Spitfire9I wouldn’t worry about Boeing. They are an innovative bunch with deep pockets, thanks to their commercial airlines business. It takes money to win new contracts and Boeing has plenty of it.
I think they will need to be a little innovative. USA is committed to F-35 covering all its needs (replacement for A-10, AV-8B, F-16 et al). Normally a US OEM would launch a design on the back of a US government order covering development costs and many hundreds of frames. Any sales to other customers of the product made to meet US forces’ specifications would be an added financial bonus. I think that this time round any new Boeing fighter design would have to be a private venture aimed at the world market. I think that Europe can be excluded since all major buyers have made their choice of fighter to operate up to 2030+.
What fighter could Boeing design that they could expect to sell in large enough numbers to warrant the investment?
Spitfire9(Source: Norway Ministry of Defence; issued March 4, 2014)
(Issued in Norwegian only; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
Representatives of the Norwegian and British F-35 programs yesterday signed a cooperation concept document during a meeting at the Defense Ministry in Oslo. The concept is based on the contents of the joint statement that was issued in September 2013, and describes in greater detail how the two countries will further develop cooperation on training and on operation of the F-35 in Europe.
“The entire F-35 procurement is based on collaboration between partners, and the principle that more countries need to work together to find new and better solutions to operate future fighter aircraft. The partnership we now have established with Britain is a natural extension of this, and of the work already done within the multinational F-35 program,” says Anders Melheim, program director at the Norwegian Fighter Aircraft program.
The article also talks of “the opportunities for joint training of pilots and technicians for the F-35.” I don’t follow how RAF pilots could train on F-35A if they will be flying F-35B and vice versa.
Spitfire9Choices of newly-built “Western fighters” after 2020 even if the production lines of Teen series and Typhoon are all dead at that time:
1. American F-35A/B/C.
2. French Rafale.
3. Sweden Gripen NG.
4. Turkish TFX.
5. Sourthern Korean KFX.
6. Sourthern Korean F/A-50.
7. Indian LCA Tejas MK II.
Talking of non-Russian rather than western fighters, I doubt that Turkish TFX and South Korean KFX (or Indian AMCA) would be sufficiently developed to be of much use to any air force until the late 2020’s. The choice to buy them might be there in 2020 but I think an air force would need to retain its existing fighters for many years until the new design being procured offered sufficient capability.
Spitfire9While our Air Force are happy with F-16C/D blk 52+ capabilities, the offset and ToT turned out to be a weak point of the LM tender.
http://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=6910
Do you have time to translate the relevant part of the article, please? Or paste it into a response?
Spitfire9decision was largely on the “up and up”, no conspiracy.
I would say that politics conspire to distort realistic appraisal of propositions.
.
Spitfire9And for those who want the real story… Here are the details for polish decision. Gripen was 2nd behind f-16, mirage 2000-5, 3rd. Polish turned down free Mig-29 from Germany so does not look like they thought too highly of them.Mack won’t see reply because he blocked me for commenting on one of his rants… Truth apparently too much for him.
http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/MCDocs/files/College/F_Publications/occPapers/occ-paper_11-en.pdf
I read the marshallcenter report. The introduction contains the following:
“The hypothesis of this paper is that although capability, interoperability and economic interests played important roles in the Polish decision to purchase the F-16, political considerations dominated.”
The report also says that offers were assessed 40% on aircraft capability / 60% on price and offsets. F-16 capability was rated higher than Gripen. Gripen price was about 10% lower than F-16 price. Offsets were subject to factorisation according to the nature of the product / service concerned. Gripen offset value was lower than F-16 before and after factorisation. Gripen offsets were guaranteed by Swedish and UK governments; US government would not guarantee F-16 offsets.
I cite the article (p 22):
“The Swedish (Saab/BAE) offset proposal was initially assessed as the largest. The proposal included final assembly of the Gripen in a depressed part Poland with the potential creation of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs and exclusive supply of some of the aircraft structures from Mielec and Świdnik.80 Other proposed offsets went to ETC-PZL Aerospace Industries, makers of simulators, and WZL-2 for a regional maintenance work center in conjunction with Saab Aerotech Telub.81
The Swedish/British bidder assessed the offset value at $7.48B with the price of the bid at $3.15B. Following verification and application of the offset multiplier, Deputy Economy Minister Andrzej Szarawarski stated Poland downgraded the value of the offer to $4.7B.”
“The offset proposal submitted by Lockheed Martin was valued at $9.8B,84 with a bid of $3.58B for 48 F-16 C/D Block 52+ multi-role fighter aircraft. The operating principle was that Poland would select offsets from this offer that would equal the program value of the aircraft ($3.58B). On January 21, 2003, the Poles informed a combined U.S. and Lockheed Martin team that the new 100% offset requirement was $6.028B, the value that Poland reduced the offer to after verification and application of Polish Law offset multipliers.”
