VnomadSuper Hornet’s price has went up, too. The second tranche for RAAF (12 SHornets + 12 Growlers + logistic support and training) costs AUD$ 3.7bil which is ca US$3.5bil. These are FY2013 prices for a customer with already existing supporting infrastructure. I think Rafale would be cheaper.
That’s the maximum possible cost quoted in the DSCA announcement. The breakdown for that is rather wonky (80 JHMCS, 31 APG-79s and so on). The actual cost is expected to be well south of $3 billion.
Eg. the DSCA announcement for the C-17 sale to India was upto $5.7 billion, while the actual cost turned out to be $4.4 billion.
VnomadNo, the FA18E/F does not produce more lift than the Rafale at the cost of higher drag.
Rafale has much lower wing loading (as well as a larger lifting body section). This produces more lift which at high speeds can cause a drag penalty.
The drag issue on the FA18EF comes in part from the badly designed weapon stations that have to be angeled outwards as well as the need for higher AoA.
So in normal subsonic flight the Rafale produces more lift while having less drag. This means a much greater range.
You haven’t accounted for the sweep angle on their respective wings. Aircraft capable of higher AoA and having a lower stall speed, typically have a lower fuel burn in the low to mid subsonic regime.
Lets see how far they can get with what amount of fuel?
From http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-m-vs-f-a-18e-f-t8.html
For sources, that forum sent me to another forum (F-16.net) which did have any references to those figures.
Having a low unit cost is only interesting if the maintenance is cheap as well, and the Super Hornet isnt as maintainable as the Rafale (at least the numbers i have seen) as well as being much heavier.
I’d appreciate the numbers if you have them at hand.
If they would have thrown in the F15SE it would be different. At least it has some strong points against both the Rafale and Gripen (like speed, internal carriage, an impressive combat record for the series etc).
Far too expensive. The FAB would have had to scrap their plans for follow on orders if they’d ended up with the F-15SE (or even the F-15E).
VnomadThe UK spent 190bn GBP on social security in 2009. Given this figure perhaps you can appreciate why i don’t consider 60bn USD spread over a number of years a particularly good trade off for what i believe will be a reduction in force capability as outlined in my response to Fedaykin, particularly as the UK doesn’t gain 60bn, it potentially gains a proportion of that in tax.
What is the investment? At $150 mil x 138 = $20.7 billion. [Plus $4 billion or so invested in development, non refundable.] And you get an aircraft that is still first rate even if not everything promised. Internal payload’s a little low and the range less than hoped for, but otherwise it can outdo most fourth generation aircraft at most tasks. And at strike/SEAD in heavily defended airspace, it’ll be unrivaled even after the Russian & Chinese jets enter the picture.
As Low Observable has pointed out a sizeable portion of the work allocated to “UK” companies is not actually performed in the UK thus does not contribute to the UK balance sheet which in turn means any revenues are not taxed in the UK.
I haven’t included BAE’s North American subsidiary.
In addition the beneficiaries of any profit made by a private company are the shareholders. This again does not necessarily translate to a benefit for the UK Nation.
The UK has the world’s second largest financial industry, with investments going everywhere and profits flowing in from everywhere. I’m fairly certain the foreign shareholders issue averages out in Britain’s favour (as unfortunately do the financial liabilities that go with it).
VnomadFinally!
BAE Systems designed and manufactures the aft fuselage, horizontal tails and vertical tails for the F-35.
Cobham designed and manufactures the refueling probe for the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) and the F-35C carrier variant (CV).
EDM produces components for the weapons load trainer system and the ejection seat maintenance trainer for the F-35.
GE Aviation produces the electrical power management system, the remote input/output unit, standby flight display, and the backshop battery charger for the F-35.
Honeywell developed and produces the F-35’s power thermal management system. Additionally, Honeywell is a provider of the F-35’s life support system.
Martin-Baker designed and manufactures the F-35 ejection seat.
MBDA produces the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), which can be installed within the weapons bay and on external wing stations of the aircraft. MBDA is also working with Lockheed Martin and the U.K. Ministry of Defence to integrate the Meteor missile into a future upgrade of the U.K.’s F-35 fleet.
RE Thompson produces casings for batteries onboard the F-35.
Rolls-Royce provides the lift system for the F-35B STOVL, which consists of the lift fan, the three-bearing swivel module, the roll post modules and the lift fan vane box. These components are essential for STOVL operations.
Selex ES Ltd designed and builds the lasers that are the key component for the Electro Optical Targeting System.
