Simdude:

Typhoon:
The NAO used to quote UPCs that were close enough to flyaway (though they always included elements that would have made it more accurate to describe them as Unit System Costs). Recently, though elements of fixed costs for all Typhoons (including Tranche 3) have been used by the NAO, while averaging them only across T1 and T2. This makes them of no value as a true unit (average) measure, and unsatisfactory as a production cost.

We do have accurate NAO UPC figures from before they changed the basis of calculation, however, and these are broadly comparable with UPCs charged by other companies.

That UPC went from £45 m for the more expensive Tranche 1 jets to £42 m for Tranche 2 – reflecting the obligation on EF GmbH to reduce the cost of aircraft in successive batches. That £42 m was close to the actual UPC, which was £37 m.

(The Tranche Two global contract was was “worth €13 Bn” for all 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s a publicly accessible contract document, and can be regarded as a reliable, and hard, unchangeable source. 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. That conversion factor can also be documented.

You’ll note the €55.08 m price, which is equivalent to the unit flyaway quoted to Austria of €61 m (and which is equivalent to €55.08 + the ‘export levy’, as required under the heads of agreement).

So we can say, without fear of sensible contradiction, that the Tranche 2 Typhoon UPC is €55.08 m – then equivalent to £37 m – and that the export price was about 10% more. All of the available official figures that are real UPCs are in the same close ballpark.

F-35, Joint Strike Fighter:

F-35 costs are rising all the time.

The F-35A’s unit costs may be reduced as a result of increased numbers (but so could Typhoon’s), though we can only calculate using today’s figures for BOTH aircraft types.

In any case, most serious analysts believe that the 1,763 aircraft total on which the costs are now calculated is optimistic, and that increased costs are likely to more than balance out any reduction in costs through increased numbers.

But for the JSF, we do know that in February 2008, the USAF itself calculated the unit flyaway costs of the F-35A as follows:

$83.131 m – average Programme flyaway
$199 million in 2009,
$158 million in 2010,
$124 million in 2011,
$101.726 m in FY2012 and
$91.223 m in FY2013, and
$79.973 m to completion.

Those are unit flyaway costs, not unit system costs and not unit programme costs.

And those figures are founded on the assumption that defence industry inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is MOST unlikely.

After widely reported and extensive cost increases and delays since February, Aviation Week claim to have more accurate, more recent figures.

“The price list used by lawmakers — with numbers supposedly coming from the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office — shows F-22s in the FY ’09 budget costing $143 million each. In 2010, the cost of 20 Raptors, funded in three increments, will cost $153 million, $163 million and $170 million – $178 million.

In comparison, 16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35A will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.”

But whether the F-35 average UPC is £83.131 m or $96.8 m, it’s clearly significantly more that the Tranche 2 Typhoon UPC of €55.08 m – £37 m, and is still RISING.

Jackonicko

Apples and Oranges.

The numbers you quoted for the F-35A/B/C are for “Program Cost” not “Fly Away”

Cheers

Nope, I don’t think so.

The quote reads:

“The price list used by lawmakers — with numbers supposedly coming from the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office — shows F-22s in the FY ’09 budget costing $143 million each. In 2010, the cost of 20 Raptors, funded in three increments, will cost $153 million, $163 million and $170 million – $178 million.

In comparison, 16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35A will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.”

The F-22 figures are plainly unit flyaway, so I’d suggest that the F-35 prices are likely to be, as well, though they represent a big increase over those in the Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book FY 2009 Budget Estimates.

But that was published in February, and it would be no surprise that Dave Fulghum has better, newer figures.

Norway is a fantastically wealthy nation. They can afford JSF at any price. If that was the only aircraft that would ‘do’ for them, they should have bought it, and not used Typhoon and Gripen as stalking horses, at massive cost to UK/German/Italian/Spanish/Swedish taxpayers.

There’s nothing wrong with the decision.

But the process is shameful!

I know that EF GmbH were expecting the Swiss to want to look at air-to-air use of Litening, and A-G use of Pirate, so I can’t believe that the French team weren’t expecting them to look at ‘non traditional’ use of their sensors.

Nor do I believe that the extra flights were to look at anything they didn’t look at on Gripen and won’t look at on Typhoon.

KF,

The nine extra flight detail was added to the thread to counter an over-colourful interpretation of a very minor Typhoon serviceability which led to one flight being delayed from one afternoon to the next morning.

