Spitfire9Hi,
Even if it seems low (in the Rafale case I mean :D), the 59 Rafale F3 order of 2004 was for €3bn so a average unit price of €50.84.
And since in France invoices to the state are made TTC, it should include VAT
Not 100% sur though
If the actual amounts paid by France and the UK for their fighters were known and the rate of VAT applied were known (it’s not a standard rate in all EU countries) then one could calculate an ex-VAT price. There is no VAT on goods exported to countries outside of the EU.
Spitfire9EF 77 mln euros
Rafale C 51.8 mln euroshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_RafaleThe Saudis paid the EF 122 mln $ per plane with full support (you can google the contract if you want).
At current exchange rates your prices given are:
EF 77 x 1.41 mln = $108.57 mln
Rafale C 51.8 x 1.41 mln = $73.03 mln
Do you think that full support for the Saudi Typhoons is only $13.5 mln per airframe? I don’t. I don’t think the Typhoon price you give is correct.
Spitfire9So, with support and maintenance gear, initial spares and training it comes down to about $200m USD per plane. Interesting.
I wonder, with a lot of arms exports to Israel being funded by the US govt, do US arms suppliers sell to Israel at a higher price? If something is not going to cost the customer anything, there’s not much incentive for the customer to negotiate the best price.
Or is the F-35 just much, much more expensive than it was promised it would be?
Spitfire9I have to say if given the politics behind a JSF pull-out (increasing costs, still no ratified agreement on the tech-share:mad:), Hornet should damn well be a no-go!
Possibly cost, too. The flyaway cost I have read of is <$60 million. What did Australia agree to pay for 24 SH + very long term support + other associated items? $5 billion!
As it is just for us, there does not seem to be a great deal of point in navalising the EF.
Agreed.
I certainly agree with the sentiment that the Rafale is the option.
Why does the UK not discreetly ask for a quote?
Spitfire9Is it just politics or could it be a serious consideration? Could the E2K be adopted to carrier operation as they claim in the article?
If organising the defence of your state is “politics” the situation is political. All the export customers for the F-35 have been subjected to pressure to order the aircraft prematurely – before the aircraft has been fully developed, before the capability allowed for the export versions is known and before the price is known. This unhelpful approach promises to create long term havoc with the defence budgets of the countries concerned.
As the timesonline reports:
“That has really concentrated minds at the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis. “Put simply no-one has the faintest idea how much this project will cost.”
My guess is that export F-35B’s will either have a price well in excess of $100 million or the price of spares will be extremely high. Either of these outcomes will jeopardise expenditure on other defence items.
Again, from the timesonline report:
The BAE Systems study, carried out earlier this year, determined that the aircraft could be built to land on carriers without major difficulty.
A company spokesman would only confirm that the study had been carried out and that the MoD had seen the results which confirmed the aircraft could be adapted to fly off carriers.
Of course the Typhoon could be adapted to operate off carriers but what would it cost? And what would it cost to modify the carriers ordered by the UK to incorporate catapults?
IIRC when a navalised Typhoon was considered in the past, it was reported that there would be a visibility problem landing the Typhoon on carriers due to the size of the canards.
Spitfire9In another interview a year back, as per here, Mr. Fali Major had stated that the first squadron of Tejas shall be inducted in the IAF by 2010. However, now he has postponed the induction of Tejas by 5 years, and
relegated the induction of the first 20 units for only training purposes.It may be argued that this may be due to the problems of inadequate thrust that have been noticed only recently. However, it should not take 8 years from now for the installation of a new engine and subsequent induction of Tejas. With only weapons testing and closure of the flight-tests after installation of a new engine remaining, the Tejas should achieve IoC by 2010-2011 in it’s final form, thereafter which it can begin full-scale induction.
Thus, the date of 2015 may be too delayed.In my view, the same urgency, “alacrity” and “enthusiasm” shown for MRCA and PAK-FA by IAF must be shown for Tejas also.
I have followed the Tejas saga on this thread for some time. It seems that the aircraft is not yet sufficiently developed to be acceptable to the IAF. I am surprised that the lack of thrust provided by the intended Kaveri engine should be portrayed as an unexpected revelation. I get the impression that help to overcome this problem has been sought for a long time from foreign military engine designers. Ergo the problem has been known about for a long time.
it should not take 8 years from now for the installation of a new engine and subsequent induction of Tejas.
Abandonment of the Kaveri as a military jet engine was announced some months ago in favour of joint development of a new engine based on the core of the SNECMA M-88. It will certainly take several years to develop this new engine and (I imagine) the airframe will need modifications in view of the engine swap. Whether those would involve minor or major redesign I would not know. Is 8 years to induction of a re-engined Tejas therefore unrealistic?
BTW I find it unfortunate that the decision to swap engines was not made years ago. Had the M-88 core joint venture engine been selected far earlier India might have been in a position to order Rafale with Indian built engines to meet the MRCA requirement.
Spitfire9FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT – News) F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
If this is the case, what need the F-22? Was the Australian order for F-18’s a disastrous misjudgement? How about Singapore and South Korea, were they out of their minds ordering F-15’s?
Or is it more likely that an aircraft designed primarily to play a strike role with an ability to defend itself is not 400 per cent more effective in air-to-air combat than the best fighters currently available in the international market?
Spitfire9In my view, the models of Tejas and Arjun must be pursued for MCA i.e. only those parts and components that will take too long to develop may be temporarily acquired from abroad (like GE engine, or thermal imagers), whilst parallel programmes for the same can be executed (like Kaveri).