Survitec Group provides all pilot flight equipment for every F-35 pilot around the world.
Ultra Electronics produces suspension release equipment for the F-35.
UTC Aerospace Systems produces the weapons bay door drive system, utilities actuation and uplock components for the F-35.
I’m assuming UK subsidiaries of Honeywell and GE Aviation are referred to. Or they have a JV with BAE.
Vnomad48 is the best number that we can rely upon today. Beyond that it is a lottery.
48 aircraft is certain. I assume what we’re discussing is the viability of sticking to the original number.
History however does not favour additional purchases of expensive high end kit being made.
The costs are within the fourth generation range.
The 15% number doesn’t ring true and not just because it is supplied by a politican ;-).
The UK is manufacturing the rear element of the fuselage, the lift fan, the ejector seat and the EW system.
I’ve heard the number from Lockheed Martin people as well.
In either case, why does the number sound off to you? Lets see what’s balance: Front fuselage. Undercarriage. IPP. Engine. Radar. EW System. DAS. Sounds fair for 85%. But.. lets say you’re right. What figure would you suggest?
(The EW system is built by the North American subsidiary.)
Is Japan not being offered production facilities and what of the Italian assembly plant? Is it beyond possibility that not all F35 will have BAE rear fuselages?
Thus you will please excuse my skeptisism when presented by the 15% figure by a politican. In addition please see my post above on benefits to the UK.
Assembly line. Not production lines. BAE ships its product to Texas. It could also do that to Japan. Or Italy.
VnomadWhich major parts on the F-35 are UK manufactured?
BAE Systems: Rear fuselage, Empennage, EOTS,
Rolls Royce: STOVL Lift System
Martin Baker: Ejection seat
Edit: Found this.
The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site, using the latest in advanced design and manufacturing technology.
BAE Systems is responsible for the design and delivery of key areas of the vehicle and weapon systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system, Prognostics Health Management (PHM) integration and Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS). BAE Systems also has significant work share in Autonomic Logistics, primarily on the support system side, and is involved in the Integrated Test Force, including the systems flight test and mission systems.
BAE Systems is also responsible for supplying the Vehicle Management Computer, the Communication, Navigation and Identification (CNI) modules, the active stick and throttle and the EOTS Laser subsystem.
VnomadStolen from a thread on another forum. Apologies LO.
Interesting.
They reflect the cost of early LRIPs plus retrofit costs.
Both have fallen. The LRIP 7 contract puts the cost of the F-35A at about $115 million (including engine) with the cost overruns to be born by the contractor. Delivered starting 2016.
VnomadWhilst the F35 may bring economic benefits to the UK, i have my doubts as already expressed that this is really the case but in the absence of data we cannot settle the matter, i question the value of any economic benefit versus what i believe will be a reduction in force capability due to a smaller force size.
Not to chime in again, but again… what data are you looking for?
UK industry is responsible for manufacturing 15% by value of each and every F-35 aircraft. That’s not just for those aircraft manufactured for UK defence, but the entire global fleet.
– Philip Dunne, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology
The F-35’s build numbers and cost are out there. US acquisition budget is $392 billion (including $55 billion IIRC on development) for 2443 aircraft. Add 15 customers @ 50 aircraft (av.) each.
It is true that force reduction has been a trend irrespective of platform type i believe however that a purchase of the F35 exacerbates that trend beyond an uncomfortable if not unsustainable level.
Thus in my opinion we come to a point where we have a force that is reduced in numbers to a level that is ineffective irrespective of the capability of an individual element of that force.
105 EF + 138 F-35 = 243 aircraft. That’s numerically comparable to that fielded by import-wary France, perhaps even larger after the Mirages are retired.
Could be larger still if the T1s are at least partially retained, for air defence, training, conversion, Baltic/Icelandic policing and the like.
VnomadIn our initial exchanges on the subject you were pretty forceful in telling that that i should accept that F35 brought economic benefit, something i don’t believe at this time and will not simply accept without being shown data that supports the contention.
The US F-35 acquisition budget is currently around $350 billion. Add at the very least another $70 billion from 500 export sales (more likely to be closer to 1000 though). 15% of that is over $60 billion worth of work for companies based in the UK. Had the figure been half of that, it would still have been worth it.
When you say ‘data’ which figures exactly are you looking for?
VnomadCheaper to Rafale (roughly the same price, but in Euros). On the other hand, Rafale MMI, data fusion, kinetics, range etc. are better. (should i say vastly as our friend?)
