LokeI’m not disagreeing on the fact that it has relatively more LO features. It may have 1/2 to 1/3 RCS of Su-35, I don’t disagree about that either. But when someone claims it has 1/100 of Su-35 (10 vs 0.1 sqm frontal RCS… right…) it gets pretty much laughable.
And what I am trying to say is having 1/3 or even 1/4 RCS of the other aircraft has exactly NO use. Because detection range changes with RCS ^ 1/4
Irbis has claimed 400km range vs 3 sqm targets. Lets assume 2/3 that range for tracking. If so
10 sqm target can be detected at 540 km, tracked at 359 km
5 sqm target can be detected at 454 km tracked at 302 km
3 sqm target can be tracked at 266 km
1 sqm target can be detected at 304 km tracked at 203 km
0.5 sqm target can be detected at 255 km tracked at 170 km
0.1 sqm target can be detected at 171 km and tracked at 114 kmFor any logical assumption, Rafale’s detection range will be around 454 km to 304 km, and tracking range will be around 302 to 203 km.
Gripen C is said to have frontal RCS approx. 10% of F-16, which would put the Gripen C around 0.1m2 — given all the work Dassault has put into reducing RCS of Rafale it seems reasonable to assume that it’s around 0.1 m2as well, and this seems to be supported by the claim that Rafale has around 10% RCS of the Mirage.
However RCS will most likely go up with external munitions — how much is impossible to say. I recall Saab stating that the most effective way to reduce RCS of Gripen NG was to replace the AMRAAM with Meteor (or was it replacing Sidewinder with IRIS-T? I always forget). With low-RCS pylons and a low-RCS missile, the total RCS may still be pretty low.
Still, a strong radar can detect at a distance — however I suspect that to detect Rafale at large distances the Su-35 cannot operate its radar in LPI mode but may need to increase the power significantly. Thus it becomes easy to detect the emissions for the Rafale. By sensor fusion and triangulation a group of Rafales will then be able to arrive at a firing solution, and probably before the Su-35.
LokeThis article claims that more Su-30 is the backup plan if the Rafale deal fails:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/todays-newspaper/iaf-to-opt-for-sukhoi-30–if-rafale-deal-falls-flat.html
LokeAgain, completly Bøllocks!
Norway never intended to buy any SH or Silent SH, so why even bother compairing these with F-35.Back when the Tender was anounced, and we Short listed F-35 over Gripen NG, There was an understanding that the Gripen NG would be far more expensive..
Norway never intended to buy any Gripen NG so why even bother comparing it to the F-35 😉
LokeI agree with ;Sphere.
It is of no interest for Norway what the prototypes and LIRP of F-35A cost since it started to come out and 2013/14/15..
Completly ********!What matters is the fixed cost when we start procuring those airframe.
What will the first four ‘Trainers’ cost?
What will rest of those 50 or so cost?For all to see, these prices has not decreased but increases the last years.
The Price tag from when Norway Short listed the F-35A and forward today are not the same numbers.
I have already reported the Norwegian numbers.
We don’t have the exact “same” offer from e.g. Boeing, however if you look at my post above we are able to extrapolate, and conclude that there would not be a big difference in purchasing price between a SH package and a F-35 package.
A package of Gripen NG may be somewhat cheaper (at least that’s the rumor from e.g. Brazil, that the Gripen offer was below the SH offer) however then the gap in capabilities becomes even bigger.
F-35 >> SH >> Gripen NG.
The main unknown IMHO is not the purchasing cost but operating costs.
However also here I expect F-35 to do OK compared to the SH. The reason being that the current 2 SH customers will not use the SH as their “main frontline fighter” in the future and therefore is less willing to sponsor development of “Silent SH”.
LokeAnd there´s were the JSF problem lay´s… the US Navy and USAF budgets are public.
But first there´s something that must be made clear, there are two Unit Fly Away Costs, the “non recurring UFAC”, and the normal “UFAC”, this second one, the one used by the Pentagon accountants includes the non recurring costs, the first one doesnt, and that was the one being described in that video…
The “Flyaway Unit Cost” by the 2013 USAF Budget for a 2013 F-35A is precisely 153.114 $ million, if we take out the non recurring costs the “Flyaway Unit Cost” goes down to 118.143 $ million, the number that the video describes.
Numbers here:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120210-115.pdfNow lets do the exact same exercise for the Navy´s Super Hornet.
The “Flyaway Unit Cost” by the 2013 US Navy Budget for a 2013 F/A-18EF is precisely 65.275 $ million, if we take out the non recurring costs the “Flyaway Unit Cost” goes down to 50.479 $ million…
Numbers here:
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdfThe numbers are correct, i dont believe that no one here will challenge them.
