SchorschYeah those were the Fly-Away costs , however the Unit cost (Fly Away+ plus R and D ) was much higher ( close to 80-100 million) add to that the price of spares,training,weapons (french weapons are quite expensive) etc etc and you get something very expensive.
R&D money is business of the first customer, which is normally the “local” air force. They set the requirements and by that determine the attractivity of the airframe. The US was always quite good in adapting it to the world needs in producing aircraft that were not exceptionally good in a single discipline but quite well in all. The JSF is a great example for that. The R&D money for the Rafale was paid by French government.
The JSF is unique in the way that US was able to pull other countries in the boat to pay for their new fighter. I can understand that Uk was not amused about paying for R&D but don’t getting the fruits (know-how). On the other hand, you don’t want to give away knowledge the other country doesn’t have. After all, these international projects are crap² but necessary.
SchorschI seem to remember the flyaway price tag of the Rafale B being roughly $54-59 mil. Roughly a half year ago there was one interesting document posted here on the forum which compared flyaway and system prices for Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Super Bug but I can’t seem to find it anymore. I am sure as hell that Raf was only marginally more expensive than Gripen.
Anyone got the link?
Comparison of Fly-Away prices is the best possibility to compare real prices. But all FA-prices we get are somehow the result of marketing. How do you determine the fly-away price? I know that for Typhoon it is supposed to be in the area of 70E6 Euros. But with a reduced version will be much less I guess. It is not a transparent market.
SchorschThe RAF won’t get F-35A. The plan is for a joint RN/RAF F-35B fleet. They’ll replace Harriers, & the last Tornados. Typhoon replaces everything else – Tornado ADV, Jaguar, earlier Tornado IDS.
Would be interesting to know from with export order British industry profits more: additional Typhoon sales or additional F-35 sales. I guess the Typhoon will bring more money into British pockets (depends a little bit on the offset deals and the contracts with the other 3 nations). So when the RAF has a large number of Typhoons it will help promoting it for export. And as the RAF doesn’t need them soo badly they can easily transfer some to an export customer (like happened with Austria and Saudi Arabia).
SchorschI dont see anyting wrong with that statement . He said that the designers didnt incorporate the Medium Range missiles obviously because the illusion was of a WVR fighter and the USAF wanted to protect the F-15A .
I still don’t get the thing with the “true performance of the missiles”. What does it say in plain words?
SchorschThat could be a problem. Orders of American aircraft enjoy a rather poor reputation in terms of offsets here in Europe. The offered offset programmes look impressive on the paper – and that is where the good impression often ends. I remember Poles complaining about the offset programmes for their F-16C/D lagging far behind the planned time schedule.
The offset will directly depend on the need of Lm for another customer. Fighter jets have a market. And if the F-35 doesn’t sell well, the offset is higher. That is the reason the European jets are normally less expensive, because they have to make better prices.
The thing that may be of importance: Typhoon is produced by 4 of the 5 big nations in European Union. That gives you some marketing power. The JSF is only procured in 2 of the 5 biggest EU nations.
SchorschF16A didnt used medium range missiles becouse its designers didnt made it (speaks a lot about true perfomance of these missilles…). The radar by itself was technologicaly good enouth to guide medium range AA.
Can you possibly elaborate on this?
SchorschNot a big believer in the dumb submunitions that cause all the negative image stuff. Again the dud rate on them is high and were best used in a Fulda Gap scenario or against SAM/AAA sites in the old days. We have better ways now most of the time. The one exception to that would be NK. Any trouble started with them, we should seed the NK side with dumb submunitions twice over.
