The idea that the supposedly short life of T1 aircraft makes the Typhoon price invalid is simply infantile and stupid.

I’m not remotely surprised to see it aired by the usual brigade of Rafale fanboys.

Suggestions of a premature retirement of Tranche 1 aircraft (and they are, as yet, suggestions rather than firm plans) are based on political and not military considerations. Certain air forces felt the need to emphasise the obsolescence of Tranche 1 out of fear that they would otherwise not receive Tranche 3 aircraft.

In fact, Tranche 1 jets are far from obsolete, and far from austere (indeed with SRP 4.2, then 4.3, and subsequent software drops) they are the most capable aircraft in the global Eurofighter fleet, and will remain so until P1E comes in on the Tranche 2 aircraft. Even then, there are plans to ‘port’ most P1E features to Tranche 1 via a further ‘drop’.

In any case, the supposed obsolescence centres around the processors, which can easily and cheaply be replaced, and a Tranche 1 > Tranche 2 conversion is possible, practical, and has been undertaken on a number of aircraft in the test fleet, and was planned (free of charge) for Austria when Austria was due to take a mix of T1 and T2 jets.

(Indeed the T1 to T2 conversion is a great deal more practical and viable than a Rafale F1 upgrade, as the Aéronavale is finding out).

The idea that T1 jets are going to be thrown away in 2018 because they are no longer fit for purpose is, frankly, risible and beneath contempt. The fact is (and the RAF do not want to hear this, fearful that their tiny T3 allocation will vanish) that the Tranche 1 jets remain fully viable, and upgrading them would be a cost effective solution.

As to air-to-ground, it’s simple, though some of you knuckleheads seem incapable of grasping it.

1) It is entirely normal and routine for aircraft to enter service with only a portion of their planned capabilities, and indeed operating in only one of their planned roles. Look at the F1 Rafale Ms. Look at the later introduction of LGBs on AdlA Rafales.
2) It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.

The reason that Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA is that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

I don’t think you’re an Anglophobe, MilDave/Fonk. I think that you’re either a troll (or possibly a half wit). The reason that I think that you’re a troll, MilDave, is that you take any source that is positive about Rafale, or negative about Typhoon, and believe it absolutely and uncritically, you fail to engage your critical faculties, and you dismiss out of hand any evidence of Rafale weaknesses or Typhoon strengths, and there are plenty of both.

You are also incapable of understanding that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and via clarifications obtained via FOIA and other mechanisms. It’s not a matter of ‘twisting’, it’s a matter of explaining and putting in context – as TMor has endeavoured to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures emanating from different sources when it comes to Rafale pricing.

http://news.in.msn.com/exclusives/it/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5857223

Rafale deal flies into rough weather

Two Defence Ministry officials have raised heckles in the path of India’s biggest ever defence deal.

The mother of India’s defence deals, the Rs.62,000-crore contract for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) Rafale won by the French company Dassault, may become a bag of woes for the government.

Rafale bagged the deal because it was declared as the lowest bidder after the evaluation of the commercial bids of all the participating companies.

But highly placed sources said two senior officials of the defence ministry have questioned the methods adopted by the contract negotiation committee which concluded that Rafale was the lowest bidder.

The two officials – additional financial advisor and a joint secretary in the ministry Prem Kumar Kataria, and finance manager (air) R.K. Arora – are members of the negotiation committee that comprises senior ministry officials and Indian Air Force (IAF) officers.

The two officials noted that certain assumptions had been made about Rafale’s bid to declare it as the lowest bidder, but no one had validated it. The officials initially refused to sign the minutes of the committee. They later signed after making their reservations known. They put written notes on the file on January 24, according to officials privy to the negotiations.

Sources say Defence Minister A.K. Antony wants to steer clear of any controversy and has instructed that the committee should settle the issue internally.

The ministry officials are particularly cagey in the wake of corruption scandals. “We don’t want the ghost of Bofors to haunt us, so we want to make sure that all procedures are strictly followed,” an official said on condition of anonymity.

