LmRaptorI don’t think there is too much in it… but as for T/D ratios (given the similar T/W ratio) … I see an advantage favouring the F-22. Seeing as the F-22 has roughly twice the thrust… it would need to have twice the drag to produce the same ratio. Now I am sure the ratio is fairly close and varies quite a lot depending on speed and altitude. But if anything I think the F-22 has the edge.
LmRaptorWhich is understandable – the point however is that the statements are true. You wouldn’t preach lies to the people you want to sell something to when they are privy to the results, because they were the competitors!
LmRaptorIf the Indian already know, why does he feel the need to remind them the results ?
Imho, Not a smart move.
BTW, I thought RAF pilots were never talking about exercises results :diablo:
He was clearly asked by Indian journalists.
LmRaptorDifference here is that the Indians were on the receiving side. He can’t be lying or embellishing the truth. He is simply stating a fact – one the Indians fully understand.
“I would say the IAF crew that I have worked with and seen are every bit as clever as any other air crew in the world, and in many cases better. It is all about the man as the machine that they operate,” he added.
He isn’t saying they are losers(see the quote above) – he is saying the Typhoon is a better jet by a SIGNIFICANT margin – which it is. He is telling the Indians what they already know.
LmRaptorhttp://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british_typhoons_whacked_indias_sukhois_joint_exercises.html
‘British Typhoons whacked India’s Sukhois in joint exercises’
By N.C. Bipindra, IANS,
RAF Fairford (Britain) : Britain’s frontline fighter jet Eurofighter Typhoon, shortlisted for India’s $10.4-billion combat jets tender, whacked the Indian Air Force (IAF) warhorse Sukhoi in one-on-one dog fights during bilateral air war games, if Britain’s air chief is to be believed.
“Well, they lost,” was Stephen Dalton’s response when IANS asked how the Russia-developed India-manufactured Su-30MKI air superiority jets performed against the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Typhoons when they matched their wits during the joint exercises in recent years.
However, he was quick to add that the two aircraft are different in technologies, and that Typhoons are next generation, and hence there is no comparison.
Dalton was interacting with IANS at the recently held Royal International Air Tattoo military air show at the RAF base here.
The two aircraft were pitted against each other during ‘Indradhanush’ exercises in 2007 at Waddington in Britain and in 2010 at Kalaikunda in India.
Interestingly, the IAF had claimed in 2007 that Sukhoi’s performance against Typhoon had convinced the RAF of its superiority. “The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior manoeuvring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated,” an Indian defence ministry release had said during the July 2007 Indradhanush.
It was, however, fair to Typhoon, saying the IAF pilots were impressed with its agility in the air.
Dalton was also all praise for the IAF for training its pilots to put any aircraft they fly to best use.
“The issue is you are comparing technology and people. So, more often than not, technology can give you a great edge, a great lead. But actually it is always the people (behind the machines) who make the difference at the end of the day,” he said.
“It is not just how the aircraft did in the air. It is also about how the individual thinks, how they work, and their willingness to develop and to experiment.
“I have always found the IAF to be extremely good. Yes, technology is a significant element, but also the individual is really important in this,” he added.
Dalton also indicated that the IAF inventory of Sukhois, MiGs and Mirages are no match to the Typhoons.
“Nothing that India has got is anything anywhere near this (the Typhoon). I would say that absolutely. This airplane is phenomenally different in both performance and technology in anything they (IAF) got right now,” he said.
But, he added, it was not criticism, as Typhoon is the product of next generation technology.
“I would say the IAF crew that I have worked with and seen are every bit as clever as any other air crew in the world, and in many cases better. It is all about the man as the machine that they operate,” he added.
Dalton said the cooperation between the RAF and the IAF will continue, as Britain valued this relationship. “IAF has a lot of experience and I would like to suck that out and use it, quite frankly,” he added.
This isn’t surprising really. It is about time the Typhoon was recognised as significantly superior to anything short of the F-22 in an operational air to air capacity.
LmRaptorOK, then we basically agree. Not only is the R&D covered completely, it also comes with a incentive, as well. But this is not the normal way to calculate profit rate.
Not to be pedantic but weren’t you assuming that I meant the 7~8% figure relates only to production and not R&D as you said with: “Of course, you mean pure production incentive, with all additional (R&D) cost covered separately, right?”If you visit Porsche retailer today and buy a new Carrera Turbo, then the actual profit rate will not be mere 7-8%, but somewhere close to 30%. Of course, from this amount the Porsche company must (or already has in forward) cover all development/tooling cost.