If you’re going to read major implications into minor changes to Typhoon’s flying programme, it’s only fair to acknowledge that Rafale’s flying programme has also been subject to last minute change.

As I’ve said before, it may be nothing, or it may be indicative of real but relatively trivial problems. It may even be a good sign. It’s unlikely to mark a show-stopping problem.

We’ll find out the reasons soon enough, I believe.

Rob L,

Only in the narrow field of exports could you rate Rafale as a failure – and it really is too early to tell. A win in India alone would put Rafale exports ahead of those of the Typhoon, and it’s by no means impossible that Rafale could be on the cusp of getting a 33 aircraft order in Switzerland.

I have some sympathy with the view that Rafale’s failure to win a single export order (after the success of the Mirage 2000, F1 and III/5/50) is shocking, but then Typhoon has not repeated the export success of Canberra, Hunter, Lightning, Strikemaster, Jaguar (with its largely BAE driven exports), or even Tornado. Times have changed.

And would anyone be terribly impressed had Dassault managed to offload a handful of aircraft in Libya or Morocco? Those sorts of nation are the next best thing to a captive market for France – in just the same way that Oman used to be for the UK.

Let’s not be suckered into following a Xenophobic, ‘aircraft X is superior in every way’, “superior by design” line of idiocy. Instead let’s be scrupulously fair – Typhoon will still look pretty good by comparison, if that’s important to you.

And in fairness, you’d surely have to acknowledge that (in difficult post Cold War times) Dassault have succeeded in supplying exactly what the French forces needed.

Nic,

“Praising the Rafale here and there and blaming the Typhoon here and there doesn’t change the fact that I react on particular points and arguments, and not on your “oeuvre” as a whole.”

It does, however, tend to contradict the accusation that I’m some kind of biased fanboy, and I’d suggest that I’m more inclined to praise Rafale than many of the French fanboys are to praise Typhoon……

Rob L kindly allowed that I have “in the past repeatedly praised Rafale.” Like him, I have “never really heard much positive from a Frenchman about Typhoon”, so any attacks on my credibility on the grounds of ‘bias’ and fanboyism are, frankly, pretty silly and very hypocritical.

Fonk/LardAss/Globalponce are beyond help, so it’s up to people like you to help foster a more sensible and balanced debate, with a more realistic appreciation of the weaknesses of your own country’s aircraft, and of the strengths of your competitors.

Nic,

1) Sorry, the picture and the phrase are a catchphrase from the ancient BBC TV series ‘Dad’s Army’ – a comedy about the Home Guard in WWII. I know that it is watched worldwide, and has been translated into goodness knows how many languages. Ask any Brit whether being compared to Private Pike is a deadly insult, or a really very fond and friendly and jokey expression of minor annoyance. Private Pike was always being dismissed as a ‘stupid boy’ by the show’s most obnoxious, pompous and overblown character. So by inferring that you’re Private Pike, I’m leaving it open for you to call me Captain Mainwaring – and that would not be a kind thing for you to do!

2) You say: “The result so far is a plane that the AdlA and the MN are delighted with, and which has saved lives in Afghanistan.” At last, something that you and I can agree with! I would invite you to look how many times I have praised Rafale on exactly those grounds. NOTHING is better suited to narrow French requirements than Rafale, because no compromises have been allowed to get in the way of the aircraft meeting AdlA and MN requirements TO THE LETTER. That sounds a bit lukewarm, and might sound as though I think that it’s not exportable, and will continue to be a failure in the export market. That’s not what I think. I’m convinced that for the air force who need deep strike and precision stand off capabilities, but whose AD requirements are less stringent, Rafale marks a better choice, at the moment, than Typhoon. It’s certainly not been an abject failure for the French taxpayer, nor for the French military, nor for Dassault, one hopes. I admire the French achievement in creating Rafale (against pretty big odds) in just the way that I admire the Swedish achievement that is Gripen – another aircraft that I have a real soft spot for. But I do not think that Rafale is the world-beating ‘best thing since sliced bread’ that some of the more rabid fanboys claim.

And I’d invite you to look at how many times this supposed Typhoon fan boy has criticised the Typhoon programme for the frequent delays, the mismanagement, the screwed up export campaigns, and most recently, the slow pace of austere A-G integration and the incomprehensible failure to ‘do a Rafale’ and send a handful to Afghanistan.

Absolutely right.