H_KLooking at lifecycle costs, even if the A400M’s unit price is increased by 25% to over $200MM, the C-17 will still cost 30% to 160% more all in:
C-17: $30-60k/hour
USAF: $30,100 per hour, including $250MM unit cost and 30,000 hours @ $21,800/hour
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/fal09/isherwood.html
NATO: $60,100 per hour, including acquisition, lifetime support & operation costs
http://www.nama.nato.int/FAQ.htm
RAF: $33,500 per hour, including leasing, manpower & fuel costs
http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-much-it-cost-to-operate-c-17-in.html
A-400M: $15-23k/hour
Original estimate: $14,900 per hour
Includes 100MM EUR unit cost and operating costs of 6,700 euros/hour (I’ve assumed a 30,000hr lifecycle)
http://www.eads.com/1024/fr/businet/airbus/airbus_military/a400m/cost_effectiveness.html
Revised estimate: $23,400 per hour
Includes $205MM unit cost (110MM EUR incl. spares& training, plus a 25% cost increase) and operating costs of 11,000 euros per hour
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/rap-info/i0666.asp
H_KVt = take off speed
V+ = take off speed + carrier speed (25 kts)
R = runway lengthMtow (Typhoon N) = 25500 kg
Vstall (Mtow) = 168 ktsR=150 m Vt=110 kts V+=135 kts
R=200 m Vt=126 kts V+=151 kts
R=250 m Vt=141 kts V+=166 kts
I don’t get the math. 135 kts << 168kts, so how could Typhoon take-off in 150m???
You also need to add at least 15 knots safety margin to Vstall, so that would implies that at MTOW V+ would have to be around 190kts.
H_KInteresting tidbit: the A400M’s first flight is on schedule compared to the C-17, and it should achieve tactical clearance on schedule compared to the C-130J. 😉
Start of Development to First Flight
C-130J: 4 years 4 months
C-17: 6 years 7 months
A400M: 6 years 7 months
Start of Development to Initial Operating Capability
C-130J: 8 years 6 months (June 2000 in RAF, with buggy Block 5.2 software & not ready for overseas deployment)
C-17: 9 years 11 months
A400M: 10 years 7 months (based on Dec 2009 first flight + 24 month testing schedule + 24 months for delivery of 1st production aircraft MSN007 & squadron level IOC)
Start of Development to Tactical Operating Capability
C-130J: 11 years 2 months (Feb 2003 in RAF, still without Block 5.4 software required for USAF acceptance, limited defensive aids and no airdropping capability)
C-17: 10 years 4 months
A400M: 11 years 3 months (based on Dec 2009 first flight + 12 months from SOC 1 to squadron level tactical clearance)
Edited to add squadron level operational clearances for A400M
H_KBuying C-17s instead of the A400M DOES NOT increase capability, unless you also buy C-130Js and KC-130Js at the same time. That’s because C-17s can’t do a number of crucial missions, including refueling, special forces missions, and many tactical operations.
So to replace the A400M you actually need a combo of C-17s, C-130Js and KC-130Js, in larger numbers to make up for the lack of flexibility. So even if the A400M ends up costing as much as the C-17, which is quite possible at this point (the dollar’s devaluation played a large part in this), buying the A400M should still make financial sense for most European countries, especially once you factor in its lower operating costs.
By the way, C-17 costs more like $250 million, if you average the costs of the past 26 aircraft ordered in FY 2008-2010.
H_KHere’s a sample of equipment in UK/French/German/Spanish service that the A400M can carry, but that the C-130J simply can’t:
– Most helos, including Super Puma, NH-90, AH-64, Tiger, and Lynx (~600 helos)
– All IFVs, including Warrior, Puma, Pizarro, Boxer, VBCI, FRES, VBR (~4,000 combat vehicles)
– Most engineering & logistics vehicles, including shelter carriers, bulldozers, cranes etc (thousands in service). These are often overlooked but are crucial for setting up bases and supporting artillery, signals and HQ units
In addition, many loads that “fit” in the C-130J cannot be carried over strategic distances, for example to the Middle East, Central Asia, and most of Africa. These include medium armored vehicles, MRAPs, and most artillery systems (MLRS, Caesar, MEADS, SAMP/T).
