Spitfire9[QUOTE=TooCool_12f;1861645will they get the gripen, or another aircraft or nothing is a question that’ll receive its answer some time from now, and in the end, chances are that it won’t even be a politicians’ decision, but a decision by the swiss people who may very well have to vote on the subject[/QUOTE]
To me it would be the choice of the people if they were asked to vote for
either
a) Gripen deal
b) Rafale deal
c) Eurofighter deal
d) no new fighter
but they would be asked to vote to accept/reject one proposed deal, I’m sure.
Spitfire9If the numbers of aircraft ordered are smaller than planned you will see the price per airframe increase as there will be less economies of scale in the production, leading to further probable reductions from the customers.
Talking purely of manufacturing here, forgetting development costs. I appreciate the notion of economies of scale but I don’t see how the cost per unit to manufacture 2000 aircraft will be much higher than 3000.
Let’s say that fixed costs (manufacturing tools needed + buildings etc) are $4 billion. Spread over 3000, that’s $1.33 million per frame. Spread over 2000 frames, that’s $2 million per frame. Not a big difference.
If as an export customer I wanted 100 frames @ $100 million each, would a rise in price to $100.66 million affect my plans much? I don’t think so.
Spitfire9Originally Posted by Spitfire9
The debate over CPFH and the UK choosing to express this as the all-in cost is a revelation as to how expensive air defence has become. It will be interesting to see whether governments are prepared to embark on new projects where 1 hour’s use of a military aircraft will use $75,000/$100,000/$100,000+ of the funds available for defence.Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what F-35 will cost per flying hour with all costs factored in?
It doesn’t cost that much to use the aircraft for an hour. Those are lifetime costs divided by flying hours. It would cost almost as much sitting on the ground. The more you fly the aircraft, the lower that cost per hour will be.
The point I was trying to make was that modern fighters suck funds out of a defence budget. At some point governments may decide that this actually reduces their overall defence capability and they should avoid getting involved in monumentally expensive fighter development projects again.
Back to F-35, a worrying statement from the UK:
The Government “doesn’t know” how much the price of new aircraft carrier fighter jets will rise because of cancellations abroad.
Defence Equipment Minister Peter Luff told the Commons order changes from other countries would have “implications” for the price of the F35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF).
Spitfire9From the 20 February article in Le Matin:
«Je me fais du souci; le risque technologique est trop grand; j’ai peur qu’on se retrouve dans l’impasse, avec des énormes dépassements de coûts, ce qui aboutirait à un scandale encore plus grand», dit un haut gradé sous couvert de l’anonymat.
An unidentified senior person voices his doubts over SAAB’s ability to deliver, believing that the “technology risk” is too high and risking enormous cost overruns. One wonders
(a) how much this person knows about the technological difficulties SAAB faces and their resources to overcome them
(b) how a fixed price contract for the delivery of 22 aircraft to the contract specification can result in “enormous cost overruns”
To me this newspaper is probably indulging in spoiler tactics.
Spitfire9Apart from the near impossibility of accurately comparing Rafale deals with Typhoon deals to get a pure flyaway price for either, what about currency movements?
Comparing Rafale and Typhoon prices in different currencies can be extremely misleading. Between start 2000 and end 2011 sterling varied between £1=1.75+ euros and £1=<1.05 euros. With that kind of fluctuation a £50 million aircraft could be seen to cost anything between <52.5 million euros and >87.5 million euros.
Spitfire9IMO where a buyer undertakes to pay all the design and development costs of a product, he is free to do so. Were the French/UK/German/US/whatever government simply to hand a company funds to develop a military aircraft that would be a subsidy. Where a government wants to buy a product whose development a manufacturer is not prepared to finance on the basis of receiving payment on delivery of the finished product, that government has to abandon the idea of buying that product or to agree to finance its development. Is that a subsidy?
Anyway, Dassault agreed to fund a proportion of Rafale development costs. Did Eurofighter? Did LM with the F-35? If not, why point a finger at Dassault. They seem to have sinned less than the other sinners.