Kinetics yes. MMI, data fusion… I assume the Advanced Super Hornet is being discussed, so I’m not convinced yet. Range yes. But I’d still bet on the SH’s larger AESA.
From Brazil’s perspective, where they’re not living under the looming shadow of a heavy adversary, cost is going to be the main parameter. And this is where I’d imagine an (always cheap) American munitions complement would swing it for the SH vis a vis Rafale.
Its also why I think the Gripen is the front-runner. I can see why the FAB is believed to support it – operating costs are lower so there’s a lower possibility of mothballed aircraft like the Taiwanese Mirages or even the SAAF Gripens. Plus follow on orders are then easier to swing.
VnomadFlight hour costs on Super Hornet are way higher than on Rafale.
Acquisition cost may be a bit lower, but if you want to fly the aircrafts the Rafale will cost less in the end.
Regarding upgrades… it may very well be expensive, but OTOH those cost may vary depending on technology transfer.
Why would they be ‘way higher’? The F-18E/F is heavier but the airframe produces greater lift (at the cost of greater drag) and unless it spends a high proportion of its life in the transonic/supersonic regime, I don’t see why the fuel burn would be significantly higher. As for spares and such, Boeing has delivered over 600 Super Hornets, those economies of scale are unlikely to be matched. Same for the upgrades/MLU, where the cost would be dispersed over many hundreds of aircraft leading to a relatively low unit cost.
VnomadCurrent year expenditure we will only know around Feb-March 2014 as what is announced at the begining of year is not the same as at the end of year.
We’ve discussing budgets so far. Plus I’ve addressed the issue of unspent budgets i.e. on average $500 mil/yr.
some countries put defence and procurement budget separate.
Official govt documents were not referred to while quoting a budget. And which has nothing to do with civil infrastructure, Embraer and what not.
Its demo aircraft at this point. so it is bound to get weight increase once it is certified with loads. also once F-18E production ends. F414 engines are going to be more expensive in so called 2020 period that you are referring for Gripen NG time line.
Wake up. Its at the prototype stage flying with a operational AESA. And a pre-production aircraft is close being ready (has been in assembly since July). And I’m not surprised that having goofed up (as usual) on the F414’s weight, now you want talk about its price.
VnomadYou mean pay, subscribe to a fighter with an unknown price tag and shut up?
Well, the largest contribution came from the UK. And I don’t know about shutting up but its certainly set reap rich rewards in terms of work-share.
Assuming it purchases 138 F-35B for say… $150 mil each, it leaves us at about $20.7 billion invested for 138 aircraft.
In return, its getting a work-share of about 15% on every F-35 built. Assuming an acquisition cost of $120 million per aircraft (the bulk of which will be cheaper F-35As) over 3000 units (assuming the 2400 US orders hold steady) resulting in a value of about $54 billion.
All at current day prices.
I don’t know what the UK involvement in sustainment program is, but in any case its done quite well out of its investment. It would be a remarkably short sighted decision to limit the F-35 buy, for at least the UK.
VnomadI have first thought the same but the prices RAAF have paid for theirs made me reconsider that stance.
The Super Hornet delivered to the USN cost about $85 million each for the F-18E/F and $90 million of the EA-18G. (link)
Those delivered to the RAAF cost $108 million per unit including the 12 in Growler configuration. Support costs seem rather high at $140 mil/yr, but I’m not sure what’s included. (link)
Altogether while higher than I’d have expected, I doubt you can say with any degree of certainty that Dassault would have made a significantly better offer.
Edit: I just realised that the second set of figures are in AUD. The agreement was signed in 2007 when 1 AUD = 0.75 USD. So the flyaway cost of the RAAF aircraft would actually be $81 million/unit. Which would put the non-Growler variant at about $75 million/unit.
VnomadI suppose if the MoD has money to burn and see a modernized Su-33 and Su-33 AEW as worth the cash… maybe.
It would have been money well spent, given the stakes i.e. superior air defence for an entire CBG plus longer ranged strike against both naval and land targets.
Mig-29K production restart was, and remains the better choice for the IN compared to a modernized Su-33, mostly because their forthcoming carriers are just way too small to carry a significant number of flankers, whereas they’re just right to carry a regiment of Mig-29Ks.
How many Su-33’s do you reckon the Vikram can accommodate? Its about 5m longer than the MiG-29K, but has shorter folded wingspan.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222648[/ATTACH]
I see no reason for it to be less than 20, if not the full quota of 24.
Sign In