So, yes, in 2013, in a straight “apples to apples” comparison one 2013 super hornet is 2X to 2.5X cheaper than one F-35A.
Thanks, this is excellent information.
Two observations:
1. When buying a new a/c, a lot of other stuff is bought together with the a/c.
2. The F-35 has a lot of stuff integrated, that is not integrated in a 4. gen, and some stuff that is not even in a 4.5 gen fighter.
Today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notifiedCongress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super HornetAircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a host of spare partsand munitions at an estimated value of $7.0 billion.
If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, theGovernment of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eightF/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, four F414-GE-400 spareengines, 36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems, 36 AN/ALR-67(V)three Radar Warning Receivers, 144 LAU-127 Launchers, 44 Joint Helmet Mounted CueingSystems (JHMCS), 28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM),28 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles, 60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), 36AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles, and 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods. Also included are 36AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40 AN/ALE-47 Electronic WarfareCountermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System,support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, ferry andtanker support, flight test, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S.Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other relatedelements of logistics and program support.
http://www.deagel.com/news/FMS-Brazil-Seeks-36-FA-18EF-Super-Hornets_n000006453.aspx
7 billion for 36 SH. Granted, there are also some Sidewinders, JDAM, and HARMs in there. But the rest is what you would normally expect in such an offer. If we assume the munitions cost around 50 million USD, this means that the rest would cost 6.95 billion USD.
With a unit cost of approx. 50 million USD, the actual a/c themselves make up only 1.8 billion USD, 25% of the total price.
Had an F-35 been bought instead,things like the ATFLIR pods and EW systems would be integrated.
Thus an F-35 package would not be 100% more expensive than an SH, it would not even be 25% more expensive…(assuming it would not include any of those expensive LRIPs)
In the FMS to South Korea, 60 F-35A was offered for 10.8 billion.
Compare that to 6.95 billion USD for 36 SH.
The SK offer is 55% more expensive than the Brazil offer. However SK will get 67% more fighter units.
Another way of calculating it would be that Brazil would pay 193 million USD per SH (all included) whereas SK will pay 180 million USD per F-35, so actually a lower unit price… 😀
This is not a fair comparison of course due to the quite different numbers of a/c.
Assume that each additional SH (including all the pods, etc) cost 85 million extra. We would then have to add 2.04 billion to the 6.95 billion to arrive at the same number of a/c. This brings us to 8.99 billion. IF all assumptions hold this would make the F-35 package 20% more expensive to a comparative SH package. However my 85 million USD estimate is perhaps much too conservative?
LokeHowever I suspect there is more to the Indian drama than what meets the eye.
Consider: Brazil has delayed their FX2 competition, not once but numerous times the last 12 months — curiously their repeated delays seem to coincide with the delays in finalizing the Indian contract! Coincidence!? I think not!
What’s at stake here is more than the MMRCA — much more!
I strongly suspect the preferred a/c in Brazil is Rafale — however it’s too expensive!
The only way France can reduce the cost is to outsource some of the production to a low cost country like — India.
However this will only work if Dassault can sign the Indian contract and if the subcontractors in India can deliver on time and with acceptable quality!
Rafale is in a position to become the Winner of the 4.5 gen fighter race, with sales in France, India and Brazil. Or it may lose it all…. The stakes are high, and in the next few months we will learn whether Dassault manages to turn the tables and become the worlds’ most popular 4.5 gen fighter, of if it will slowly fade away…
LokeAn odd situation, however a couple of things occured to me:
Dassault must produce at least 11 a/c annually to go break-even on the production. This may imply that production is expensive; this again seems to imply that production is complex, and this again implies that highly skilled people and strict QA procedures are needed.
One may ask then, if this is surely not the case for all 4.5 gen fighters?
I suspect not.
Saab has said they can make money by selling no more than 80 (or was it 60!?) NG fighters! I always wondered how that could be, especially considering the low selling price and the high wages in Sweden. Using COTS, and basing the NG on the C/D of course helps, but surely it cannot be enough!
Then it dawned on me: The Gripen has been designed for simple, LEAN, and cost-effective assembly. This is probably one of the reasons why Saab managed to break the cost curve. I never heard Saab require 11 sales per year to go break-even!
Think IKEA furniture…
Perhaps this explains why Saab is still in India, in spite of Rafale declared the winner, and in spite of not being short-listed…?
Describing Gripen as “IKEA fighter” may be very close to the truth.
(I strongly suspect also Typhoon is rather difficult to assemble… just ask SA).
LokeThe customer is always right (even when he is wrong…!)