Spitfire9The debate over CPFH and the UK choosing to express this as the all-in cost is a revelation as to how expensive air defence has become. It will be interesting to see whether governments are prepared to embark on new projects where 1 hour’s use of a military aircraft will use $75,000/$100,000/$100,000+ of the funds available for defence.
Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what F-35 will cost per flying hour with all costs factored in?
Spitfire9What can be considered a war-crime however, is killing Libyans in order to sell weapons, like Rafale.
I couldn’t agree more, however selling more Rafales was only a side effect of the real (and hidden) reasons why we went in Libya (which were criminal alright).
Nic
I think your statements are unfair. It was clear from Gaddafi’s threats that he intended exacting terrible vengeance on the Lybian dissidents. The reason there was military intervention in Libya was to prevent extensive killing of Libyans by the Libyan regime. It was not to advertise the qualities of Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen to potential buyers.
Spitfire9Cost undercutting to undermine the competition is an unfair trade practice world over, but we should wait to see if Dassault has done that.
What’s unfair about cost cutting? x and y are 2 dealers who sell tomatoes in a street market. They buy tomatoes at the same price. Both x and y sell for a higher price than the price they pay but dealer x sells at a lower price than dealer y. Is it unfair if dealer x is prepared to make a smaller gross profit than dealer y? I don’t think it is unfair commercial practice.
Trading in aircraft is far more complex and India has not been offered the same product by x and y but is it unfair if x and y do not make the same profit margin? I don’t think it is. In any case it seems that Eurofighter cannot win on price – they could reduce their profit margin to 0% and Dassault would be able to offer a lower price and still make make a profit.
Spitfire9Google translated from: http://www.tdg.ch/suisse/Le-Conseil-federal-s-en-tient-au-Gripen/story/20875929
Re: Loke’s post
The article Loke refers to also contains the following –
Le Conseil fédéral a pu se prononcer sur la base des derniers chiffres à disposition,
Translation: “The federal Council made its statement based on the latest figures available.”
That should finally put to rest the assertion by several that Gripen failed to meet the minimum acceptable level. They don’t have access to those latest figures on which the decision was made so they cannot know.
Spitfire9The technical evaluation assessed the Gripen both in the C/D version and in the E/F version, and the E/F version still fell short.
If that is the case then why did the chief of the air force say it fulfilled the needs of the air force?
the evolution of the Gripen was taken into account in the technical evaluation and the three aircrafts have since then evolved, not only one.
I am sure that all 3 aircraft have evolved in the last 3 years but I think that (partly because the Swiss public may be unenthusiastic about any purchase of new fighters) Maurer is looking at lowest cost for satisfactory performance. You say Gripen E does not provide satisfactory performance. According to the report of the meeting yesterday the chief of the air force, Markus Gygax, says it does:
“Der Gripen erfülle die Anforderungen der Luftwaffe…” Translation: “The Gripen fulfils the requirements of the air force…”
I don’t know how he reached that conclusion. He is better informed than me (or you or anyone else posting their thoughts on this forum) so I am prepared to accept his assessment.
To me the question is no longer whether Gripen is adequate, it is whether a smaller number of Rafale can fulfil the requirements of the air force at a lower cost.
By the way, I have started another thread if people want to discuss this.
Spitfire9And for the umpteenth time, no one has thrashed the Gripen and said that it could not meet the needs of the Swiss.
No? I thought most criticism was based on this assumption.
The issue is of a dysfunctional selection process, whereby the one and only technical evaluation comes to the conclusion that product A and B are up to par but product C certainly not, and on this basis talks seem to have been furthered with only the manufacturer of product C.
I’m not sure the selection process is dysfunctional at all. A leaked report saying that Gripen C would not meet the needs of the Swiss has made people think that Gripen E would not meet the needs of the Swiss. Since SAAB was not offering the Gripen C, so what if it were judged inadequate. There seems to be a lot of hysteria about how big a mistake it would be for Switzerland to buy an aircraft that was not offered to Switzerland.
