Spitfire9Duplicate
Spitfire9All LM & the JPO can do is show SK what the costs are estimated to be based on current numbers.
This concept of contract is very foreign to me. I have made many contracts as an intermediate between buyer and seller for the supply of goods to export customers. Not one of them allowed the seller to alter price due to an increase in OEM price.
Spitfire9This part is rubbish IMO: “It (Eurofighter) is also vying for orders in South Korea, Kuwait, Qatar, Bulgaria and Denmark. The Eurofighter’s main competitors include Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet, Dassualt Aviation’s Rafale fighter and the Gripen by Sweden’s Saab.”
Bulgaria has as much chance of buying Typhoon as a badly off Italian with even less money than usual has of buying a new Ferrari, Lamborghini or Maserati. Denmark would like to buy F-35 but that looks almost impossible for reasons of finance. It is extremely unlikely IMO that Denmark will select Typhoon over Gripen if the reason for rejecting F-35 is due to a severe shortfall of funds.
Spitfire9If the US production rampup is delayed (which is what the SASC wants), then all F-35s purchased from now till FRP will cost more than they normally would for their respective Buy Years. This includes a large chunk of the proposed S. Korean F-35 order. If the SASC cuts go through, then South Korea would end up paying more for it’s 60 F-35s than if they had bought them based on today’s schedule.
Hence the SASC cuts would make it even harder for SK to choose the F-35.
I don´t really understand how LM can bid for the SK contract if they do not know the production cost of the aircraft over the next few years. SK is not going to accept a contract based on a price that can be increased should rampup be delayed.
Spitfire9There is always a level of risk involved…The scenarios that can play out, are far ranging…The future is not as clear, as far as the operating costs go, especially given that much of the testing is still to be done.
Yes, risk is always there. Taking an unknown risk on your biggest ticket defence item is, however, the situation with F-35 for a number of customers. If you get it wrong, you can seriously damage your defence capability.
Pentagon officials have said for months that they want an “apples-to-apples” comparison between the F-35’s cost per flying hour (CPFH) and the price to operate legacy fighters it will replace. But the different figures recently put forth by the F-35 program executive officer, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, and Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall, who expects a higher CPFH, show that comparing prices is not simple. An agreed-upon number, however, is much needed in Washington and abroad, as customers prepare to outline their F-35 commitments, decisions that will have financial repercussions for decades to come.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p32-575228.xml
Spitfire9I merely used it as an example of upgraded legacy systems…The F-16 AESA, is hardly as capable, and if a version is to be developed that incorporates the latest – Stealth- Plug ins (like the SE), it would still far short of capability, and would cost a decent amount, give LMA would have to boost the Viper production rate to close to 200 jets per annum, and design a new version. But its all a bit redundant, since the F-35 is not going anywhere…
I don´t think the F-35 is going anywhere either for the time being. Perhaps USAF will decide to order less than the 1700+ desired. Perhaps Denmark, Netherlands, Italy and UK will order at levels lower than expected. The crunch for the Europeans will be when the operating cost vis a vis the aircraft F-35 will supercede becomes clearer. USA may be prepared to spend heavily on F-35 operation and to find the funds to do so. The Europeans are not so committed to defence expenditure so any unanticipated hikes in the cost of operating F-35 may have to be bought at the cost of other defence activities. I don´t think that is going to make the Europeans too happy, should that happen. Will that happen? Nobody knows for sure. The shame of the F-35 is that the Europeans will probably put themselves in a situation where they take a big risk in buying a weapons system with unknown costs. Should those costs prove to be very high the consequences will be severe.
Spitfire9From the article:
Corea del Sur busca reforzar sus propias Fuerzas Armadas con aviones de combate con capacidad furtiva que le permitan evadir el complejo sistema de radares de Corea del Norte en caso de conflicto.
My Spanish is minimal but I think the above says SK is looking to reinforce its forces with stealth aircraft allowing it in case of conflict to evade the complex radar systems of NK.
