dark light

Loke

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,801 through 1,815 (of 3,001 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread IV #2364476
    Loke
    Participant

    How are things going in Saudi Arabia?

    How many a/c did they receive?
    Were they delivered according to schedule?
    When will they build the assembly line?
    And are they happy with their Typhoons?

    Perhaps that can also influenze the export chances of the Typhoon?

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 7 #2364764
    Loke
    Participant

    Well Rafale won’t be twice as expensive as a Gripen NG. We’re not talking Gripen C/D here. If cost was all that problematic, it would have been even more cost effective to buy the M2k production line and build as many as you wanted.

    Besides, one could also argue that if you want a lightweight fighter you might as well get more LCa Mk2.

    Nic

    The NG engine will actually be cheaper than the RM12 in the C/D…

    Also more use of COTS means that the Gripen NG costs will be quite affordable (at least if you order 126 of them).

    The mk2 is far from ready — and we don’t know yet if it will even fix the problems of the mk1.

    Besides one could also argue that if India wants an expensive twin-engine fighter they might as well get more SU-30mki… :diablo:

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread IV #2364808
    Loke
    Participant

    In which case Eurofighter’s paticipation in the MMRCA may not be over but its prospects of being selected are not too promising. Why select an aircraft that

    (a) hasn’t got AESA sorted (existing or with concrete development plans)
    (b) hasn’t got a carrier variant sorted (existing or with concrete development plans)

    when there are 2 types on offer that have these sorted?

    Because

    (a) technically the Typhoon AESA is not that from being finalized (and it will also take some time before the first a/c will be delivered)

    (b) Carrier variant is more “nice-to-have” than “must-have”, the MMRCA is for the IAF after all.

    My guess is, it will make it to the short list but not win πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2365820
    Loke
    Participant

    AlphaZulu,

    thanks, that was one very informative and well structured posting! πŸ™‚

    Rafale is definitely a mature and well balanced design.

    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2365930
    Loke
    Participant

    What he did not say is what that cost covers (REC Flyaway, Flyaway, Weapon System Cost, APUC, etc). There is a huge gap between those prices.

    What he did say was that he did not recognize the price mentioned in Canada… so the price mentioned in Canada was “none of the above” πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2365934
    Loke
    Participant

    What loadouts have the Rafale and F-16 been flying with so far in this conflict?

    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2366097
    Loke
    Participant

    F-35s cost more than $100M each: U.S. official

    Sullivan said the estimated cost of the F-35A model that Canada is buying is “in the low 100 millions.”

    “Probably somewhere between $110-115 million,” he said.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 7 #2366692
    Loke
    Participant

    It definitely makes sense for Gripen to offer the EPE/EDE engine upgrades as soon as they’re available. I’m sure the extra thrust would be very welcome for the aircraft too, claims of supercruise on existing engines notwithstanding. 😎

    Well, Saab was extremely satisfied with the performance of the NG Demo during the tests, including the ones in Leh. One of the Saab engineers that were there expressed himself quite clearly on that point.

    Keep in mind that it’s not just about thrust — it’s about TWR and drag of course.

    More thrust is always welcome but I don’t think the NG would be the a/c that would need it the most.

    in reply to: Air Action Over Libya (Merged) #2368115
    Loke
    Participant

    UK Ministry of Defence have just revealed that RAF Typhoons have completed their first combat mission over Libya. Well done all!

    TJ

    Is there a link? I could not find any announcements…

    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2318957
    Loke
    Participant

    What’s your point?

    I am showing you what the F-35A has actually cost (flyaway) from LRIP1-5. In each LRIP, the F-35 cost dropped from 10-20 million. In LRIP4 it came in at $126.8 (flyaway). For some reason you think that this consistent price drop will somehow come to a halt and that the F-35A will only drop 2-3 million per year. That is ignoring the F-35’s price history.

    Extrapolation is always dangerous. Just look at how economists tend to mess up things over and over again. One of the reasons (but of course not the only one) is that they tend to always look at historical data, then extrapolate into the future and use those estimates to make firm decisions. And they are always surprised when the extrapolations turn out wrong.