With to me would seem to show that the entire process has been nearly solely of a political nature from the start
It is certain to be political when the politicians have to consider whether a referendum would approve procurement of new fighters.
It is also a political decision whether Switzerland needs the capability offered by a twin-engined ultra high performance fighter or whether a less capable fighter will suffice. Maurer has made it clear that he has opted for the latter.
Of course, if Dassault can demonstrate that a reduced number of Rafale will provide an equal capability at a lower price than Gripen…
(Maurer, from the hard core patriotic right, not wanting to buy a French or German product since they upped the pressure in 2009 on fiscal issues/bank secrecy). Which raises several issues, notably whether Maurer sold the thing has a political decision to the rest of the executive (out of the 7 members of the executive, Maurer is the only from the hard core right, the rest being made of two socialists (PS), two centres (PDC) and two centre-right (PR)) that approved it or whether he misled them.
I think Maurer could be accused of misleading through incompetence if he had made a decision based on the performance of the 3 aircraft 3+ years ago, especially as one of the aircraft tested was not what was offered to Switzerland.
Perhaps the outcome of this leak will be that whatever is chosen will now be rejected in a referendum and the result will be Vive les Tigres!
[/QUOTE]
Spitfire9I don’t trust the gripen figures of cost per flying hours. Such a difference is really fishy if you ask me.
Nic
IIRC the Gripen cost per flying hour given by the Swedish air force was equivalent to $3,000. Sorry, can’t give a source. If that is true, $5,000 per flying hour seems reasonable to me for Gripen E/F.
Found a reference here in one of the MMRCA threads (courtesy Loke)
Based on open statistics from the Swedish Air Force, the calculated cost per flying hour is 4,000 USD including fuel but excluding cost for mission personnel (operations, maintenance and other) at Level 1. The major cost elements included in this cost are as follows:
• Fuel consumption at 0.40 USD per Liter
• Level-1 maintenance material and repair parts
• Airframe Level-2 maintenance, repair and overhaul, including labor and material (i.e. D-level)
• Propulsion System Level 2 maintenance, repair and overhaul, including labor and material (i.e. D-level)
• R&M (Reliability and Maintainability) driven Modifications and Upgrades. Any modification kits and associated spares required for safety or deficiency correction purposes will be provided within the framework of the proposed Support concept. A cost for specific R&M driven modifications and DMS (Diminishing Manufacturing Source) changes has been estimated and is included in the cost per flying hour.
Spitfire9It would seem that the defence establishment (i.e. those below the political level) wanted to go with the Rafale (see evaluation and how it was leaked),
Unless my German is dangerously defective, the following came out of the meeting –
André Blattmann, head of the army: the decision of the Bundesrat is right. He says the leadership of the army backs the Gripen. He makes the point that procurement of new fighters should not be a financial burden for other parts of Swiss defence.
Markus Gygax, head of the air force: Gripen fulfils air force requirements.
Ulrich Appenzeller, head of procurement: the evaluation was conducted professionally.
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/GripenGeheimbericht-war-nichts-Neues/story/14248049
Switzerland shouldn’t choose Eurofighter.. Austria chose it and now they’re regretting it as they’re bleeding out their derriers maintaining it..
Eurofighter : >$10,000 – $15,000+ per flying hour?
Rafale: >$10,000 per flying hour?
Gripen: <$5,000 per flying hour?
What would suit Switzerland best?
Spitfire9Die schlechten Noten für den Gripen beziehen sich laut Maurer auf das ältere Gripen-Modell CD. Die Schweiz wolle das neuere Modell EF kaufen, sagte Maurer.
Cleared that up: the scores in the leaked evaluation referred to the older Gripen C/D version. Switzerland is interested in buying the newer E/F version.
There should be another, later report of expected Gripen E/F performance somewhere. I wonder if whoever leaked the report to Le Matin would be as keen to leak information regarding the assessment of Gripen E/F.
Sign In