The process to acquire MMRCA was set in motion in 2001, when the IAF sent out its request for 126 jets. The defence ministry announced a formal request for proposal in 2007.

First, the submitted proposals were technically evaluated to check for compliance with IAF’s operational requirements. Then extensive field trials were conducted. Finally, the shortlisted vendors’ commercial proposals were examined and compared.

According to sources, while evaluating the commercial bids, a new system was followed that not only took into account the unit prices but also calculated the ‘life cycle costs’ – which takes into account the cost of maintenance and spares for the period, estimated at 40 years, the aircraft would remain operational. The sources said the whole formula was based on certain assumptions, which have now been questioned.

The contract negotiation committee’s report goes to the defence minister, who forwards it to the finance minister. Since the finance ministry will evaluate the MoD’s recommendation, the objections made on the file could create a problem. The government, already facing a lot of heat over several corruption scandals, will not like to be questioned over the biggest defence purchase.

However, these are early days and the signing of the contract is still a long way, as the defence minister said on Friday.

Antony said: “It will have to pass through scrutiny in eight stages. After the negotiation committee, it will come to the ministry where there will be at least four stages of scrutiny by defence finance. Then it will go to independent monitors appointed by the CVC and then to the National Security Council secretariat and the finance ministry.”

He also ruled out a review of the deal, as urged by the British PM.

I wonder what these assumptions were?

I wonder whether the cost of local manufacture, using Reliance rather than HAL as local Prime, was perhaps deemed too optimistic by the two officials?

Worth noting, however, that the rest of the committee signed without a murmur, and clearly accepted that Rafale was “the lowest bidder after the evaluation of the commercial bids of all the participating companies.”

The €55m/£37m Typhoon UPC was the cost actually paid, including VAT, and averaged single- and two-seat prices.

The Rafale UPCs you chaps quote were estimates, for the cheapest variant only, and they increased over time.

In 2007:
€52.8 Millions Euros for a Rafale C (44.1 without VAT)
€56.6M for a Rafale B (47.3 without VAT)
€60.8 M for the M (50.8 without VAT)

In 2008:
Unit cost (without R&D) between €64 and €70M.

In 2010:
€101 m.

Ah I see.

You don’t know exactly what is encompassed in those reports and if the figures quoted are comparable but you draw simple minded conclusion with no serious methodology. You would ask E&Y, PwC, KPMG or Deloitte to check the actual costs I would care but certainly not your beginner accountant work.

You might want to look knowledgeable but you simply have no clues of what you are truly comparing.

Eagle,

I’m using real figures. In the case of the Typhoon prices I’ve talked about those figures with people in the NAO and MoD and I’ve had FOI requests answered.

The global Tranche 2 production contract is unarguable – and gives a UPC of €55 m per aircraft (£37 m). But I’ve also given you the more recent, higher NAO cost figures as well, and even with those figures, Typhoon is cheaper than Rafale.

It’s no coincidence that the price appeared to jump when RAB was adopted, and then again when the total programme figure was divided by 160 aircraft instead of 232.

That’s not ‘beginner accountant work’, but even if it was, it would be better than nationalistic prejudice and pure bloody guesswork.

So what were the final bid prices in Switzerland and India, Eagle. I’ve missed them?

(In any event, the point is that the home nation price of Rafale is more expensive, the whole point of this thread is that the more expensive aircraft seems to have been able to underbid the notionally cheaper.

Snafu,

I can and do cut and paste with the best of them.

But even if I was Mr Lake, that would be irrelevant. People need to answer my points, not argue about whether I’m Lord Lucan, Red Rum, Shergar or whoever

You are right to a certain extent:

The cost to the British government for the 160 aircraft they will receive is between 18.2 to 20.2 billion GBP.

Or a bit higher, I suspect.

However, that cost INCLUDES the entire production cost of the Saudi aircraft, and does not include the billions of pounds received for those aircraft.

Moreover, NAO reports are now compiled using RAB methodology, which inflates them in a way that I believe French Cour des Comptes and Assemblee Nationale figures are not.

I initially used a total programme cost of £23 Bn as that rounded up the £22 point something figure that was foremost in my mind.