Finally, the C-130J flies 20% slower than the A400M. So to replace the equivalent of 20 A400Ms, you need (I’m guessing) 25 C-130Js + 5 C-17s, or 10 C-17s + 10 C-130Js, plus a lot more time on your hands.
H_KMistral is more a sea base than an assault platform. Long range at medium speed, a little bit of everything in terms of capabilities. Mistral even lacks the speed to be a good raider. What they do is to pack the assault – reenforce – sustain phases into one ship. Not really flexible, doesn’t scale, isn’t survivable (or very expensive).
A real assault platform would trade in range and endurance for dash speed, and would be optimized for one spasmic assault jump. The USMC’s EFV has the right idea (speed), enabling the compression of the 2D and 3D assault, minimizing the exposure of the ship to enemy counter measures.
With a ship like Mistral, and with those large and slow LCUs they use they are not capable of amphib assault in a non-cooperative environment. And in addition the French don’t have naval fire support platforms (but who has these days!).
Distiller, you’ve always been a bit harsh on the Mistral IMHO. 😉
First, speed is a non-issue, since Mistral’s speed is in line with amphibs in other navies, including the RN and RAN. Only the USN builds “fast” amphibs, and these only do 22 knots, so about 15% faster.
Speed of vectors is much more relevant, and Mistral will soon be operating LCATs (4 ordered so far), which are at least as good of a vector as LCM-1E or LCAC in terms of ship-to-shore throughput.
That leaves the Mistral’s internal arrangements, which AFAIK (according to some Aussie forumers) didn’t impress the RAN. The vehicle ramp in particular came under criticism as a potential bottleneck. I still don’t understand this. There is enough space in front of the dock to store each wave of vehicles while they wait for the landing craft to come back from the previous wave. So the ramp should be a non-issue.
The only alternative, putting the vehicle deck in front of the dock, would have led to a ridiculously small vehicle deck, as in the British Albion LPDs. This layout works for Juan Carlos/Canberra, but only because they are much longer.
So IMHO, Mistral doesn’t seem any less of an assault platform than other LPDs. As for flexibility, any LPD is inherrently more flexible than an LPH/LHA, so that’s hardly a fair criticism.:p
H_K€64 to 70 mn unit price (excluding development) is €53.5 to €58.5 mn excluding VAT – i.e. what the export price should be based on. There’s been a bit of inflation there – I’m sure it was a few million less a few years ago.
For fly-away costs, some better numbers from the same 2009 budget documents can be found here: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/budget/plf2009/b1198-a10.asp
Rafale C: €60.1MM incl. VAT –> €50MM excl. VAT
Rafale B: €64.4MM –> €54MM
Rafale M: €69.2MM –> €58MM
Comparing to 2001 prices (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/budget/plf2002/a3323-06.asp):
Rafale C: €44MM excl. VAT –> 1.7% cost inflation from 2001-2009
Rafale B: €46.6MM –> 1.8% inflation
Rafale M: €46.6MMx –> 1.3% inflation
H_KHmm I gathered a total programme cost of 31.9 bln € some years ago and now it’s up to 39.6 bln €, that’s ~20% more.
The 2 recent sources for Rafale costs I can find are:
DGA/Dassault (Jan 2009):
€33.273B @ 2003 prices including VAT, 4.18% over 1988 projections
–> €97MM per aircraft excluding VAT
http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/articles/communiques/Rafale-in-2008-January-27-2009.pdf
French Senat (Nov 2008):
€39.6B @ 2008 prices, 4.45% over 1997 projections
–> €116MM per aircraft excluding VAT
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-102-516.html
This implies 3.5% annual cost inflation from 2003-2008, which seems OK for the defence industry.