I can see it’s a difficult situation for Dassault however in the contract there will be some clauses that specify clearly what will happen if there are production delays and/or quality problems with the production.
Why don’t Dassault simply have the same clauses in their contract with HAL; if the Rafales after number 18 are delayed and Dassault is fined, they can then simply forward the fine to HAL (if the delays are due to HAL). etc.
Wasn’t there also some problems with the Typhoon assembly line in Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps India should stick to simpler designs like the Su-30…
LokeThe government’s negotiations with Dassault on the $20-billion deal to buy 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft have come to a standstill after the French aviation firm informed authorities that it cannot be held responsible for the 108 aircraft to be produced by HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd).
What started as a point of difference between the defence ministry and Dassault over the role of HAL escalated after the firm told Indian negotiators that the government will have to sign separate contracts — one with Dassault for 18 ‘fly-away’ aircraft and another with HAL, which will produce 108 jets under licence.
Dassault said it will supply manufacturing kits and equipment to HAL on time after which the contract with HAL will take over and Dassault will play no further role.
MoD is learnt to have completely rejected this suggestion and made it clear to Dassault that it will be solely responsible for the sale and delivery of all 126 aircraft. The deal will be only with Dassault and it will be the single point of contact, sources said.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-can-this-be-/1098016/
Almost unbelievable!
LokeBVR is the name of the game, and that is where a disproportionately large amount of money is being (and will be directed). No matter how superior you are @ High AOA, Acceleration, given the modern IR , LOAL weapons and potentialy (actually LIKELY) more lethal future ones (next 20-30 years) coupled with HMD’s, DAS type systems WVR will be a virtual SUICIDE if you are planning to merge into a furball CONSISTANTLY, therefore its PERSISTENT BVR or practically nothing unless you have the guts to swallow a lot of damage.. Pakfa with its designed supercruise should do well here, but the incumbent is the F-22 that is in operation has a very high supercruise (Mach 1.72 in A2A intercept mission), and a path to upgrade that for now is funded…When the PAKFA IOC’s and RuAF shares some of its specs and FTD’s we can form a better picture of its PLUSSES and NEGATIVES..but i agree it does promise to be a very very capable 5th gen AD fighter…
Clearly WVR is very dangerous and should be avoided, however if (or when) F-35 is faced with a “real” 5. gen fighter, it may be difficult to stay in BVR.
How will the F-35 detect the 5. gen? LPI radar needs to emit weak signal to avoid detection… but it needs to emit relatively “strong” signals to be able to detect a low RCS a/c!
Thus even with quite “modest” detectors he opponent may be able to detect the LPI.
Reducing the emitted power will lead the detection range to become very low and perhaps one soon start to approach WVR conditions before the a/c detect eachother…
IR sensors will become more important, and also IR suppression. What about low-cost low-temperature UAVs with IR sensors, networked to the fighter a/c?
LokeI just had a read in the Pak FA thread. It’s absolutely amazing how well the program goes so far in comparison to the F35.
They aimed for 10-20% increase in the engine thrust but now it looks like they will get up to 38% more instead.
That is the way to beat the requirements.
No reason for Sweden to celebrate.
Whereas I think the NG with IRIS-T and Meteor will do fine against the Su-35, I struggle to see how it can succeed against the PAK FA. And how will NG handle doble-digit SAMs in the future?
Will the NG be large enough to carry low-RCS pods with a meaningful payload? And can Saab get the RCS low enough to meet future threats?
There are some uncertainties around the future of 4.5 gen fighters….
The F-35 looks like a much safer bet for such scenarios.
LokeSA paid 11 billion USD for 84 F-15; that’s surprisingly cheap, just 130 million USd per plane, presumably that package contains less than other packages?
IF SK pays the same, it will be 7.8 billion USD for 60 F-15 — add 2.4 and it is actually cheaper than the F-35! I can’t believe it!?
Still it is above the ceiling that Slowman talks about (10.25 billion USD).
And then there is the Silent Eagle conversion on top of that…
LokeI am just thinking out loud so bear with me. I think that if this is the case (your figures about 10,5 , and this bid for 60 jets) then LMA could be banking on the price reducing in progressive lots as they have demonstrated from lot 1. According to their program head the price from Lot 1 has decreased by around 50%, so it is possible that LMA could be taking a bit of risk here and counting on the price trend continuing to go downwards as risk reduction and testing efforts advance…It would also be interesting to see what are the delivery timelines…the farther out, the more confident LMA could be of staying on top of the cost, and therefore the aggressive pricing..
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines… 4 of the 52 Norwegian jets are early orders (2016) however the main order of 48 jets is scheduled to start in 2018.
Another possibility is difference in exchange rates?
Sign In