If so, possible congratulations to LM (IF the cost is acceptable)?
Spitfire9Argentina has launched a new round of sabre-rattling against Britain by buying a squadron of warplanes to be based within striking distance of the Falklands, the Sunday People has revealed.
President Cristina de Kirchner – who wants the UK to hand over the disputed islands – personally agreed the £145million deal to buy 20 second-hand Mirage F1 jets from Spain.
The 1,453mph aircraft carry a fearsome array of weaponry including smart bombs.
Argentina’s move could force the Ministry of Defence to bolster Britain’s presence in the south Atlantic, even though its budget is to be slashed by £875million in 2015.
Senior officers believe Argentina could now begin a campaign of *“pester patrols” – flights towards the Falklands to test RAF responses.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/falklands-alert-argentina-strikes-145million-2121901
A buyer needing cheap fighters, a seller needing to dispose of some old fighters strike a deal.
The deal is irritating for the UK but it changes nothing. Both parties involved in the deal have territorial disputes with the UK (Gibraltar, South Atlantic Islands). UK cannot cede these territories without the approval of the majority in these territories and there is no chance of the majority in either territory approving in the foreseeable future.
Spitfire9That they modified the requierment in order to get quick delivery of a plane that will be cheaper, save students live and is basic enough to be introduced without prob by the services sounds absolutly raisonable.
Nice to see common sense applied here.
Spitfire9They announced they were reducing the total procurement numbers earlier this year.
Even that will be in question unless export orders materialize. You simply can’t sustain a production line producing an average of 4 fighters a year. The costs would be astronomical. Don’t forget this isn’t just about the airframes, it is about everything else the Rafale requires. Four radars a year, ~8 engines a year, etc.
You can only scale production up and down so much.
Since the development regarding the MMRCA contract seems to be that the French government will underwrite some risk for Dassault, it appears to me that this proposal for the French government to procure less Rafales – combined with actions that make an order from India more likely – on balance makes Rafale production over the coming years more, not less secure.
Spitfire9Dassault Aviation, which builds the Rafale fighters, used to high-profile effect in fighting in Libya and Mali, was to supply 11 planes a year to the French defense forces.
This was intended to ensure an essential minimum amount of work for production lines while France tries to achieve the first sales of the aircraft abroad.
But the government, which is struggling to meet commitments to the European Union and to retain investor confidence by getting its public deficit under control, is crimping public expenditures, including defense spending.
Under the draft defense estimates put before the cabinet Friday, the left-wing government will acquire only 26 of the planes during the next six years.
Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said June 11 that from 2016, Dassault Aviation would have to count on exports to underpin production of the plane, which is able to fulfil several types of missions.
Spitfire9Duplicate
Spitfire9Senate Panel Reduces Funding for F-35 Program
The Senate Appropriations Committee has reduced long-lead funding for the F-35 program, judging that it is premature to increase the production rate before the program’s many problems are resolved.
The committee also told the Pentagon to review whether the Air Force’s stated goal of buying 1,763 F-35A fighters remains feasible. “Given these times of fiscal austerity,” the Pentagon “should review the Air Force tactical fighter force mix,” the defense appropriations subcommittee stated in its report.
These two developments are clear signs that legislators are becoming very concerned about the F-35 program’s fiscal and technical non-performance, and with the Pentagon’s management.
(1) A further indication of the fragility of the USAF goal of 1,763 F-35A
(2) Sensible move to delay production ramp up to lower risk but it would presumably push F-35 price reduction further to the right
Spitfire9Senate Panel Reduces Funding for F-35 Program
Spitfire9Turkey’s $50-Billion Jet Program In Question
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/146902/turkey-needs-%2450bn-to-pay-for-f_35%2C-new-fighter.html
By the way the $50 billion refers to cost of developing and manufacturing a Turkish fighter + cost of F-35 fleet
Sign In
