hopsalotI can see the performance of MIG-29OVT from RD-33-3 series engine from decade ago. to judge where things stand at practical level and the advancements possible decade later. that small measurements difference are for those where things are not obvious.
So let me get this straight, you think you can gauge an engine’s power to weight ratio by watching a jet fly at an air show… :stupid:
How it is irrelevant. It is manufacturer understating of things. It happen with IRST manufacturing website .
…again, you wish to believe all Russian products’ performance is somehow under stated. What is your source? No source, don’t bother typing.
airshow performance give good indication of engine power considering the obsolete airframe of JF-17 at low altitude. it is just general description.
No, it really doesn’t. Air show performances use a very small portion of a fighter’s total envelope, and then only with extremely lightly loaded jets. Nobody, especially you, can estimate an engine’s power to weight ratio based on an air show performance.
Vnomad does not even know when I simply state ignore the statistics and look at practicality of product. and he still pull statistics. It is not some random theories of economics. lower employement taxes lead to lower cost of personal and practically free education system at this level ensures that you don’t need to pay them too much to survive the skill labor. and no profit expectations fulfill provide long term stability. than there is energy and raw material costs from state firms. Industrial consolidation provide further reduction in management layers and increase r&d cooperation.
Vnomad has sources, you don’t. This isn’t even a discussion until you can find a source to support yourself. (and no, your opinion of air show routines is not a suitable source)
As for economics… you have it all screwed up but I am going to stick with the engine thing for now. :highly_amused:
Go find a source that supports your assertion that the RD-93 has a greater power to weight ratio and we can talk. Otherwise act like an adult and admit you were wrong.
hopsalotJane’s study is hands down the most important data for comparison purposes, since they use the same basis for all a/c.
It is the only way to compare.
No they didn’t, as I have already proven.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true.
hopsalotthere is no evidence either WS13 is more powerful maybe on paper and there is whole lot of reliability and fighter characteristics of engine that need to be considered.
lol… now you are complaining about a lack of evidence? That is pretty rich…
hopsalotmy claim is very accurate when It comes to Russian stuff. don’t look at the number but look at real results. Russian products are very understated on there manufacturer website.
…and you know this how? Have you personally measured the weight and thrust output of the RD-33 and F414? If not, why don’t you provide us with a source to support your assertion.
Example of Bars radars. (The most exported Russian radar of current times. over 230 Su-30MKI/MKM/MKA in service)
the only give range of 140 against MIG-29 size target. that is way understatement for its real capabilities.
http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:2011-07-18-12-25-58&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8
Even if we agreed the radar’s range was understated in this case, this example is irrelevant to what we are discussing.
You can’t simply claim that because one product from one manufacturer might have had its performance understated in one case that all Russian products everywhere just magically out perform their spec sheets. (and their Western competitors)
the kind of performance shown by outdated JF-17 in outdated RD-93 at Dubai airshow gives some confidence that RD-33MKM powered aircraft with modern material and manufacturing will be far better.
…and what “kind of performance” was that? You made a specific claim about the RD-93’s power to weight ratio relative to that of the F414. Even if we agreed that the JF-17 put on a nice show, an air show performance is not a measure of an engine’s power to weight ratio.
He does not even understand what I was referring to.
Yes, he clearly did.
You don’t have slighted clue of comparing products manufactured by two different economic and management systems. Klimov is now under UEC (United Engine Corporation) and they don’t need to show quarterly profits and employee are far less flat taxed. I am not going into raw material and energy prices of production for state firms. They can maintain low output with low prices for considerable longer period of time.
You made a specific claim. Vnomad proved it wrong and had sources.
If you want to argue your case you need a source, not goofball theories about economics.
hopsalotMaybe you have realized the prices for JANES publications and who is willing to pay for that?! 90 % of all data are from open Publications. The general trend and the main data given in JANES are correct. Not sticking to that will damage the reputation of JANES and their business in the end.
This has nothing to do with Jane’s business model in any general sense. The fact is that grabbing a bunch of numbers with different assumptions and throwing them on the same chart as if they were directly comparable is nothing but a marketing exercise. Any force doing a serious evaluation is not going to look to Janes for numbers on operating costs.
hopsalotHopsy, I wont even bother dignifying your response. Read the entire Janes paper and you will have your answers.
I have read it, and no it doesn’t explain the errors.
There really isn’t any question that the Gripen will be the cheapest of the current generation of fighters to operate, but at the same time there also isn’t really any question that there is no chance you could operate four Gripens for the cost of one Eurofighter… four engines vs two, four radars versus one, four sets of almost everything versus one…
Anyone with even a modicum of reasoning ability can see these numbers don’t add up.
hopsalotno need to look at numbers. look at behavior of planes and the material they are manufactured from give enough indication of the relevant characteristics of engines.