    I am not saying that will be the case here, I just want to remind everyone about the limited value of extrapolation.

    As Scorpion82 already pointed out, in the end LM will pay us to take the planes…. you just have to keep extrapolating. πŸ˜‰

    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2319757
    Loke
    Participant

    The F-35A IOC is still set for 2016, not 2018.

    Nowhere in that pdf does it even hint at 2018.

    However, many times in the pdf it states an end to SDD in 2016.

    1. “Final Block 3 software is planned to deliver to flight test in 2015, to allow completion of the mission system development in the first quarter of calendar 2016.”

    2. “Development testing of the common mission system and flight sciences for CTOL and CV is now scheduled to complete in the first quarter of 2016. The flight science testing for STOVL extends into the last quarter of 2016.”

    From F-16.net

    Last June, based on this criteria, COMACC estimated the Air Force would be able to declare the F-35A IOC in 2016.

    The Air Force’s position on IOC remains unchanged. We will declare IOC for our F-35As based on achieving the required ORD-compliant capability and capacity criteria, and not on a specific date. We are currently analyzing the impacts to program delivery timelines due to the most recent program restructure, and the results of this analysis will be available later this year. When this analysis is complete, the Air Force will reevaluate our IOC estimate, but we currently expect up to a two year delay.

    It’s the USAF position on the IOC that remains unchanged, and their position on the IOC is that it is not based on a specific date…

    Futhermore they say that their analysis is not yet complete and that they will reevaluate their IOC estimate. Based on their current understanding they expect up to 2 years delay.

    Anyway, nice try… :diablo:

    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2320024
    Loke
    Participant

    Yes. All of those costs are rolled into the total package. You’ll never see a figure, that’s just the fly away cost without infrastructure/training/spares/etc… over the projected life.

    No.

    Unfortunately for the F-35 fanboys I found the Canadian report.

    It says on page 22: Infrastructure costs have not been included.

    Page 23: Linked indirect costs have not been included

    Page 30: There will be no aircraft replacement due to attrition.

    Norway operated with a quite large number of replacement aircrafts….

    The Norwegian life time costs included weapons; however weapons are not mentioned in the Canadian report — they may have been excluded.

    We do not know all the details of the Norwegian analysis, however from the above it seems to me that the Norwegian life time costs did indeed include more than the Canadian lifetime costs.

    The Norwegian and Canadian lifetime costs are therefore not comparable.

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/pbo-dpb/documents/F-35_Cost_Estimate_EN.pdf

    in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2320040
    Loke
    Participant

    Some more info on the Norwegian cost estimates.

    Norway estimated that total costs of buying and operating 56 F-35 for 30 years would be 145 billion NOK (26 billion USD using today’s rates).

    However those 145 billion NOK includes basically everything it seems:

    It is important to emphasize that the lifetime cost includes far more than what the providers were asked for. For example, in these calculations the expected costs of weapons, infrastructure, replacement airplane, fuel, organization, including salaries, education and more, were added.

    link

    Did the estimate from Canada include all these costs as well?

    in reply to: Military Aviation News From Around The World – VII #2320168
    Loke
    Participant

    Note that the Norwegian estimate has not changed since 2008. The Norwegian government also says that the Canadian estimates (29 billion USD but for 65 planes) are in line with the Norwegian estimates. I hope this is correct… the only thing I wonder about is if the Norwegian estimate is actually including more than the Canadian estimate, in particular infrastructure. We need to rebuild an air base and that is quite costly. I wonder if similar costs was included in the Canadian estimate?

    in reply to: Military Aviation News From Around The World – VII #2320184
    Loke
    Participant

    120 Billion for 48 airplanes for 30 years

    a developing country could develope an aircraft industry from scratch for these kinds of money!

    Actually I think the estimate was 145 billion NOK for 30 years, which translates into ca. 26 billion USD. Also I think it was for 56 planes not 48 but I am not sure. The original plan was 48 but this was later changed to 56.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,801 through 1,815 (of 3,001 total)