I guess that 48 Gripens for them would likely have been not only cheaper to buy, and certainly cheaper to operate, but also the typically swedish offsets would have far exceeded what the yanks pretended to offer them…
According to the article Gripen was cheaper to buy. I think it is conventional wisdom that it is cheaper to operate. I am surprised that Poland found LM’s offsets more meritorious than the Gripen offer of a Polish FAL. As to whether LM were good to their word on offsets, were they or were they not?
Spitfire9It would depend on what they want them for. There was talk, then there wasn’t, then there was, now it seems there isn’t…
In any case, I’m not sure why they’d want Typhoon when there’s cheaper alternatives available that are still capable of packing a solid punch, Gripen.
But why Gripen if they already have F-16? Cheaper to keep logistics simple and buy more F-16.
My guess for approximate cost of buying and integrating 60 aircraft at 2014 prices:
F-35 – $9 billion+
Gripen E – $5 billion+
F-16 – $4 billion+
Of course the weighting that operation cost is given could decide the outcome. All reports suggest Gripen E is cheaper to operate than F-16.
Spitfire9Yes indeed, because I’m incredibly renowned for aggressively stating the Typhoon should be selected in every thread there is when it comes to other countries looking for a new fighter. I’m sure you can provide examples.
If Poland cannot afford the F-35, then why not the Gripen…
If Poland cannot afford the F-35, then why not… make an offer for the RAF’s tranche 1 Typhoons? I think there is talk of them being withdrawn by 2020.
Spitfire9Poland about to buy fifth generation fighter jets. Which ones is still unclear
Poland about to buy 64 fifth generation fighter jets. But F-35s seem to be unaffordable
During a conference held on Feb. 6, 2014, Ministry of National Defence announced Poland will buy 64 fifth generation jets.
The new aircraft will be delivered between 2022 and 2030.
Assuming PAK-FA would not be considered the only 5G option in the timeframe is F-35 so I don’t see there being any other possibility. Do the Polish media report that the general said 5G?
Spitfire9The current number being thrown around for the UK is about 48 F-35Bs isn’t it? An order of 14 soon to be followed by more?
I have also read (but only from one source) that the F-35 is being considered as a possible Typhoon replacement – any confirmation on this? If it is the case then I would expect the 48 number to increase considerably, with the RAF/RN operating a force of F-35s and UCAVs. To be honest, if moving to a single multi-role type is what it takes for the RAF/RN to have decent numbers of aircraft then I think it’s a positive move.
The UK will be paying the set up costs (training, simulators, spares etc) for both types so not so much is to be gained by reducing to a single type. To me if the operating cost of F-35 were substantially lower than Typhoon there would be a case for replacing Typhoon with F-35 when tranche 2 and tranche 3 Typhoons run out of hours. If the numbers work out the other way round then I would order more Typhoons before production ceases. A problem with comparing the cost of the two is that F-35 will be at low production levels for years to come making it difficult to estimate what the price of F-35 airframes, spares etc will be when full production is reached.
Spitfire9So you are saying that other EU members will pay for Polish planes?
The EU would not directly fund military procurement. However Poland probably receives more funds from the EU each year (for economic development) than it contributes. Result: the government can spend more than if it was not an EU member.
Spitfire9Or what about the Korean air force? The Japanese air force?
Well, the Koreans did a full, formal acquisition process based on the requirements written by the AF, and selected (drum roll) the F-15SE, a decision that was reversed politically. Japan was looking for a bomber, as is Israel.
F-35 failed to fit the budget so it could not be selected IIRC.
PS Canada’s SOR was condemned by the nation’s public auditor as a hastily ginned-up, post-facto document that was written to justify the F-35 decision. If you read it, you will find arbitrary requirements specifically selected to close out all alternatives.
That happens. It’s unfortunate.
Spitfire9I think I have got this right, haven’t I? Where the qualities of F-35 surpass those of other aircraft, those qualities matter. Where the qualities of other aircraft surpass those of F-35, those qualities don’t matter. Consequently F-35 is best since in every respect that matters it is best. 🙂
Spitfire9It is not his articles, but written by contributors like us. And not the jorno, but the defese blog of this jorno. Inc 3 articles about Rafale btw.
My bad. I assumed that
David Pugliese
Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada Part 3
meant an article written by David Pugliese (rather than Edward Wu, as the editor’s note points out).
Spitfire9F-35′s ALIS ‘Way Behind,’ Bogdan Says; One Step Forward Last Week
The key maintenance software program for the F-35, called ALIS, is “way behind,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the program, said today. How far behind? “We are way behind. We are way behind.”
Sign In