No, there is every reason to look at the numbers. The numbers are how we know you aren’t just making things up because you wish they were true.
You made this claim:
F414 is higher thrust engine but I think it is very heavy relative to thrust.
Vnomad provided stats showing that your claim was not accurate.
You responded saying:
Don’t put too much stock on this data. different companies measure differently. what matter is installed weight and its impact on airplane weight and the real behavior of plane from that engine thrust. even the older RD-93 gives very decent climb rate to JF-17. RD-33MKM is two class above that engine.
I asked for proof of this assertion. What is RD-33’s “installed weight” and how does that compare to an F414? What is the JF-17’s climb rate? What is the “installed weight” of an RD-33MKM.
I don’t want nationalistic ranting. I want support for your claims. If you don’t have support then you shouldn’t make such claims.
Teja MK11 is barely 5 planes a year production rate and that is not certain it can be certified in reasonable time. add another 5 or 10 engines per year for JAS-39NG. this figures are way below the over 100 engines a year that GE is used to produce on solid multi year contracts. They will not go below certain quantity in a year. see C-17 and Boeing example. 8 was I think the minimum. the rest is uncertain speculation.
Sure, production quantities will fall, but with a mature engine that need not lead to huge price increases. Compare the RD-33’s present production rate to its peak back in the day…
hopsalotDon’t put too much stock on this data. different companies measure differently. what matter is installed weight and its impact on airplane weight and the real behavior of plane from that engine thrust. even the older RD-93 gives very decent climb rate to JF-17. RD-33MKM is two class above that engine.
Lets see your numbers, and your sources. :rolleyes:
but problem with JAS-39NG is that F-18E production is coming to an end. So in post 2018 period GE may have to raise F414 price a lot. this will make the plane uncompetitive .
The F414 will also power the Tejas MkII so I don’t really see any reason to be concerned about maintaining the production line. (and I suspect it would also form the basis of at least LM’s entry into the USAF’s next generation trainer contract. (which is based on the LM/KAI T-50) )
hopsalotThe Janes study is legit. For starters, 20% more installed thrust does not mean 20% more fuel burn. In this particular case it’s 16,4% higher fuel consumption, but in reality the interesting part is how much thrust that is used, and that comes from drag and mission profile.
According to the report the difference in cost for the FA18E/F comes from the fact that the USN Super Hornets are at full operational capability with fairly high sortie rates and the australian figure is from before IOC. Most users would likely end up just above the figure for USN (because of sortie rates and fleet size, the higher they are the lower the CPFH gets). The 8’200 figure for the EF2000 is only fuel as is evident if one reads the report… or at least look a the asterisk in the chart.
They state that they believe the $8,200 cost per flight hour of the Eurofighter represents fuel only, yet they list the Gripen at $4,700 per flight hour. The Gripen has 41% of the Eurofighter’s dry thrust. 11,000/(13,500*2) Assuming equal efficiency, the Gripen’s fuel costs would be about $3,400 per flight hour. (8,200*.41) That would leave just $1,300/hour for everything else associated with operating the Gripen. Sorry, that just isn’t plausible. (if anything the EJ200 should have higher efficiency, which makes this comparison even less plausible…)
It would also mean that Jane’s believes that 46% (8,200/18,000) of the Eurofighter’s total cost per flight hour is fuel, but that 72% of the Gripen’s costs (3,400/4,700) are fuel. Or another way of putting it, ignoring fuel costs for both (fuel cost should be the Gripen’s biggest advantage) you can operate ~7.5 Gripens for each Eurofighter. (18,000-8,200)/(4,700-3,400)
These numbers aren’t plausible. Slapping the word “janes” on something is not a substitute for thinking.
The fact that it was ordered by SAAB says nothing about there being any bias towards Gripen. The only thing it means is that SAAB knew that their product would win the comparison so they requested an external source to prove it. This is standard practice.
The numbers aren’t plausible, not even close. That is the fundamental problem with the “study.” They may be “real” numbers, but there is no way they represent an apples to apples comparison.
So it’s not just PR. It is a carefully selected comparison with a known result. There is a reason why the Gripen competitors didnt request this.
It is PR. That is why it was produced despite its utter uselessness to a professional. The only surprise is that Janes would participate given the glaring flaws.
hopsalotPlease forgive me for not knowing how to play this game but could you please explain to me how it works?
A study by the, arguably, most prestigeous non governmental group, although sponsored, can be discarded as pure marketing bs but an interview with with a VP for a large weapons manufacturer shall be regarded as an undisputable fact. Am I correct or am I missing something?
The study, regardless of the name associated with it, clearly has major flaws. If it can’t even decide whether the Super Hornet’s CPFH is $11,000 or $24,000… or which of those numbers is most directly comparable to the Gripen’s listed $4,700… then what value does it have?