Off-topic. I also don’t have a problem with Flamagel/Incinigel ( replaced Napalm ). In it’s M77 form it is useful to our Marines. USMC used it once in a river crossing in OIF. Everything got real quiet like after the strike. Not something you use all the time because there are a lot of times where it is a pain in the neck to use and isn’t needed. The accuracy sux and it takes skill to deliver the things. USMC uses the M77 with no fins so it tumbles. As it is a dumb bomb delivery with a pretty loose CEP, that also means that weather and night, cloud cover makes it near impossible or unsafe to deliver them. They are usually used in a planned attack and not as a quick reaction weapon. Sending a jet up these days without precision guided munitions is a waste of gas and effort. So for those few targets where the weather is nice, and the target is a fixed defensive position that has to be taken out …. including things like expected resistance to a river crossing. M77 isn’t such a bad thing. It has an instant object lesson all it’s own to the spectators ( i.e. “your next” ). It is a rarely used but highly useful tool. M77 saves lives; our troops.
The Fulda Gap was American stuff, the British were there to defend the Lüneburger Heide. 😉
But I agree with your point: If you have the luxury of chosing the weapons and not being in deep trouble, you should chose the one with minimum side-effects. In the Fulda-Gap scenario you don’t be so happy. Your fall-abck option is the tactical nuclear bomb. The problem is: when considering the weapons military leaders possibly don’t take political boundary conditions into account. For a tactical decision the % of duds doesn’t matter too much, if you can drop twice the number. An F-15E can drop 12-18 CBU24 (670 bomblets), that corrects for any duds or unprecise aiming. But the area is contaminated with 670*18*15% = 1800 unexploded devices. Definitely no good farmland.
SchorschI think the F-35 will have its mandatory cost overruns, delays, all that stuff. That will favor the Eurofighter and Rafale, as they have sorted out that crap by then. The F-35 will have its best time beginning 2020, when it becomes cheaper and available with loosened export restrictions.
From the capability point of view the Typhoon is in line with the F-35 for most missions that matter.
SchorschThe F-14’s had a very good record against F-15’s in ACM………….both were approximate equals! Had more to do with the quality of there respect of pilots than the capabilities of either mount.
The only thing is the 5 ton more empty weight of the Tomcat making it the heaviest thing ever called a real fighter. I don’t knoe about the actual price-tags (procurement and per hour), but the Eagle should be considerably cheaper (compared -A to -A).
SchorschThe usage of cluster ammunition should be considered very carefully, when
– the objective is limited warfare
– the area is populated
– there is limited chance of occupying the area and hence it cannot be cleaned by experts
– I care for “collateral damage”
Then, and especially when the threat to friendly forces is limited, a ban on CBUs seems worth thinking. Actually, under above conditions, the ban of air strikes in general seems worth thinking (or even better: the use of military force for police-like tasks seems questionable).
CBUs, DPU ammunition, LGBs and all the other fun weapons are designed to fight an enemy army with armor, infantry, air defence, etc pp. They are not designed to fight “insurgents” and terrorists and definitely not designed to bring political messages or to win “hearts & minds”.
If the WP tanks rush through the Lüneburger Heide, then I would say: Yes, use cluster bombs, and use a lot!
SchorschDo you have anything to say about PLA logistics, Instead of just throwing out a topic?
You are rather optimistic about the capabilities of the PLA. Actually no army can start a war in 72 hours (no even the USA :diablo: ). You have to provide a 2 to 3-times superiority in the beachhead & surrounding region. You can achieve that by air force, but do not overestimate the ability of an air force to deliver close air support under hostile conditions.
I have no idea about the capabilities of the ROCA, but from pure logic (ships and helicopter capacity versus highway capacity) the issue is clear. Even if the ROC Army is not fully mobilizied, a “surprise attack” would soon become trapped on their beachhead. Blow up some bridges, some guerilla style warfare in the cities (which are a lot there) will suffice to delay any small landing force long enough.
So, if PLA wants to win it has to do it old US-style and not Blitzkrieg-style: That is, win by number*quality and not tactical elegance and strategical courage.
SchorschMost options are very expensive . The typhoon isnt all that cheap , nor is the rafale . In addition to this none promises the support and industry ( interms of comming up with upgrades and improvments) incentive as the F-35 . Just look at the slow upgradation of the AESA’s on the typhoon , IIRC the govts arent even funding it as of yet and it remains a company program . With advent of DEW’s and other SMART FEATURES ( such as AESA radar as TR , E-jamming etc etc) the JSF is more likely to be funding the integration on account of USAF,USN,USMC parternship and the sheer industrial backing that program is getting !! 3000 odd JSF’s is a very good incentive for Lockheed and other companies to develop a continues stream of improvments and upgrades .
