Spitfire9Indeed, if Hawk does continue, I suspect that it will soon not be a British-built aircraft.
That may help address it’s high up front price tag.
If Bae comes to the conclusion that the price of the Hawk is too high for it to remain competitive with other types, would Bae consider handing production over to HAL?
Can’t find the link but it has recently been claimed that a new Hawk off the HAL line is about 25% cheaper than one off the UK line.
Spitfire9You don’t get the guaranteed price that Lockmart may be about to offer.
232 Typhoons is only enough to sustain a long term force of seven squadrons, including an OCU, OEU, in use reserves, maintenance and attrition. That doesn’t seem excessive, to me, augmented by four F-35B units.
LM have recently said that they aim to offer an export price middle 2009, contingent on all export partners ordering the number of F-35’s expected. I think they may need to get a waiver from the politicians to supply at a lower price than the USAF will be paying up to 2013. Not quite sure how LM work out an export price for an aircraft that is not yet defined (export LO), debugged and tested.
Not much use to Norway which intends coming to a decision between F-35 and Gripen at the beginning of 2009 IIRC.
Spitfire9Thanks to all for your informative posts. Learnt a lot from them.
BTW Jackonicko, I did not comment on Rafale’s prospects in Japan.
The German proposal seems to make eminently good sense in that it avoids production disruption. The UK could order say 44 and buy itself the time to work out if it wanted the other 44 or to negotiate some other arrangement.
I see another advantage in that the price of F-35B’s is as yet unknown. If it proves to be $85/$90 million per frame, ordering the full complement of Typhoons and a reduced number of F-35B’s might suddenly look like a better use of funds.
You don’t pay swingeing financial penalties for ordering less F-35’s than you originally intended, do you?
Spitfire9Snecma 1. Good for them. How does this relate to Eurojet though? Do you mean engine exports in terms of M88 vs. EJ200? The Eurofighter already has two export customers. So the point is?.
Sorry if the way I presented things was not clear. From what I read the M-88 will be used for the single engine LCA Tejas MkII and the projected twin engined MCA. Ordering Rafale would give engine commonality between all 3 types, IMO effectively ruling Typhoon (and F-18) out of consideration.
What, what, what? How does this translate into a point for the Rafale? What has it done to earn a point here? As for T3 delays: Germany is firmly committed to T3 and the AESA, so there’ll hardly be any delays due to the UK alone.
I take your point on the AESA but I don’t understand how that can be fully funded without the agreement of all 4 partners. I presume it is a must for aircraft to be produced in tranche 3.
The point made about tranche 3 in an earlier post was that the UK could simply delay the signing process indefinitely if there is no time limit set for agreement in the contract between the countries involved. Any doubts over what Eurofighter can deliver to Brazil, when and at what price work in favour of Rafale.
How can development proceed under such circumstances? Sufficient delay would also dislocate production, raising the price of Typhoon.
Japan does not have to order the EF in UK spec. Germany is firmly committed to the AESA and funding for it runs somewhat aside the tranche spec talks. And, where’s the Rafale’s AESA? Already in service?
The tranche spec talks involve committing to further development, don’t they? How long can tranche 3 agreement be delayed before further development slips?
Why did Singapore exclude Typhoon from consideration? Insufficient A2G development was the reason given (= delayed development in my book). I can see the same happening with Japan.
Rafale is getting AESA. From 2011, I have read. I have no idea how effective it will be.
Seriously, there are points to be criticized about the Eurofighter program. The points you raised and the way you tried to raise them just aren’t it though.
Perhaps I have not raised things in a very good way. I’m open to comment.
Of course until the mooted M-88 joint venture deal is signed between SNECMA and Gas Turbine Research Establishment, much of what I say is conjecture.
Spitfire9Given that the Saudis’ original Typhoon order is part of the RAF’s tranche two (including those to be built in the UK and Saudi Arabia), the UK can already consider that it has offloaded 72 aircraft as it may not be obliged to order extra aircraft to make up the numbers.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I have always been under the impression that the contract stipulates that each partner country must take the number of aircraft to which it agreed. I thought that exports were a bonus in that the country securing the contract would be responsible for arranging final assembly.
Why should any of the countries involved accept lower component production than their contract stipulates? Re: revised production percentages, how do you transfer production of the right wing (or whatever) to another country that is not set up to manufacture it? Move the buildings, the pertinent equipment, the production knowledge and experience away from the non-compliant country to a country complying with the contract?
Spitfire9According to today’s news:
India to commit to M-88 based engine for Tejas “MkII”. If so, India will not select the Typhoon for its forthcoming acquisition of 126 aircraft.
Rafale 1 Typhoon 0
According to the FT, UK does not want tranche 3. If the UK’s reaction is to delay, delay, delay signing tranche 3 agreement this will delay further development of the aircraft. Will Brazil be kind and delay its RFP for however many years the UK stalls tranche 3? No.
Rafale 2 Typhoon 0
Japan will not want a Typhoon without EASA (likely to be delayed by the UK government volte face). If the UK holds this up, Typhoon will certainly not be selected by Japan.
Rafale 2 Typhoon -1
Spitfire9If you look at the IAF thread, you’ll see that that the GTRE, Indias government (& only) aero engine design establishment, has reached agreement with Snecma to produce a new engine for the Tejas, based on the ECO core.
In view of this, it seems unlikely that India will buy the EJ200 for Tejas, even as an interim engine.
