Snow Monkeyalso M2K’s upgrade cost was a massive miscalculation by Dassault and doesn’t bode well for Rafale’s lifecycle cost in their L1 bid.
Again, was the price of this known when the Dassault bid was put in? I can see the problem being that when the Dassault bid is evaluated the assessors raise the lifetime costs from those Dassault estimates presented in view of the M2K update cost.
I can see that it is popular to extrapolate past histories of companies to apply to current tenders, and that`s fine enough in enthusiast forums, but I`m not aware of any evidence suggesting such an approach would be used by IAF… I expect them to use current verifiable servicing costs of the platforms in question – Rafale in France, Typhoon in UK/Germany/Saudi Arabia/etc. Otherwise… If M2K service costs are used as a basis, are Panavia Tornado service costs likewise being used?
Further, I don`t see why M2K `upgrade costs` would have anything to do with this… How does IAF know exactly what upgrade they would spring for? They aren`t contracting for an upgrade right now. If upgrade costs were included somehow (???), I would say that Rafale being compatable with the Snecma-Kaveri engine that is ALREADY FUNDED is a big up for it vs. Eurofighter with no engine upgrade in sight, and partners who do not exhibit evidence of enthusiasm for such projects.
I don`t see what is this basis for `M2K upgrade cost was big miscalculation`… Upgrades of MMRCA aren`t being looked at, servicing costs and upfront costs are. Even if MMRCA upgrade bids are included (that would be a surprise), why use M2K upgrade costs instead of a new bid for Rafale? Why not Mirage F1 upgrades, e.g. as to Morocco? What equivalent is being used here for Eurofighter – Panavia Tornado? We do know that Dassault extended negotiations on M2K in order to clarify synergies with MMRCA… Since they weren`t in a competive situation with M2K upgrade and they are with MMRCA it seems reasonable to believe that they can transfer the cost benefit of the synergies to the MMRCA bid.
Snow MonkeyRight… Besides that planes like Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-30 MKI/35 are typically classed as `4.5` gen, as opposed to 4th gen planes like early Su-27s and F-16`s, there is also the fact that Russian designers have often tended to speak of UNTREATED RCS without RAM or other measures, which is reasonable since aerodynamicists will focus on the direct outcome of their own work, even if other specialists improve upon the base they create. 10m2 seems a reasonable ballpark figure for Su-27 with no RAM or other RCS measures accounted for, and that would be the standard Russian 4th gen platform to use for a comparison with PAK-FA.
Snow MonkeyWith all due respect, from what we’ve seen of Dassault, they’re the least likely of any company to reduce prices. They’ve even refused to participate in tenders if they believed that they didn’t stand a chance of making profit in the short run itself. EADS hasn’t been so picky. Remember, most OEMs make more through long term spares and maintenance support than they do with up front equipment sales.
Sure, and life-time support costs are included in the price comparison… I`m not saying Rafale would not discount their price if they felt they could get away with it – they would be legally liable to their shareholders if in fact they gave away profit margin for no justifiable reason… I`m just saying that there is no actual reason that Rafale cannot discount just as much as Eurofighter… All things said, with what seem like lower support costs, I expect Rafale WILL aim for a higher profit margin, but with enough margin that they can expect to still undercut Eurofighter.
India has the right to include weapon costs alongwith the overall costs of acquiring the MRCA. I mean, if the Typhoon is already integrated with cheaper weapons (say AMRAAM, ASRAAM) as compared to the Rafale with the MICA, and hence if the overall cost of buying a certain number of missiles and bombs is less then it should be taken into account..after all, the IAF has to pay for that…. say MBDA offers the Brimstone for the Rafale as well then it would need to include the costs of integrating it with the Rafale unless they offer to do it free of cost.
You argue that they may be re-equipped with new weapons after 20 years, so costs of integration and purchase don’t make sense- I agree, but that is after 20 years of service. the cost of the weapons (already on offer from MBDA) that will equip the MRCA for the first 20 years of service obviously have to be accounted for to arrive at the cheapest contender. At this stage, the IAF will feel that both the jets will meet its requirements adequately. Whether a Storm Shadow or a Scalp is available to it will be less important than the costs associated with either one- the costlier one will be more difficult to order in large numbers.
I mostly agree… But the point is that if X weapon fulfills IAF requirements and is cheapest, IAF will/should procure (and integrate if necessary) that weapon regardless of platform… So the only difference they should look at is integration costs…. They may decide to procure another weapon for a different platform if the difference in total costs is equal or less than the integration costs: but again, integration costs are the determinant there. So if weapon costs themselves are removed from the equation (because they are equal if you assume no cost difference will exceed integration costs), only the integration costs remain as `upfront` price differentiators between the platforms: that`s good, and removes nonsense about planning for 40 year sustainment of munitions that wont be sustained that long.
Snow Monkeybut the Typhoon can pull it back on the warranty, royalties and ToT costs as well as Initial training costs
yeah, if you assume Eurofighter is willing to make no profit on that stuff, but Rafale would insist on making a profit in those areas… Rafale is just as capable of making no profit on that stuff as is Eurofighter. Of course, if they think they are so far ahead, they may think they can make a bit more profit, but there is no real difference to Eurofighter in that area.
including weapons in operating costs just seems a bit questionable to me…
beyond that either jet can use any weapon if integrated, and integration costs are just negligible when you look at 180-ish jets x 40 years… if you assume Rafale uses MICA in addition to Meteor, would you really count using MICA and re-equipping it when it´s lifetime expires OVER 40 YEARS TIME? That´s absurd, obviously a new (but currently unknown) WVR missile would be integrated at some point within 40 years… and that is true for both platforms. Further, MICA can suffice as BVR armament… of course, that´s silly when Meteor is available, but on a purely COST basis that should be viable… even though on an operational basis, IAF would never go that way (passing on Meteor).