That said, DGA and Dassault are fudging the cost overrun numbers, since 8 aircraft were cut from the programme to fund the F3+ capabilities. So in fact, the cost overrun is more like ~7%, including new capabilities such as the AESA radar.
H_KAny source of those “bigger” gripens burnrates per weight?
It’s a universal law of aircraft design, that drag doesn’t increase linearly with aircraft weight. As a result, larger/heavier aircraft will have better payload/range performance than smaller aircraft, assuming a similar aerodynamic configuration. The rationale for this is that when you scale up an aircraft’s size, you can get a higher internal fuel fraction and/or less relative drag.
Some examples of this:
– A380 > B747
– Mirage IVA > Mirage III
– Gripen NG > Gripen A/C 😉
– Rafale with CFTs > Rafale
As you said, there’s no good range data on the Rafale. So I’ll compare Gripen NG & Typhoon instead:
Clean aircraft
Gripen NG: 2,500km range with 3.5T internal fuel, take-off weight 10.8T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 1.6 kg/km
Typhoon: 2,600km range with 5T internal fuel, take-off weight 16.2T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 2.15kg/km
So Typhoon’s take-off weight is 50% higher, but fuel consumption only 37% higher.
Ferry Configuration
Gripen NG: 4,000km range with 3.5T internal fuel + 3.6T in 3 drop tanks, take-off weight 15.3T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 1.95 kg/km
Typhoon: 3,700km range with 5T internal fuel + 2.4T in 3 drop danks, take-off weight 19.1T, assume 10% fuel reserve
–> 2.25kg/km
So Typhoon’s take-off weight is 25% higher, but fuel consumption only 15% higher.
IMHO, this is also generous, since a true apples-to-apples comparison should be a Typhoon/Rafale with CFTs (fuel fraction 0.39-0.4) vs. a Gripen NG (fuel fraction 0.32).
H_Kfrom ‘herman the german’ at mp
The “RAF test flying insider” who has flown the Mig-29 and all the US Teen Series fighters is Craig Penrice. You can find the relevant interview with him on the day 3 podcast, 15.40-end. The planes are mentioned at 18 min. Believe it or not.
That confirms the hatchet job then. Unattributed quotes from a long-time Typhoon test pilot and BAE employee, with no disclaimer about possible biases with the source – not very brave or ethical on Jon Lake’s part… :mad::mad:
The sad part is that is that some of their arguments are valid, but get drowned out by the garbage. Also, the video interview seemed a lot more nuanced, with Penrice basically waving the Typhoon flag and admitting he doesn’t know much about Rafale aside from sitting in the cockpit and being confused about the symbology.
H_KFor the sake of argument but not for the sake of importance i will respond to the “recessed” argument. Don’t let the frontal cross section of four AAM shadow frontal cross section of an entire aircraft, they make up a fraction, lets say 1/20, or 5%, so unless Rafale has a frontal cross section 95% that of Gripen will it add up to anything of significance. And most certainly not at cruise speed at high altitude where delta wings have their nest.
(…) And what does “aerodynamically constrained” (whatever that is) have to do with electronics ?
My understanding of aerodynamics is that frontal cross section isn’t what has the most impact on drag. It’s how airflow is disrupted along the aircraft body. Stores on underwing pylons disrupt airflow a lot more than wingtip or semi-recessed AAMs, and they can have nasty interaction effects, which is why multiple ejector racks are so draggy. One of the benefits of size is that you can layout your stores in a way that minimizes drag, for example on the F-15, Rafale and Typhoon.
So for Gripen, I’d be worried about the drag impact of the proposed double Meteor pylons as well as the interaction effects of the two underfuselage stores.
As far as electronics go, sorry for not making my point clear. It’s another version of the size argument: a smaller plane like the Gripen has to fit the same electronics and pilot in a shorter airframe package, leading to slightly more “boxy”, less streamlined aerodynamics, especially around the nose section. This should increase drag, but I admit I can’t prove it without a computer model – just visually, Gripen’s nose section and nose/wing joint area seem less streamligned to me.
