadYes, MOSSAD get all their info from Aviation Week.
The Mossad reports to the PM’s office AFAIK. Not that being responsible for the Mossad would enable any particular insight into military aviation issues.
One may have dismissed his quoting of AvWeek as media-informed impressions of a politician, like the quoting of Carlo Kopp in the Australian Parliamentary hearings, if not for the fact that Israel’s already pulled the trigger on the F-35. The time to consider alternatives was before the 19 units were ordered. Whether one likes it or not, for the next 15 to 20 years, the F-35I will be the only aircraft the IAF will induct in large number or small.
Vnomadthings is, you guys quote all the time how the F-35 costs “almost the same” as a Rafale
I’ve never heard that said on the forum. What has been said on the other hand, is how the F-35 will eventually cost less than the Rafale (<$85 mil at FRP), thus making a preferable alternative for any country willing to wait till 2018-19.
VnomadSwiss wanted a lot of the same things that Brazil wanted, although not all of them. For example, Swiss wanted their parts used in the Gripen E. Not just the ones that they buy, but all Gripen E, including future ones. They got some technology transfer, though limited only to the parts they will make (arguably they don’t need nor care for a complete tech transfer). Their industrial offset was supposed to be 100%. They originally wanted assembly to be done in Switzerland, but later they said that would be too expensive and compromised, and final assembly was to be done in Sweden but RUAG employees would be part of the team. It was said that Saab will lobby the Swedish Air Force for the purchase of Pilatus trainers in return. There are probably other things I forget at the moment.
Could you elaborate please as to component manufacture in the Swiss deal? My understanding was that it was mostly an off-the-shelf purchase. Offsets would be spread around as they are with most such deals but there’s only so much of the cost that can be attributed to offset requirements. The contract was not inclusive of an assembly line, which is the largest expense of any license production deal.
Edit: looks like VNomad disagrees with me. Oh, well.
Actually I logged off as soon my post went through. Missed your post. Sorry. Didn’t mean to ignore it.
Vnomadhow exactly it is going to hurt Russia more than India. Infact building relationships with Arabs Russia can better control India. nearly complete dependence on Oil and remittance flow. this thing defy logic.
I’d imagine if Russia had that sort of pull with the Arabs, it would try to get them to cut oil production rather than exercise ‘better’ control over India. As things stand, the GCC, particularly Saudi Arabia is welcoming of the deleterious effects of falling oil prices on Syria, Iran and Russia, even at the cost of lower profits.
VnomadThe Swiss airframes would be assembled in Sweden, not in Switzerland in a new construction line?
Exactly. So if Brazil wanted to buy the Gripen E without ‘technology transfer, domestic production, marketing rights for South America, use of Brazilian components when possible, etc’, its still the Swiss figures that would be applicable to it as an export customer rather than the ‘in-house’ Swedish costs.
The cost quoted to Switzerland was almost $150 mil each (albeit including offsets), for 22 units delivered off-the-self between 2018 and 2023.
ps- The Swedish Gripens E will all be new builds, the decision to use parts of “C´s” has been reversed (thats public and official)
I wasn’t aware of that. Good to know, thanks.
VnomadAnd you claim not to cherrypick your data….
Brazil’s Gripen NG procurement cost $5.4 billion for 36 aircrafts because, among other things, Brazil wants the technology transfer, domestic production, marketing rights for South America, use of Brazilian components when possible, etc. Those are what’s expensive. More than the actual aircrafts. If Brazil wants just the aircraft without all those, a better comparison would be Sweden’s SEK 16.4 billion ($2.5 billion) price tag for 60 Gripen E. This info is all over the place. If you don’t know it then you haven’t done your research and if you know it but ignored it then you are being deliberately obtuse.
Why would a better comparison be with the Swedish internal order for Gripen Es (all rebuilt IIRC) and not the cost quoted to the Swiss for the Gripen? The latter would logically be a closer estimate to the price paid by an export customer.
Vnomadthat`s another thing Chinese copyied from Russians :very_drunk:, no exposed flaperon actuators, or does the old Su-27 uses EHA as well?
No copy-from-Russia comments from here at least. I was given to understand the actuators on the F-15, Su-27 are at the edge of the fuselage. Or if a small servomotor suffices, why not use the same in the F-22 & PAK FA. Its better from an RCS perspective.
VnomadHow would you tell from that photo?
No bulges connecting the flaps to the wing. They’re there on the F-22, PAK FA and every preceding fighter. Completely flat wing on the J-31.
Vnomad[ATTACH=CONFIG]233271[/ATTACH]
Look at the trailing edge of the wing. Electro Hydraulic Actuators?
Vnomadif it was up to me, i’d scrap the whole thing and just buy more Hawks, but since its a stage-2 trainer, i would go with the PC-21 or Textron Scorpion.
Its a low budget effort, so the cost to let it continue is relatively low. Though its a mostly unnecessary aircraft.
For more immediate induction, there’s the option of more HAL-built Hawks. But a greater fillip to the domestic industry can be provided by ordering couple of squadrons of Tejas trainers (based on the production standard PV-6) for LIFT roles, with the existing Hawks being shifted to Stage 2 training establishments.
VnomadAnd like all multirole aircraft it is a compromise. With a compromise you have two ways to go A) built something which is good, bordering exceptional in one field and pretty naff at the rest or one that’s mediocre at everything. Guess which way I reckon the F-35 will turn out.
And which role is the F-16 mediocre at?
In case you have been too busy take notice of the news whilst you were so busy arguing in favour of the F-35. Britain has decided to review whether or not to go ahead with their purchase of the stealthy house brick.
It must have been something that got past google because all the news reports there keep insisting that the UK just ordered another four F-35Bs, with a bulk buy scheduled for 2017. Are you saying they’ve decided to cancel the F-35 and spend 3 bn on the EMCAT, followed by billions more on the N-Typhoon?
Sign In