If you accept that IAF would use either platform in a a similar manner (that is the basic concept behind the competition), they would presumably use identical weapons regardless of the platform… In which case, the maximum cost difference should only be the cost of integration, since IAF should logically procure the same (cheapest for capacity) weapons REGARDLESS of which platform they choose… But unless IAF already knows what weapons it is going to use (I haven´t seen any sign of that being officially decided), they don´t even know what weapons set to base their appraisal of what integration each platform will need.
Snow MonkeyI agree with Spudman`s final conclusion, but I don`t see why the numbers he extrapolates/guesses are particularly troubling for the distance at which the missile itself locks onto target, i.e. enters the end game…. In all likelyhood, the distances will be quite less than that for maneuvering fast jet targets, the range for 5m2 is probably without any jamming either.
Snow MonkeyThis is like a re-run. The exact same gossip went around when Saab continued to advertise after the down-select.
It isn´t a new ad, it´s the same-old, same-old. So they obviously aren´t REALLY betting big that they can win.
It´s completely plausible that they paid their local promoter/advertiser a set fee, that hadn´t been spent completely, and thus they MIGHT AS WELL continue to run ads that are already paid for.
Snow MonkeyWhat was that? Last I heard of the problems, I had the impression the Israeli Elbit was possibly getting kicked off (or vice versa?), that the partners in the project were going to be restructured, etc…?
Snow MonkeyThanks for the info on the helmet situation, Spudman and Djcross… Doesn`t seem to be one of the more reported aspects of the program, and I wasn`t sure what had happened since I had read of problems with the VSI product and their restructuring…
BAE will start delivering Q-Sight helmets next year with a new feature uniquely required for the F-35. An optical head tracking system will be integrated, allowing the pilot to aim weapons and navigate by looking in any direction.
Unlike most fighters developed since the 1970s, the F-35 is not designed with a head-up display that means the helmet must function as primary flight displays when the pilot looks outside the cockpit.
The VSI joint venture won the first development contract, offering a display with an integrated night-vision system.
However, VSI has struggled with technical glitches. In April, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported the VSI display especially suffers from latency, meaning the display does not keep up with the pilot’s head movements. Deficiencies have also been found with night operations, weapons aiming accuracy and laser eye protection, the GAO said.
The programme needs one of the helmet suppliers to develop a working display quickly. The GAO report warned that the F-35 cockpit will require a major redesign if the helmet-mounted display problems are not solved.
Meanwhile, the director of the office of test and evaluation reported last year that a working helmet is necessary to allow the F-35 to fly with Block II software.
Snow MonkeyUh… When did T-50 become the designation for a heavy helicopter project?
Or is PAK-FA just that much more awesome than anybody has imagined?
Snow MonkeyAFAIK, BOTH bidders` off-set bids were approved. so they both passed apparently.
note that if Rafale has a lower price, their required off-sets will be proportionately smaller.
Snow Monkeymore than Money and Technology the Chinese provide a huge market that would be hard to beat and they would be happy to buy if they co-develop it.
Well…. that pretty much equals ¨money¨. :rolleyes:
Snow MonkeyIt`s not going to be Il-96-NextGen and certainly not an Il-76 re-hash (or Il-476)
This is about the plans for a future, clean-slate airplane.
If all UAC can do is upgrades to Soviet platforms, it may as well throw in the towl.
Again, if the Ekojet widebody platform is going ahead, I am 99% sure that this is project being discussed.
Snow Monkey Lockheed Martin Selects BAE Systems to Supply F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Helmet Display Solution
Is this kicking Vision Systems off the team?
Snow MonkeyI don´t think you can really call Turkey an ally of Serbia in any sense.
But the current Serbian government seems to be on good terms with Turkey.
Snow MonkeyYeah… I like the company CEO´s comments about the ´controversy´ of buying a Russian/Sukhoi product 😉
I think honestly that this segment wasn´t part of the core SSJ plan, these engineers thinking of efficient mass transport, etc,
but SSJ obviously offers a good product that is appreciated in this segment: re cabin size, etc.
Of course, the more customers/operators the more confidence buyers (whether business or normal airlines) will have in the product.
I thought I´d repost an item that Austin posted in the Russian Aviation thread in the Military section:
Russia and China plans to co-develop new long-haul wide-body plane and heavy helicopter.
Russia, China on home stretch in talks on long-range plane project
I hadn´t heard anything of the wide-body cooperation before. I assume it is is the ¨Frigate Eko Jet´.
Probably China decided there was really no economic case for going their own way at this time, and just integrating Western sub-systems to a sub-par frame has a limit to the benefits achieved re: industrial capacity. I had been thinking that Antonov might have been pulled into the project, given the direction of Rus-Ukr ties, but Chinese involvement will certainly make it even more appealing re: up-front price to customers.
Sign In