That’s not a net profit then as the company would have to cover those development costs from previous profit as you say or by eating into that 30%. The 7~8% rule of thumb is an indicator of the net profit per project/program.The same goes for a government which places an order for six squadrons of F/A-18 Superhornets. They will pay over 20% profit rate compared to actual production cost, not 7-8%.
Yes the relative profit margin for the production phase alone is higher than for the other aspects that make up the 7~8% of the total development and procurement cost. But as I say this is a rule of thumb used as an indicator for the total development and production program profit – it is almost certainly derived from parametric data of hundreds of aerospace projects that have been relatively successful.At the end of the day though I don’t think its nearly as high as 20% – especially if the rule of thumb holds true. One of the reasons for this is the level of complexity of buying a squadron of F/A-18s vs a couple of Carrera’s. LM aeronautics – who assemble F-35s are looking at 7~8% profit – but LM fire control are making profit on the components that they sell to LM aeronautics to build the F-35. This is likely to not be accounted for in the 7~8% figure. The point here being that there are far more subcontractors involved in the aerospace industry due to the complexity of the industry. Whereas Porche probably build a lot more of their Carrera in relative terms than LM build of their F-35s.
If LM as a whole just assembled the jets and built none of the components – that 7~8% figure is what they would be looking at. The reality however is that they are building many of the components in different LM subsidiaries and selling them off to LM aeronautics.
I think it would be much better if actual profits for hardware procurement were calculated this way. The aircraft manufacturer would get a fixed profit margin (say 23%) for production cost and that’s it. I can imagiune that this would considerably eliminate cost overruns in the development phase.
The problem with this is the associated times of development compared to other industries. The level of risk involved would limit aerospace businesses in the R&D phase as profit would only come once production starts in effect. This means for many years a company could be completely stagnant until production starts – obviously in theory it would be an incentive for better planning, better investment of the companies R&D and quicker development – but is this possible in reality due to the size and time scales required for aerospace development? Not so sure. In some cases however – probably on smaller projects – this may be happening – as I say again 7-8% is a rule of thumb not a business practice.
.
LmRaptorOf course, you mean pure production incentive, with all additional (R&D) cost covered separately, right?
It generally includes development costs and procurement for the prime contractor/assembler. So hypothetically, if development and procurement for a couple thousand F-35s costs 300 billion. LM would be looking at making a net profit of 21~24 billion on the program over its development and production lifetime. Of course it makes a lot more on spares/servicing/maintenance/future development etc – that trillion dollar figure. Of course this is an averaged rule of thumb percentage and can vary significantly between corporation.
Additionally of course further profits are found in that 300 – (21/24) billion figure as the subcontractors all demand their own profit for each sub assembly or subsystem they produce. These may be significantly higher or lower than 7~8%. It would be interesting to see the profit margins on P&W’s F135 or NG’s AN/APG-81/EO DAS
LmRaptorLast time I checked, gross profit margin on sensitive machinery for multi-national companies in the hi-tech sector was anywhere between 22% and 28%. You got some true philantrophs there at LM who get satisfied with slightly above the double of a Wal-Mart rate. 😎
That may explain those juicy cost overruns 🙂
7% ~ 8% is a good rule of thumb for all aerospace contractors, working for the military or for civil purposes.
LmRaptorIncredible display…
LmRaptorThis is the friday (I think) rehearsal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7vCgKqDurk&feature=related
LmRaptorRafale was incredible today – without doubt the best solo fast jet performance. Really dynamic performance. I preferred it to two years ago. It was a pity we didn’t get a clean Typhoon right after it.
LmRaptorNope, got work to do!
It’s fairly close from Bristol, assuming you haven’t gone home after uni 🙂
Gone home for now. Im coming from London/Kent.
LmRaptorUnfortunately I am going with a buddy from pretty much the opposite direction. Make sure you dress appropriately. I think its going to be quite wet.
LmRaptorBAE Systems – Typhoon FGR4 arriving at RAF Fairford http://twitpic.com/5pjhks
LmRaptorJust booked my ticket for saturday… relatively poor line up and almost certainly poor weather. Don’t know why I did it ;). I look forward to seeing the Rafale even though it doesn’t accelerate as well as the Typhoon.
Sign In