C-Seven

The £37 Bn includes through life support costs – eg maintenance.
The programme cost element is currently at £20.2 Bn.

Both costs include the production costs of Saudi Typhoons, neither include the receipts from their sale.

Both costs include VAT, where levied.

Both costs include the cost of capital and are calculated on a Resource Accounting basis.

It remains the case that Typhoon is cheaper than Rafale.

This is why people are asking how Rafale could have made a lower bid in India.

There are a number of explanations, including illegal subsidies. My own favoured explanation is that Dassault (desperate for a first export sale) made a very, very good bid (and we’ll wait to see if their numbers stack up) and that Eurofighter were complacent and greedy.

(hmmm. And I’m supposed to be a fanboy and a lobbyist, am I? The day any of my critics are as critical of Rafale as I am of Typhoon, I’ll listen to them….)

Mildave,

Your post is riddled with factual errors. In particular you wrongly conflate CP193 and CP210.

Eurofighter always planned to incorporate air-to-ground capabilities (which were an inherent part of the UK requirement) in the ‘2012 timeframe’, but decided to concentrate on achieving FOC (Full Operational Capability) the air-to-air role first.

Hence EOC.

The idea that the decision to make Typhoon multi-role was taken at some later stage in the programme is simply, factually incorrect.

It’s not correct to say that “It’s mostly under export pressure that they decided quite late in the program to go multi-role.”

That decision was taken when the programme was launched and the only late decision made was the UK decision to bring forward an A-G capability under CP193, because it did not want to wait for EOC/P1E.

The austere A-G capability gives an ‘austere’ integration of Litening 3. It is austere in that it gives a more constrained airframe mask, and originally lacked a multiple target engagement capability. It was no more austere than the initial Damocles/LGB integration on Rafale.

The failure to deploy to Afghanistan was primarily dictated by the lack of aircraft and crews – we did not have sufficient to maintain UK AD, Falklands AD and QRA tasks. The decision to integrate EPW 2 rather than PW 4 was also significant, since PW 4 became part of the Afghan ‘theatre entry standard’.

You say that “Tranche 1 cannot be upgraded to Tranche 2 due to physical differences”. This has been said before, and it is the current position of the UK RAF, though inconveniently, it’s a load of ********. A number of test aircraft have been upgraded, and when Austria was going to acquire a mix of aircraft from T1 and T2 a T1>T2 upgrade was going to be provided at EADS’ cost. It was modest and cheap enough for this to be possible.

This is Typhoon’s dirty little secret, and it’s a secret that four air forces don’t want exposing, since to do so would threaten procurement of Tranche 3. (“Our T1 aircraft are obsolescent and can’t be upgraded” has been an argument we’ve heard a lot. It’s a pack of lies!)

P1E (CP210) does NOT refer to the Austere A-G capability (CP193) in ‘both tranches’ – or indeed at all.

P1E is an upgrade for Tranche 2 – some elements will be ported to Tranche 1. It goes way beyond what CP193 provided, and includes DASS, MIDS, MMI, DVI, comms, IFF, GPS, and other enhancements, including a full digital integration of IRIS T for example. It is the enabler for subsequent weapons integrations too, from an MMI/software point of view.

Interestingly, the UK government has finally announced that it will fund further weapons integrations on Typhoon – including Brimstone and Storm Shadow. Too late to sway the Indians, and meaningless until the other partner nations do the same, but moderately good news for the programme.

It’s also incorrect to say that the blocks refer to software upgrades – they don’t, they are production standards. In Tranche 1 you have Block 2A, Block 2B and Block 5. In Tranche 2 you have Block 8 and Block 9.

All Tranche 1 aircraft are being upgraded to Block 5 standards under the R1 and R2 programme.

Software is quite different. Tranche 1 went from SRP 4.1 to 4.2 (UK only, austere air to ground), then to 4.3, and then, post MDC, to an improved standard via what are so far planned as four ‘drops’. We’re now on drop 1/2.

Tranche 2 are on SRP 5.1 and will go to SRP 10 and then SRP 12 with P1EA and P1EB.