Great news for Snecma, Tejas and Dassault! A win, win, win situation. I would now place Rafale as the winner of the contest for 126 aircraft, barring negotiation problems. I think Typhoon and Super Hornet will definitely be out once an engine joint venture is signed and sealed.
Spitfire91. There is no any commonality between EJ-200 and M88-2 (while M88-3 has at least 40% commonality with M88-2 accroding to the manufacturer’s declaration), and Rafale is not designed for incorporate EJ-200. It is highly unlikely that the total costs of remodifying some Rafale for EJ-200 and using & maintaining two total different engines for one fighter at the same time can be cheaper than just using one type of engine family.
2. It seems that French AF and Navy think the thrust of M88-2 is good enough for Rafale today and near future ~ They has no request for thrust increase even to the project of Rafale F3+ during 2012 ~ 2017.
3. Using EJ-200 will also have the same problem ~ It is highly unlikely that the team of Eurofighter will let Rafale to use its engine and then competing with Eurofighter in the global market.
1. I meant that Snecma could have been part of the Eurojet consortium and Rafale could have used the EJ200.
2. Why was an increase in M88 thrust from M88-2 level proposed (and offered to Singapore, IIRC) if it was not desireable?
3. I have not checked the contract between Eurojet and Eurofighter but I am unaware that the deal gave Eurofighter the right to dictate to whom Eurojet could supply the EJ200.
India is considering using the EJ200 for the Tejas (currently using the GE 404 – as used in the first Rafale). The follow on twin engine Indian fighter would probably use the same engine. I don’t see India considering the EJ200 for the Tejas unless it is confident it can use it for a later Typhoon/Rafale style aircraft.
Spitfire9I’m Irish…..I’m fighting British imperialism by butchering their language.::diablo:
take that Mrs Windsor!!
No need. English education and mobile fones have already dunnit.
Spitfire9Let me suppose that the Italian government selected Ferrari to develop a brilliant new model called the F-35 and during the development period non-returnable deposits on future orders were secured from potential export customers. Let me also suppose that the Italian government decided that they did not want foreign buyers to have the same performance from their F-35 as Italian buyers, resulting in Ferrari designing an inferior suspension setup for export versions to the chagrin of those export customers. Does anyone think that a statement from Ferrari saying that “export customers will receive cars that are compliant with their requirements” would be taken seriously?
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,156400,00.html
From the link above:
In 2006, Lockheed Martin was saying that Schieffer’s “public comments two years ago should not be judged as reflective of relevant program configuration information today” but that “partner countries will receive airplanes that are compliant with their requirements”.
Does not stop the F-35B nevertheless being the best successor to the Harrier. What else is there?
Spitfire9A: The prototype of Rafale had used F404 in 1980s, then it was replaced by M88-2, which is smaller, lighter, and more powerful than F404 at that time.
Although RM12 (18,000 Ib class) is a little more powerful than M88-2 (17,000 Ib class), it is bigger and heavier than M88-2 (1,050 kg versus 897 kg) too. It seems that if Rafale really adopted RM12, the engine and the modification would make Rafale more heavier than it is now, and this would make the little increase in thrust become almost meaningless.
A: If French AF, Navy and / or any other foreign customer(s) really have / has the requirement of thrust increase for Rafale, It / they can choose the product from M88 ECO / M88-3 project.
France could (I presume) have gone in with the Eurojet consortium, had an engine that is seen as being superior to the M-88 and could have saved some money. But then I have read that France wanted any new fighter in which it would be involved to use the M-88.
So France got what it wanted – a fighter using the M-88. But with weight creep, France got what it did not want – a fighter with an engine that needed an increase in power …up to EJ200 level.
Switching to a US engine? France could not export Rafale to any country without the approval of the USA. What if Dassault wanted to supply Rafale to Libya? Or Venezuela? Or Iran in the future?
Spitfire9In addition to providing an effective air defense network, the United States should also build the Georgians a nuclear reactor that’s capable of enriching Uranium for nuclear weapons.
Excluding the first provision, you I take your post to mean that the US should do what it condemns Iran doing. Sorry, but prima facie, your proposition sounds complete nonsense to me.
Spitfire9Isn’t EF GmbH funding it on their own for potential customers?
If EF wants to give itself a chance of winning the India MMRCA competition, it has to, doesn’t it? EF can’t wait until it’s specified for Tranche 3. Then there’s Japan, Brazil…
Spitfire9Woeful mismanagement of a sole-source contract hamstrung the first control, while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) rejected the second as an obsequious effort to award Northrop Grumman and EADS — a subsidized European contractor under criminal investigation — a lucrative defense contract…
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/08/07/ldt.sylvester.tanker.bid.cnn
“Woeful mismanagement of a sole-source contract”. Sounds so much better than corruption leading to criminal investigation, conviction and imprisonment, does it not?
Right, EADS is under criminal investigation. For what?
Spitfire9From Times article:
BAE is keen to expand its presence in Saudi Arabia. It is close to a deal with a local company to build a factory that will assemble some of the Eurofighters already ordered.
Creating a new final assembly line to assemble 96 seems more sensible than creating one to assemble 48.
And there are some factors that give Typhoon a better-than-you-might-imagine chance in Japan…
It clearly provides the capability to maintain air supremacy over any regional threat.
That’s the factor that counts for me. If they can’t get the F-22, they want the next best thing. One way would be to buy a batch of “interim” Typhoons followed by a batch of F-35’s and to see which was better before placing a further order for more aircraft.
Sign In