You are right: it is about the money. But the actual price tag of the aircraft is only one thing. The question is what kind of business comes with the aircraft. And here the Eurofighter or Rafale are in a good or maybe better position than the JSF: the defence, economy and politics of some customer nations are much more connected to the Rafale/EF nations. I especially think of Benelux and Scandinavia, but also Greece and Turkey.
The technical specs aren’t that important. AESA, DEW and other SMART FEATURES are beyond the needs of most customer nations. It counts more to be a PARTNER and not just a PETITIONER, which would be the case for each JSF-customer except maybe UK.
SchorschJust way to many variables………………..the odds are against China being successful! :rolleyes:
Just wanted to say that those operations of conventional warfare are nothing a normal army can do as “surprise”. The possibilities by the USA and Western Europe to supply Taiwan with satellite data even without stepping in a direct conflict with China will provide that neither the tactical (unknown time and place of landing) nor the strategical momentum of surprise will be on China’s side.
A opposing example are the Japanese operations 12-41 to 5-42 in the Pacific, where they overwhelmed superior forces of the USA and UK. While – as I said – stupidity of both was a large factor.
SchorschWere you reading? Huh? These exercises often include mock assaults invasions on islands near Quemoy for example. You know how big a military region command is, how many units they deploy?
Like I said, what is the threshold between a genuine invasion and a major exercise preparing to be one? Often as we have seen in World War II, many layers of command are not informed of the true intention of the actual operation. American intel, Taiwan intel, both have shown to be faulty in the past, hardly a perfect record.
Nah, an invasion cannot be done within a night. You need all the hardware available and stockpiles for weeks. The rule of thumb: If a Blitzkrieg-ambush doesn’t work exactly as planned it becomes a huge failure. Check Taiwans geography and dense infrastructure: Taiwan can concentrate its forces within 24 hours (if not interdicted). And: Blitzkrieg only works well when your enemy behaves fairly stupid and predictable.
SchorschHuh, quite strange folks around here. I recon that half of the stuff is just beating the crab out of each other. A little bit like a bunch of teenagers.
If everyone envisoned a Taiwan invasion force on the behalf of the USMC model when applied via PLA, then I see no point in continuing the disscussion. When has PLA engaged in any war using anything similar to western tactics?
That is indeed true. But when did PLa last time fight a war? Korea, Vietnam, do you count 1989? All were tactically very simple and used primarily people (which the Chinese seem not to be stingyabout). World War II is always a questionable example, but on the other hand major landings like D-Day show the major problems for the invading army:
These problems do exist in modern warfare, too. The allied forces solved many issues with naval and aerial firepower. Naval firepower doesn’t exist in a similar fashion today, even the US Navy cries for its battleships and cruisers for these missions.
Another thing I want to add: You cannot do an invasion without notice. Possibly in 1944 (while the Germans knew that there was a landing due, they just guessed the wrong beach). Even with the USA not directly involved they can give intelligence and satellite images. Tactical surprise is hence limited.
We can assume that PLA will attack Taiwan ahead of the landing to
So, if any invasion is supposed to be successful, all of the above targets have to be achieved, otherwise it becomes a rather bloody beach party. The question is: can a Chinese air force achieve the targets against a determined enemy with reasonably advanced air force? When looking at history we see that if those objectives were successful (Iraq for example), the capability gap was huge (USAF vs IraqAF 1991).
Still some problems remain for PLA:
Basic military issues like fighting in urban areas mostly, having possibly no access to a sea port for some time, hence having limited armor support. Again, it is WW2, but the fall back option is always knife fight man vs man. And when looking at the past Chinese wars, they relied heavily on it.
P.S.: I highly doubt that China will ever attempt to do that. It would be pointless waste of people and wealth. On the long run, they will get the things sorted.
Sign In
