Tu22mExactly. Pretty much everything is secondary as long as the F-35 is procured. If the price went over $300mil, they would have bought 5 units and still call it an air force.
That must have cost a LOT !
Yeah, well… at least they wont have any peacetime hull loss incidents… that never happens with new aircraft types.
Tu22mIf we cooperate with the Belgian Air Force and share the ORA/Renegade tasks and expand those to Belgium and Luxembourg, only 20 pilots are needed for the same tasks!
I love how the definition of a national Air Force has to be re written to fit the bills for the F35.
Getting an allied is not a substitute for a national defence. It is unfortunate that politicians make it sound like that. A defence needs a mix of quality and quantity for these very simple reasons.
* Numbers offer redundance and can saturate the capabilities of the enemy locally.
* Quality is a force multiplier when facing off, but when the difference in capability is humongus (like light infantry vs tanks, or aircrafts vs ground targets) then quality is of second nature. You only need to be “good enough”.
What the smaller F35 operators are doing now is making a concentration of all available resources in a very small area. By having fewer jets at fewer locations you improve the effectiveness of the enemy strike. They can destroy a larger percentage of your airforce in the opening hours if you have lower numbers. And this will go on every time the airforce is concentrated to one location for turnarounds maintenance etc. Most fighters are destroyed on the ground!
But you are ofc free to use political rethoric. I imagine the same goes on in most countries, here is a universal on Swedish policy, I imagine it is the same BS that goes on in the Netherlands. “By lowering the amount of XXX by 80% and upgrading the remaining 20, we will improve the overall capabilities by a magnitude, large enough to compensate the loss in numbers. And we should note that a majority of the XXX in current stock arent even ready to solve the tasks at hand today or the near future. Improved cooperation across the bordes with our neighbours will even further boost our *new capabilities.“
*new capabilities in fact are old capabilities that have been performed for a long time by even older equipment.
Tu22m‘Price went through the ceiling’? How so? Its currently in the $110 million/unit range which will drop to $90-100 million at the end of the SDD.
Is that incl engines?
Tu22mIn fact I should find out its very interesting debate about the acquisition or operation costs of the
fighters competitors for the Brazilian Air Force as away the technical capabilities from those, but first I should be put some historical facts:
Dont forget this…
Brazil AF chose Gripen in technical evaluation.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/leaked-report-brazilian-air-f…
It was also the prefered choice of the indaustry.
edit: sorry for the messed up post. using my cell.
Tu22mHas anything happened with the LMFS? Feels like all the focus is on Sukhoi.
Tu22mJSR is right about opportunity cost tho. “Look at the benefits JSF brings to UK industry” ignores the benefits UK industry could’ve accrued by pursuing alternative paths foreclosed by JSF. To be fair the real epic blunders came before JSF — no Harrier successor, Typhoon unable to operate from aircraft carrier, etc.
To be fair the blunders are mostly due to change in politics. EF2000 for instance is very well designed for air superiority, but it was never designed for carrier use (if that was the case then air intakes would likely be moved to the sides), it was designed in an era when fighters that size felt affordable etc. In Libya it also proved to require very few maintenance hours, even compared to the Tornado.
If the requirements would have been… say more multirole, cheaper and with carrier usage in mind the end rsult would be something closer to Rafale or Gripen. Thats just the politics, decisionmakers say what they want done and the engineers produce precisely that. I would say that Gripens design in a large part came about due to well tailored demands on the project.
Similarily the F16 was also designed around good, sustainable principles. Ie, lower cost than the F15, use the same engine, excellent (for the time) maneuverability.
The point I make is that if the decisionmakers know what they want and can formulate realistic demands then that is exactly what they will get. Lockheed have proven that they can produce anything the customer wants as long as its realistic. Same goes for european manufacturers as well as russian ones.
When it comes to the JSF being a profitable program or not I think the UK stands out as an exception by actually making some profit from that, but otoh they probably would even if they had opted for their own solution.
Tu22mIs it possible that the Russians may have sold them the technical design data of the Mig 1.44 ? We know that the J-10 bears a strong Lavi influences, the Z-10 received design help from Kamov. Could the J-20 design have some Russian influence ?
Most likely no.
The J10 btw is a development from J9 which was inspired by Viggen. The J10 in the end is more like a single engine Eurofighter with S duct rather than an F16 with canards. Personally I’d say it looks like the result if Eurofighter and Gripen would have a baby.
J20 is far from being a MiG 1.44 clone. Intake design and location is different, size and overall shape is different, level of stealth optimisation is very different. It is possible that they looked at MiG 1.44 and though that a stealth interceptor with canards is a good idea, and later looked at F22 and F35 and thought that shaping and DSI is a must have. But basically that is how all development goes. You find interesting ideas somewhere, see if they can be improved and before you know it you have something unique.
Just look at all new aircrafts. The design origins can be traced back a long long time.
Did Lockmart buy the F-15’s tech specs from MD for the F-22?
Probably, they both have wings… 😀
Tu22mRafale basic CPFH was 14000 euros during Mali operations (should be lower for peace time operations).
An SAAF general quoted 14000 $ for SAAF Gripen.
Actually it is the other way around. In war time sortie rates go up meaning less maintenance per flight hour and thus lower CPFH.
