JackonickoWhat counts is the fly away price and it is certainly cheaper than the typhoon by a good margin.
And the evidence for that statement is where, exactly?
JackonickoOriginally Posted by Jackonicko
That would give a Unit Programme Cost of €136.446 m (cheaper than the €148.187 for the Rafale).I just corrected that for you.
The point is that Rafale is more expensive than Typhoon, and not, as we’d always been led to believe, cheaper.
It’s only €12 m per aircraft (just less than 10%), and if I were French, I’d be sanguine that my Government had bought an aircraft better suited to French needs, and had managed a complex programme better, resulting in the earlier delivery of important capabilities.
The disparity in unit production prices is bigger (closer to 20%), and it’s that that makes Dassault’s ability to be L1 in India the more interesting, and it’s that that makes people suspect subsidy or dumping.
Jackonickoc-seven beats me to it.
94m€ excluding VAT for the 1st tranche.
Get your facts straight Mr. Lake, or ruin what’s left of your credibility as a defense journalist.
Breguet and C-Seven,
Firstly, I’m not Mr Lake.
Secondly, TMor, on his website, has published comprehensive information about rising Rafale cost estimates.
http://rafale.freeforums.org/a-topic-about-programme-costs-t7.html
2010 updates :
See next message.
Total programme cost (Cour des Comptes includes the industrial part usually) : €40.69Bn.
Unit production cost : €101.1M (this is not the unit “flyaway” cost)2011 updates :
See here.
Total programme cost to State : €43.567Bn
This figure is nearly the same as the previous, the differences being 2011 costs actualisation (inflation), and this time, the industrial participation (25 % of the R&D).
Note his unit production cost of €101.1 million.
2010 update :
Good news : the “Cour des Comptes” (the French NAO) published its latest analysis. Unfortunately they still lack the details.
http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/ … mement.pdfQuote:
Quantité initiale : 320
Quantité actuelle : 286Coût initial : 39,073 M€
Coût actuel : 40,690 M€PU initial : 122,1 M€
PU actuel : 142,3 M€
augmentation en % du PU : 16,5%
I’m grateful for your input, though, as I notice that the total programme cost includes only 25% of the R&D, and not all of it, unlike the UK Typhoon figure.
The true total programme cost is therefore more than €40.6 Bn.
It’s more, even, than €43.567 Bn – a figure which already makes the unit programme cost €148.187 (for 294 aircraft). That’s already a bit more than the €142.3 m quoted by the magazine.
JackonickoNo
Acording to the latest NAO report the Typhoon overall costs for the 160 aircraft are GBP 18.159 billion.
The GBP 20.2 billion was taken from the NAO “Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2010”, that amount was reduced to GBP 18.159 billion, this number his present on the NAO “Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2011”, more precisely on the “Volume II: Appendices and project summary sheets”, page 188.
Cheers
That would give a Unit Programme Cost of £113.49 m (cheaper than €142 m for the Rafale).
Except that it’s still for 232 aircraft, as it includes the costs of the 72 Saudi aircraft, but not the receipts for their sale.
That gives a Unit Programme Cost of £78.27 m…….
JackonickoAccording to the NAO report ….
Typhoon overall costs for the 160 aircraft are GBP 20.2 billion as per the NAO report.”
No. The £20.2 Bn figure is UK total programme cost, and includes the 72 Saudi aircraft. It therefore needs to be divided by 232, and not by 160, even though the RAF is receiving only 160 aircraft.
If you want to divide by 160, then you need to take account of the receipts for the 72 Saudi aircraft (estimated at £4-5 Bn for the aircraft purchase price).
Because the NAO report figure includes the cost of the Saudi aircraft, but not the earnings from them, it is flawed.
The figure requires ‘massaging’ for Saudi costs because otherwise it is inaccurate. If you have a cost for 232 aircraft, then you need to divide that cost by 232. This is not rocket science.
And if you want the most accurate unit production cost for Typhoon then look no further than the Tranche Two global production contract, which was was “worth €13 Bn” for all 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each.
On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m.
