Spitfire9the swiss use the mirage for decenies, they knows they can trust french products more than anyone else, they tried the hunter once, it even not reached ten years of use!
You know, I think you should learn a little more before writing about aviation history.
In 1958 Switzerland ordered 100 Hunters.
In the 1970’s Switzerland evaluated the Corsair II and Dassault Milan as a replacement for its de Havilland Venoms. Eventually Switzerland decided to order more 60 more Hunters instead.
The Hunter reached about 35 years of use in Switzerland!
Spitfire9The final jet of Batch 3 aircraft was handed over yesterday to Swedens FMV agency and it was concluded all 64 jets of B3 has been handed over 1500m SEK (US$190m) cheaper than agreed which is about 10% lower.
If that is really true it makes the Norwegian NG procurement cost assessment look wildly inaccurate. Or should I say deliberately wildly inaccurate?
However much I think about it, I cannot understand how an aircraft costing about $60 million per frame costs less than a derivative of another that costs about $30 million per frame. I hope the members of the Storting will be able to understand better than I when this decision comes up for discussion.:)
Spitfire9Dassault and at deferent level Saab are the sole for the post war period center of combat fighter excellent powerhouse in europe!
Mon oeuil! Du nonsens rendu rigolo par son absurdité. Que veut dire en anglais le mot chasseur? Hunter.
Spitfire9I think the price assesments will need closer scrutiny for two main reasons:-
The probability of a price rise isn’t seen a very likely!!.:eek:
and
What were they comparing the JSF to? with regard to life cycle costs, was Gripen even costed?.
I’ve been reading an article spotted by Signatory containing an interview Bob Kemp, VP International Marketing with Gripen International, gave in Brazil last month.
He says the following (my translation from Portuguese):
– the Gripen NG was created to have an operational cost equal to half the operational cost of the Lockheed F-16.
(o Gripen NG foi criado para ter um custo de operação igual à metade do custo operacional do Lockheed F-16.)
– In the Holland competition an evaluation indicated that the purchase of Gripen NG instead of the F-35 would generate an effective saving of US$6 billion for a fleet of 85 aircraft over the operational life of the fighter.
(Na concorrência da Holanda, uma avaliação apontou que a compra de Gripen NG, no lugar do F-35, geraria uma economia efetiva de US$ 6 bilhões, para uma frota de 85 aeronaves, ao longo da vida operacional do caça.)
Now LM must have done an amazing job if the F-35 is ‘even cheaper to run’ than the Gripen NG which in its turn is claimed to be designed to ‘cost half as much to run’ as the F-16.
I don’t know the basis of the evaluation done in the Dutch competition but…
someone is giving out very inaccurate numbers, it seems to me. LM? Saab? The Norwegian analysts? All of them?
Article Signatory found:
http://www.alide.com.br/joomla/index.php/component/content/article/36-noticias/163-gripenbsb-pt2
Spitfire9The pricing is where any controversy lies.. If my Norwegian is any good (google translation) it looks like the Gripen gave a price that was real the JSF was estimated.
…
the price worked out to be
24 BKr fro the Gripen.
18 BKr for the JSF.…
There is a bit in there about price confidence on page 40 that I can’t quite get my head around, any kindly Norwegians want to help me out here???.
In my opinion the price is a very major snag with the JSF. If the Norwegians did not get an offer at a firm price, the price they actually pay may prove much higher than the price used in their evaluation. I think that is what will happen and that the JSF cost figures used in the evaluation will be shown to have been very wide of the mark.
Spitfire9“”The Omanis are looking at what capabilities are available in the market but may decide this is not the right time for them,” one source said.”
well the brits medias are storming a tea cup, as usual!
I think it is more British mainstream media understating how far negotiations are. Janes reports they are in the closing stages of contract negotiations.
I tend to believe what Janes reports although I’m surprised. So the RAF’s complement of Typhoons is close to being reduced by 24!
I wonder if a purchase by Oman will encourage UAE to buy some Rafales on a “me too” basis.
Spitfire9I expect the Rafale to export some! but which country is going to be first to break the Typhoon export run with a Rafale order?., there has been plenty of speculation of sales, but nothing signed yet.
It would be very funny if the first export order was from the UK, (Only if the JSF goes pear shaped…)
Cheers
It’s been pear shaped for quite some time, hasn’t it? Not that it’s bound to stay that way… could turn into a peach in the end. Not likely though IMO.
BTW I don’t wish to be difficult but since when has 2 export orders been an export run?
Spitfire9BAE in negotiations with Oman over £1.4bn Eurofighter deal
By Sylvia Pfeifer, FT-Defence Industries Correspondent
Published: November 13 2008 02:00 | Last updated: November 13 2008 02:00BAE Systems is in talks to sell up to 24 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft to Oman in a deal worth at least £1.4bn, the Financial Times has learnt.
…
UK defence sources close to the negotiations said the Gulf state wanted to replace its 24 ageing Jaguar jets with Typhoons within the next four years.