Just to name one example. SwAFs mission in Libya had a budget below 200m SEK or <$30m. Within this budget they payed for everything from transport to mission support to housing with about 2000 flight hours or 650 Gripen sorties + AWACS. This means in war you get a CPFH of <$15’000 by the broadest measurement.
As a comparison, by the same standard of accounting the Danish contingent got about 599 sorties or 4800 flight hours at a cost of $110m with F16s. Included is also 923 JDAMS á 30’000$ (or lets inflate this number to $35k). This gives a flight hour cost of ($110’000’000-$32’000’000)/4800 = $16’000 in CPFH. Ofc I make a reservation that the JDAM cost can be a bit low or flight hours also are low but otoh AWACS isnt included.
It would be lovely to see similar figures for Rafale (maybe the numbers from Mali are constructed the same way?).
Tu22mIt certainly is. It would appear that the SH’s fuel burn is indeed higher than the Rafale. I would though be interested in seeing the methodology – the F-35’s figures are half than of the Rafale and the one for the F-16 less than JAS-39.
Also the overall figure for the USN is 40% lower than the Rafale while that for the RAAF is 40% higher. I think we need more data.
True, but the thing about debating stuff that is classified is that we only have limited information to go on.
We have fuel and we have USN vs RAAF one side and ALA on the other. When looking at size of the airforces we get that the RAAF already had old FA18s that shares ground and support equipment with Super Hornet while at the same time buying a matured system while the French operate 3 different types of Rafale on carriers and on land in a system that was new from the beginning.
In a fair comparison I think the RAAF numbers (maybe lowered a bit) are the most fair ones to compare with. If we take the average (USN/RAAF) we get 17700 which is still above Raffie.
Tu22mYou haven’t accounted for the sweep angle on their respective wings. Typical aircraft capable of higher AoA and having a lower stall speed, typically have a lower fuel burn in the low to mid subsonic regime.
For sources, that forum sent me to another forum (F-16.net) which did have any references to those figures.
I’d appreciate the numbers if you have them
Ok. Is Janes an acceptable source?
Most of the compiled numbers from the forum correlates very well with this (the overview).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition
Tu22mWhy 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.
No, 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. 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
Aircraft: F/A-18E / Rafale M
Internal fuel: 8,060 litres / 5,937 liters
Ferry range: 2,346 km / > 2,100 kmWith external fuel
Ferry range: 3,054 km (13’460L Super Hornet) / 3,704 km (12’537L Rafale)
So total drag of airframe is less for the Rafale, which is expected. We also see that fuel burn is much higher on Super Hornet on a typical cruise flight. (The difference will be greater at high speeds)
The installed thrust is also much greater on the FA18EF. But I usually prefer to look at weight since that usually gives the same result in the end.
Empty weight: 13,865~14,007 kg / 9,900~10,460 kg
FA18EF is about 35% heavier than Rafale with about 30% more installed thrust. Even this will have a toll on costs.
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.
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). Super Hornet is just bigger without any benifits.
EDIT: Sure, F15 isnt cleared for carrier usage but it would be a lot more interesting as a competitor.
Tu22mIs it? Have they submitted some estimate to the govt? I’d have thought it would have been a lot cheaper than the Rafale particularly over its entire lifecycle (including upgrade costs)
Flight 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.
Tu22mI really like the Grip (brillant tailored and affordable!!!!!!!). But Grip is short legged. What ever the Bae hysterics are putting frwd.
bro… Only the Rafale and the Flanker series have longer legs than Gripen E currently.
This is from MMRCA line-up
Ferry range: A 3,700+ km – B 3,790km – C 4,220km – D 3,054 km – E 4,075km – F 3,000km
Combat radius: A 1,800 km – B 1,390 km on air defence with 10-min loiter – C 550 km on a hi-lo-hi 722 km – D 722 km – E 1300 km with six AAMs 30 min loiter – F 1000 km
I’d say A is consistently a top performer followed by E with B as a close third. The A is Rafale, E is Gripen E, B is EF2000.
The competition is mostly about politics now anyways. The army and industry wanted Gripen, the govt wanted Rafale… and then swayed to Boeing (the worst option by all standards btw).
I still wonder why they would take the worst performer (FA18E/F) in all categories (incl boring stuff like range, speed etc) while being the most expensive kit in the competition. At least Rafale can offer a range advantage over the Gripen E, so the higher costs may not be an issue there, but Super Hornet… Does it offer any advantage over the Rafale?
Tu22mThe wing loading shows how hard the wing is working to lift a plane of a given weight.
A low W/S indicates a larger wing for a given weight.
i said it many times before turn radius of aircraft isnot only affected by wing loading it not that simple , if your logic was true then the B-17 , DC-3 , B-36 ,Avro Vulcan must all turn alot tighter than Eurofighter , su-30 , f-16 or f-22 . but no , they dont
Guys, thrust is just as important.
Higher wing loading = higher drag at turns => higher energy bleed at turning. With a more poweful engine this will be compensated. So when comparing jets, at least use ones that are fairly equal in T/W-ratio
Tu22mWow. That is *******ing expensive! $212m per UAV is more than the Rafale incl support equipment.
Sign In