JackonickoWhen France orders Rafales, its cost is 52,5 m€ for a F3C version, VAT not included. As simple as that. Anyone can check.
Because the French state has already paid the R&D, the stocks of spare, the simulators, etc, etc.
So every € above those 52.5m are extra costs or bonuses even though it’s normal that export of today help to pay the R&D of tomorow.
That’s always the confusion between program costs and fly away costs, it could be understable with the Canard who jump to quickly on a subject they don’t master but comming from Jackonimo or anything related with Eurofighter it smells the BS.
Anyway Dassault is a private company and everybody know well that the Dassault familly are that kind of people who love to lose money on deals…
BS!
Next story?
VAT is included in both Rafale and Typhoon costs quoted by me.
The figure you quote is, in any case, out of date.
I say again, for the purposes of clarity:
Rafale Unit Programme cost is €142 m.
Rafale Unit Production cost is €101 m.
Typhoon Unit programme cost is £99.14 m. That’s working on the latest NAO figures, and takes account of Saudi costs.
Typhoon Unit production cost is £70 m.
Anything else is nonsense!
JackonickoHallowene,
So do UK figures, which also include capital costs and which are calculated on a RAB basis, which further inflates them.
Sergebloss,
It’s a bit much to blame the perfidious English for a French newspaper questioning the practices of a French company.
Ero Senin,
We don’t know that Rafale is 20% cheaper than Typhoon in India. There have been unofficial estimates, and these have varied from 10-25%. Official figures haven’t been released, and there’s still scope for lower bids from both contenders.
Eagle 1,
With respect, I’d believe the Assemblee Nationale and Cour des Comptes before what a ‘senior Dassault executive’ told you.
Tom Burbage still insists that F-35 costs $60 m…..
And the Rafale’s unit production cost is €101 m.
Snafu 352,
I’m reporting what a French magazine has written. I’m able to do so, because a French chum e-mailed me about it. Unless you claim that there has been no such article, then my French sources are spot on, and you owe me an apology.
Glitter,
Typhoon’s unit programme cost is easy to calculate. Total programme costs for the UK are just over £22 Bn (call it £23 Bn, if you like, to be generous to you). That includes all of the development and production costs for the 72 Saudi aircraft. £23 Bn divided by 232 is £99.14 m. That’s €119.59 m – or €23 m cheaper, per aircraft than Rafale on a programme cost basis.
The unit production price of Rafale is higher, too – €101 m versus about £60 m.
J-20 hotdog,
Thanks for your input. It’s exactly what I’d expect from you.
Danell,
I’m neither desperate, nor a lobbyist. Anyone interested in this saga will be interested in the twists and turns, and the pros and cons of both contenders. Dyed in the wool Rafale fanboys may prefer to put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything that might be construed as bad news. That’s their choice.
JackonickoNirav,
Competition rules don’t allow dumping or illegal subsidies, or selling below cost price.
AlphaZulu,
That would certainly account for some of the difference, but not, I think, €20 m per jet. Though Indian labour costs are lower than French, the cost of simply setting up the Indian line will take much (maybe even all) of the saving.
Snafu,
Ooh Goody! No, not from the loathsome Daily Mail. Not the Torygraph. But from ‘My French sources’ – which is why, I suspect, the English isn’t quite there!
JackonickoWhat part would Reliance play?
JackonickoNick,
The report was written in 2008-2009.
The competing aircraft have moved on since then.
Swiss requirements may have moved on since then.
The NFA Requirement against which the aircraft were evaluated represented the Swiss dream sheet, their actual requirement may have been more modest. Not meeting it may not be a deal breaker – it clearly wasn’t for the MET of data dissemination, where all three aircraft failed to meet the minimum required capability.
And much as you Rafale fans don’t want to hear it, affordability was of pivotal importance, and the Rafale was deemed unaffordable.
JackonickoPointing out that Rafale fans are noted for moaning and whining about competitions that didn’t go Rafale’s way, and for labelling such decisions as unfair is fair comment, surely?
And it’s not bashing Rafale, which you accused me of ‘needing to bash every day’.