We all know cost estimates vary widely depending on what is included. The trick is to establish standard assumptions for each aircraft being compared. Janes didn’t do this, and so their chart is just a list of numbers with some names associated with them.
hopsalotTHalès UK
I absolutley agree, ToT from BAe/ (EW warfare), or simply BAe/QinetiQ (VTOL systems) will be of no use to LM.
I can’t tell if you are playing dumb here or not.
Enlisting a world leader in a field to serve as a sub-contractor on a project is not the type of “technology transfer” we are talking about here.
hopsalotActually, the MMRCA was primary that: search for technology. If the main goal was to get capable fighter fast, they could’ve bought off the shelf ones, including loads of US made ones, which could have been delivered on very short notice, thanks to the dimensions of US factories who’d be able to assemble fighters in a couple of years. From the beginning India said, the full ToT aiming to increase their industrial capability is part of the deal.
And ToT means not only sharing the blueprints, but also explaining how and why things are that way… if Russians did not provide the support, the tech wasn’t really transferred (and that may possibly explain why, for example, the Mig35 lost points at some time).
As for the US, remember what happened in Brasil: when Hillary Clinton went there to promote the F-18, she said that they’d agree for “an appropriate level of ToT”.. that says it all, for them, there no such thing as total ToT, especially with the latest stuff. Only this or that, making sure the buyer remains far behind in any case.
Technology transfer is in almost all cases a complete waste of money and effort on the part of the buyer. Local production, technology transfer, etc… they sound good as a PR exercise but they very rarely pay real dividends. Typically by the time the transferred technology has been fully assimilated it is already obsolete. In most cases the purchaser is never able to make as much use of it as they believed they could.
As has already been pointed out, India received extensive technology transfer with their Su-30s, and yet they have struggled for decades to produce the LCA. Here they are a few years later and they are once again trying to buy technology for a different 4th generation fighter (Rafale), and a fifth generation fighter as well…
China is probably the only country in recent years that has been able to fully assimilate foreign technology, much to Russia’s chagrin.
hopsalotWhat is even more of a guarantee is that if i felt unjustly pointed out as comparatively more expensive then i know i am,
i would announce evidence for defamation on and in every thinkable channel,
and demand compensation in court
You have to consider that potential customers are not reading Janes for their comparative data. Any potential customer will have reams of data on the specific costs associated with an aircraft being offered. The customer then would punch in numbers relevant to their specific operating assumptions, flight hours per year, flight distance to training ranges, local fuel prices, local labor costs, etc.
Why do you think these competitions invariably take years? They aren’t just looking for a single number with unknown assumptions posted on the internet…
That Janes report, commissioned by Saab, is not targeted at professionals. (who have better data and would never be taken in by such a simplistic comparison) It is targeted at enthusiasts on the internet and clueless reporters. It is marketing product, pure and simple.
hopsalotI tell you what I might do if were an OEM and I knew my product was cheaper to operate than other products: I might ask an independent consultant to compare the cost of operating my product with the cost of operating others. And guess what? It would come as no surprise if the consultant calculated that my product was the cheapest to operate.
The term you are looking for here is “garbage in garbage out.”
Janes went and collected a bunch of data using different assumptions and then plotted them in the same graph. The end result is useless as a comparison. Janes lists the Super Hornet as either 11,000 or 24,000(more than double), and the Eurofighter as either 8,200 or 18,000 (again, more than double), the F-35 is listed as either 21,000 or 31,000… :stupid:
Which is it? Is it 11,000 per Super Hornet flight hour compared to 4,700 for the Gripen? That number would be in line with the installed thrust of the two… (2 x 13,000)/11,000 = 2.36. 4,700 x 2.36 = 11,092 Those numbers are plausible given that the Gripen’s number clearly counts little more than fuel and other consumables for an hour of flight. So why did Janes include the 24,000 number given it is clearly referring to a more inclusive measure of costs?
While we are at it… given that the Gripen NG will use the F414 with 20% more thrust we can expect its fuel costs to be approximately 20% higher, putting the Gripen NG in the 5,600 range…
The best anyone can say of that chart is that while the numbers on it may be accurate, they are not directly comparable.
hopsalotOn the ball to me. Janes has no act to grind IMO. I think it was endeavouring to come up with “level playing field” figures avoiding the different approaches of different users using different criteria to calculate their costs whereby one is inevitably comparing the cost of apples from one source, oranges from another, mangoes from another etc etc
If Janes estimates X costs 50% more than Y to operate that is the most credible source available IMO. The figures cited will not be absolutely correct but IMO they are a valid guide for the purposes of comparison.
That Jane’s “study” was commissioned by Saab and is little more than a slightly disguised marketing brochure. People have pointed out one major flaw in its numbers after another.
Come on, those numbers aren’t even close to plausible. (as an apples to apples comparison)
Sign In