I thought that Kaveri had been declared dead as a fighter aircraft engine.
On that tack, will the proposed (or is it firm?) M-88 joint venture engine require substantial redesign of the Tejas?
Spitfire9did the RAF typhoons ever get the cannon? and if they did, were they ever allowed ammo for it?
A ridiculous fiasco over this. But never mind, these things are a matter of national security so do not attract much attention.
IIRC
1. A working cannon was included
2. It was decided the cannon was redundant and it would save money if it were deleted
3. It was decided to replace the cannon with ballast so as not to disturb the balance of the aircraft (makes me wonder how you can release a 500Kg bomb that is not at the C of G without disturbing the balance more)
4. It was decided that a suitable ballast emulating the absent cannon was too difficult to design (how difficult is it to make a/some mould/s and pour concrete?)
5. It was decided to include the cannon again without ammunition
6. It was decided to include the cannon and ammunition
So the British MOD/RAF/whoever have finally got back to where they were when they started (albeit later than intended and with a few million pounds less in their budget than when they started).
Spitfire9Electrical Systems
The Typhoon has essentially two electrical systems, the primary power generation and distribution system and the secondary systems (including the auxiliary power unit). Primary power is supplied via the engine turbines through a LucasVarity/BAe Systems supplied distribution and rectification system. Using this electrical power can be supplied at a number of voltages and AC phases as well as supplying a DC output. The DC system is fully redundant with two back-up rectifier units in case the two primaries fail. Additionally a DC battery source is available in emergencies as well as to power up the APU.
Spitfire9If the fcs is quadrupally redundent then what happens if both engines fail, is there some back up system like a RAT? Four computers without power are no good to anyone 😀
If both engines failed it would be time for pilot and aircraft to consider going their separate ways, wouldn’t it?
Spitfire9Now after many former Eastern European and former Soviet Republics get some freedom. Russia thinks it can force and intimidate them into not join the free world thru FORCE!
Scooter I’m not trying to score points in some kind of contest… but… I thought the East Europeans had already freed themselves from Russian control. Free people don’t need to join the free world if they are already free!
So, Russia a former communist country with leaders like Stalin is your best friend.
Many countries (communist and capitalist) with vicious, murderous leaders have in the past enjoyed the friendship of the Soviet Union, the USA, the UK, France etc etc
Which, gets back to my whole point about Russia and India. Does India really want to be associated with a Russia that is tilting towards a totalitarian and dictorial goverment that oppresses its own people
Good question. Sadly I think we all know the answer to that but then how often do countries put the interests of humanity above their own interests?
Really, the only thing I don’t get about India. Is how a democratic and free goverment. Looks the other way when its supposed friend crushes the rights of other…….
Sorry, at the very least it is a gross oversimplification to describe what has happened as Russia crushing the rights of Georgia.
Spitfire9I am curious: what capabilities would make Norway prefer Typhoon to Gripen? Granted the Typhoon is larger and can carry a larger payload. Gripen on the other hand has a very short turn-around time. Typhoon has the much-hyped supercruise (which NG also will have, maybe probably less super although we can’t tell until it’s been tested).
L
I’m speculating that if the Norwegian government does not select Gripen (because the military advise it does not best meet their requirements) and is not prepared to risk ordering F-35 (too many unknowns) then Typhoon might become the best option – more capable than Gripen, 2 engines (I guess this results in less attrition through engine failure), few unknowns re: price, performance, delivery.
Spitfire9I don’t know of any particular political, cultural or military links between India and Georgia. Geographically they are a long way apart with a number of countries between the two.
The thread queries whether Russian intervention in the turmoil in Georgia will affect Indo-Russian relations. I take this as a more general query questioning whether Russian military intervention in any state (in which India has no particular interest) might result in India distancing herself from Russia due to Indian disapproval.
There are many instances of regions within a state wishing to secede. Many new states are created in this way. By and large if the majority of the population in the region concerned wishes to secede, secession is accepted as being the exercise of a right by the region concerned. Self determination is supreme in international law IIRC eg Bangladesh, Falkland Islands, the different regions that comprised Yugoslavia.
The use of bombardment by Georgia as a means of crushing a secessionist region was unacceptable. Since the bombardment appears to have been directed against civilian areas of South Ossetia, one might argue that the “controlling minds” initiating this course of action were guilty of a crime against humanity.
In this context I would find it proper that India examine its relationship with Georgia. I fail to see the gravity of a neighbouring state intervening under the circumstances created by the actions of Georgia.
The Georgians gave Russia a pretext for military intervention in a neighbouring state with a justification that it was for altruistic reasons. I’m not saying that was the case. Most recent parallel I can think of is Kosovo. I think that the position Russia found itself in then (support of a state oppressing a region) is not so different to the position of the states supporting Georgia now (another state oppressing a region).
Unless India felt obliged to distance itself from those who intervened in Kosovo, I don’t see why India should feel any obligation to distance itself from Russia now.
Spitfire9My source for Norwegian preferences is simply from talking to Norwegian pilots – some of them fairly senior. Some clearly want JSF, some were more pro-Typhoon.
The Gripen advantages that could overturn the ‘done and dusted’ JSF decision are political. If JSF costs continue to increase (and in certain other circumstances) I would not rule out Typhoon coming back into the frame.
Who knows? If at the end of the year (scheduled decision time) Norway decides against the Gripen but all LM can offer is an indicative price available from an indicative time for delivery at an indicative time at an indicative specification, the politicians may tell the top brass that they don’t want an indicative air force and might then invite Eurofighter to get involved again.:D
Sign In