I still haven’t bashed Rafale on this thread – quite the reverse.
The Swiss have selected a great fighter, which meets their needs well, and which is affordable, which neither Rafale nor Typhoon would have been. The selection process seems to have come up with the right result. That’s the real issue.
It’s time for some to move on and stop whining, I suggest.
JackonickoSekant,
I didn’t call you a fool, my dear chap!
I’m sure that you wouldn’t claim that Gripen can’t actually perform the tasks that the Swiss Air Force needs to undertake, even though you may believe that it doesn’t technically meet the Requirement.
Nor have I ‘bashed’ Rafale on this thread.
Unless suggesting that Rafale (just like Typhoon) may not have been affordable to the Swiss counts as bashing the Rafale?
JackonickoGripen is hardly a Twingo, and only a fool would suggest that Gripen NG won’t fulfil the actual Swiss requirement pretty well.
Not as well as Rafale. Not as well as Typhoon. Perhaps even failing to meet some of what were stated as METs.
But well enough, and affordably, which Rafale clearly could not.
Jackonicko@Not Cool 12F,
The report wasn’t too long for me, thanks, and I’d suggest that you should at least try to remain polite and courteous.
Indeed, had you bothered to read what I wrote, I said explicitly that the report “included a second phase that aimed to assess the aircraft as they will be in 2015.”
But as I also pointed out, “that evaluation was conducted in 2009” and the Swiss assessment of the likely standard of aircraft to be delivered in 2015 may have changed – it certainly should have done.
The likely standard of a 2015 Typhoon as seen in 2009 was quite different from the likely standard of a 2015 Typhoon seen in late 2011, for example, and the same is true for the Gripen.
Indeed, in Typhoon’s case, it has only been in the last 12 months that the ambitious plans for an AESA have really become credible, and any evaluation before that would rightly have assessed the AESA radar programme as coming with a very high level of (political rather than technical) risk.
Things can change very rapidly in this game. As soon as a contract is inked by India (or the UAE), the more ambitious elements of a Rafale upgrade will become much more credible overnight, and that will, of course, influence other customers overnight. Such changes in customer perception can be huge and seismic, as above, or more subtle. The shock revelation that Saudi Tranche 2 Typhoons are already flying A-G missions in advance of P1EA affects perceptions more subtly, but is still important.
@ Sekant,
Maurer didn’t need to read the whole report, he has people telling him what it contained (and what it didn’t).
Switzerland’s requirement (as opposed to the formal NFA Requirement) is for an aircraft that meets military, economic and political needs.
If Rafale and Typhoon are judged unaffordable, then Gripen has to win, by default.
And Gripen NG in 2012 looks a lot more compelling than it did in 2008-9, in my view, and our view of what it will be in 2015 has also shifted.
JackonickoBudgetary and political requirements are always vital. Industrial requirements are often important.
Dassault and Eurofighter failed to meet these requirements while Saab did, and their aircraft was chosen as a result.
In Switzerland, the technical report was only ever going to account for 60% of the score.
And yes Maurer stated late last year that “all three contenders meet the requirements.” That report said, TWO YEARS EARLIER that the Gripen did not THEN meet the requirements. The Swiss have had another look, have obviously reassessed the importance of price, and may or may not have reassessed Gripen’s capabilities. Whatever the case, Gripen obviously does meet the requirement now!
Crying about how ‘unfair’ you think the result of a competition was may fit the pattern for Rafale fans but it is not going to change anything.
If you want to be successful, you have to meet a user’s actual technical/military requirements (which may be less rigorous than the ambitious targets outlined in the RFP!), but you also have to meet any and all economic and political requirements.
It’s no use having the best fighter in the world if your bid is commercially unworkable.
It’s no use having the cheapest fighter in the business if it doesn’t meet requirements.
It’s no use in being able to offer the best industrials and offsets in the world if your aircraft doesn’t cut it.
It’s no use in promising the best fighter in the world some years down the line unless your plans for getting to that point are set in stone, guaranteed and 100% credible.
Sign In