…
Last night, a source close to the MoD warned that the deal was not yet concluded. “The Omanis are looking at what capabilities are available in the market, but they may decide this is not the right time for them,” the source said.
I wonder who initiated these discussions. Did Bae ask Oman if they would like to talk about a replacement for their Jaguars or was it the other way round?
By the sound of the last paragraph above, Oman would want to talk to other manufacturers as well before placing any order (if they are actually in the market at the moment).
Spitfire9Apart from the four-billion Euro turnover company Snecma, Russian NPO Saturn is contending for the bid to co-develop and co-produce Kaveri engine.
The DRDO is expected to shortlist the winner “any time now,” a top Snecma official said and expressed confidence that once the contract is awarded the engines would be ready in four years’ time.
“We have submitted a short and secure four-year plan as the Kaveri engine development time-frame,” said Xavier Sahut D’izarn, Vice President, Military Engines, Snecma group.
Thanks for posting that.
So
– thoughts of considering the GE414 and EJ200 are out
– a 20,000lb thrust engine should be available 2013/2014
– the LCA performance should reach required standard with revised Kaveri
I wonder, what will the export prospects be for the “finished” Tejas? Will there be any direct competitor in its weight/performance category?
Spitfire9Spitfire9, as discussed earlier, the above quotation was made by the head of GTRE, Mr. T. Mohana Rao in August, in which he also said that Kaveri shall be concluded with foreign co-operation in 5-6 years.
But, as per another news report of only a few days back, Mr. Rao has “dropped a bombshell”, as per which Kaveri has to cross 2 more milestones to be installable on Tejas next year itself. Thus, it is indicative of a ‘breakthrough’.
Thanks for the reply.
Perhaps I’m being a bit dense but I am still confused about the nature of the breakthrough. To me that means there has been a step forward in some way.
Regarding the milestones, if one is for the engine to be tried under fully simulated altitude conditions, which will take place in Moscow between February and March, next year, what is the other one? Do you know?
Spitfire9As reported several times earlier since 2006, the Kaveri is only 150 kgs overweight and is short of only 400 kg of thrust. However, as quoted by another scientist earlier, these 2 minor issues are “killing” the Kaveri.
Now as per the same interview, he also stated that the procedure of installing Snecma’s core would take 5-6 years before it is tested.
But this “sudden” announcement that the Kaveri will be installed on Tejas the next year itself (instead of 5-6 years later as per Mr. Mohana Rao), may indeed indicate that a breakthrough has been achieved on the original Kaveri engine.
What would the nature of the breakthrough be? I don’t see how it can have lost any of its 150Kg excess weight during testing. Has thrust been increased by several hundred Kg since the Director of the GTRE said it could not be used on combat aircraft?
“The core of Kaveri is performing well. Because of the lower thrust, it cannot be used on combat aircraft.”
BTW will the re-cored Kaveri have the same external dimensions as the current engine? If so, I can see the sense of fitting the current engine in the LCA.
Spitfire9NEW YORK — The November issue of Defense Technology International (DTI) details the growing issue of hearing loss in the military in an article by Senior Editor Paul McLeary, “Equipment Noise is Accelerating Hearing Loss.” New equipment, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), is so loud that “the technology to protect users from damage does not yet exist,” says the article, and “it’s not a matter of whether but when and how badly operators will suffer permanent hearing damage.”
Spitfire9The same director is talking after the successful tests in September. Which one you give preference.
The later one. I stand corrected. The Kaveri is to be installed in the LCA.
Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of installing an engine that will never be used in a production LCA? Or do I understand from your report of successful tests in September that there has been a sudden turnaround in the fortunes of the Kaveri?
Spitfire9Is this for real:eek: LCA will get Kaveri in 2009??
Miracles do happen in this age!!
I don’t think so. Director of GTRE said in July/August that the current unsuccessful Kaveri (overweight and lacking thrust) would never be used in a miltary aircraft.
I must admit that I do not set too much store by what I hear and read about the LCA and Kaveri. Many Indian sources appear to go to desperate lengths to avoid acknowleging that the 2 programs have not worked out as planned.
So what if they have not lived up to expectations? How often do ambitious first attempts come good?
Spitfire9I thought this was a thread about why Britain doesn’t produce fighter aircraft on its own.
So did I.
Why doesn’t Britain produce fighter aircraft on its own? I can make a couple of suggestions.
Development costs. If Britain had opted to develop something like the Typhoon alone, development costs would have been spread over a small number of aircraft. The design would most likely have been tailored to suit RAF needs thereby reducing the chances of gaining export customers. I think of the example of the Lightning.
Lack of focus on international demand. The Canberra, Hunter, Jet Provost and Hawk were very succesful in terms of exports. I’m not sure that they were designed to be. I think it was just good fortune that RAF requirements happened to result in designs that concurred with the requirements of other air forces. There would not be much point designing an F-16 competitor but why not an F-5 replacement, for example? Isn’t there a big market there that has not really been addressed?
Cost of manufacturing in UK? I recall reading that the HAL assembled Hawks are considerably cheaper than UK assembled Hawks.
Sign In