Huh ? i wasn’t aware Rafale or Typhoon had CFT, how much fuel do they carry ?
Sorry, the CFTs aren’t operational today, but since neither is the Gripen NG, I thought it was fair to include them in the comparison. 😀 Mock-ups have been tested in flight (for the Rafale) or in wind tunnels (for the Typhoon).
– Rafale: 2,300L
– Typhoon: 3,000L
Nice to hear you’re interested in physics, explain to me how an aircraft with more mass need less force (fuel) to stay airborne ?
Sorry, another misunderstanding. Of course Gripen consumes less fuel than Rafale/Typhoon. But IMHO, proportionately to weight Gripen will consume more, so with an identical fuel fraction it won’t go as far. Once again, I can’t prove this except by pointing at the aerodynamic differences I’ve already noted (wing loading, stores location, nose section shape).
H_KI suggest you visit Strategypage :diablo:
I think you would enjoy the Rafale discussion there much more….
I hate StrategyPage. 😉
What I’m reacting to is the claims that suddenly the Gripen is now a match for fighters like the Rafale and Typhoon, which have several very obvious advantages related to their size, not least of which is their superior payload, higher T/W, CFT capability, and semi-recessed AAMs (the last of which is IMHO a very big deal).
Also consider the starting point: the Gripen A/C’s dynamic performance is said to be slightly inferior to an F-16. Now suddenly the Gripen NG, with 5% more weight and worse wing loading, but 20% more thrust is supposed to be competitive with the Rafale and Typhoon?
Plus consider the investments in electronics and stealth, which are an order of magnitude larger for Rafale & Typhoon than for Gripen.
What’s clear to me is that SAAB has done a fantastic marketing job. IMHO, they’ve got a bit of a Boeing/EADs syndrome going on, and are going to have a hard time delivering. Call me skeptical if you want to…
H_KThe fact that Jon Lake can write some factual articles about Rafale doesn’t change the fact that he also has a clear preference for Typhoon and a history of hatchet jobs when editors have let him get away with it.
It’s like Bill Sweetman’s well known bias against the F-35, WITH THE BIG DIFFERENCE that Bill Sweetman doesn’t do hatchet jobs and when he uses unverifiable sources the facts later prove him right.
Jon Lake is no Bill Sweetman, and IMHO his journalistic ethics whenever he weighs in on the Eurocanards are suspect. (He seems to be fine on other less contentious subjects though)
H_KWell, i can imagine that this (http://www.combataircraft.net/reports/rafale.php) will, well… “ignite” the discussion? :diablo:
So what did we just learn?
– That Jon Lake is still a Typhoon fanboy
– That Typhoon pilots prefer the Typhoon’s higher thrust and aren’t used to French symbology
– That Pete Collins isn’t as qualified as a current test pilot (which we already knew)
Bottom line: a fanboy journo selectively quoting from pilots of the Rafale’s number one competitor. Takes some valid points and turns it into a hatchet job. Are we surprised?
H_KDid you look at the EWS system the current Gripen got? The updated will be significantly better. There will also be IRST and optics sensors, improved MMI, etc.
RCS of Gripen A was 0.1m2 — Gripen C was lower than that, and NG will be even lower. How much lower? We don’t know.
What is the RCS of Rafale? We don’t know that one either…
AFAIK, the “IRST” is a simple laser designator. Will it be fully fused with the radar and EWS system and how much is that software development going to cost? (AFAIK, OSF and Pirate didn’t come cheap)
As for RCS, there are no shortcuts:
– Has SAAB been putting full-scale mock-ups of the Gripen through RCS testing like the French have?
– Has SAAB trialed saw-tooth edges?
– Where’s the additional RCS reduction in Gripen NG?
– How will Gripen have a lower RCS than Rafale/Typhoon without recessed AAMs and with an external IRST hanging from the fuselage, and with an airframe whose original design pre-dates stealth calculations?
Sign In
