Spitfire9The RAF aircraft currently do not have anti-ship missiles, but a number of those can be integrated, including the AGM-84 Harpoon used by the RMAF. There is a “complex” weapons program in place that aims to ease the adaptation of additional weapons to the Typhoon package. The UK is considering the addition of the Spear-3 missile in the future, which would equip RAF Typhoons to engage small vessels. This enables the Eurofighter consortium to consider the Typhoon “fully compliant” with Malaysian specifications, executives said.
Reading the above, am I right in thinking it says that Malaysia wants an anti-ship missile integrated but Typhoon does not have one integrated? IIRC when Typhoon was deselected in the Singapore fighter competition it was because it had too few weapons integrated.
Spitfire9You think the cost for Gripen is too high?.. How low would you have the price of such a figher to be, & with what capabilities?..
SAAB has said the cost for Gripen will go down, with a double digit %. Assuming that refers to operating costs, & based on the 4700$ in the Janes report, that would mean less than 4230$/fh. Is that the figure you want get under?..
The actual unit price for the Gripen E/NG hasn’t become public yet, all we’ve seeen is speculations based on the Swedish governments contract with Switzerland. However, that contract involves a lot more than the planes, & the involved parties don’t seem too keen to let the rest of the world know what, so some sort of flyaway price is still something we can only speculate about, right?..
I don’t think the cost of Gripen E is high. I think the cost of all available western fighters is too high for many countries to re-equip with them. Hence countries buying used F-16’s, Mirages etc rather than new aircraft in order to maintain a fighter capability.
I think Switzerland got an exceptionally good deal with Gripen E but while Switzerland may be able to afford ~ $3 billion to put 22 Gripens into service, many countries could not afford that. Hence I see a market for a lower cost, lower capability alternative.
The capabilities of aircraft are of little relevance if you do not have the resources to buy and operate them. When it comes to the crunch, is it better to have zero unaffordable fighters with the capability you want or a squadron or two of less capable but affordable fighters?
Spitfire9I put this forward a mouth or so ago however I put forward a GR type but as I said then any new type should seek to use radar- avionics – engine – ejector seat – and mission computers right down to under carriage wheels and tyres already in use
Sorry. missed your thread.
As you, I imagine the cost could be kept low by using off ths shelf components as much as possible. If a suitable wheel has already been invented, why re-invent it?
Spitfire9From defense-aerospace.com…
A consensus is nearing among Dutch political parties to buy no more than 36 F-35A fighters – and perhaps as few as 30 – to replace the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s remaining fleet of 68 F-16 fighters.
This is a far smaller buy than the 85 that the Netherlands initially planned, and just over half of the reduced buy of about 55 that was agreed last year, before the latest elections voted in a different government coalition.
A political consensus to buy fewer F-35s would also mean that tentative plans to re-open a real and open competition for the F-16 replacement will be dropped. Boeing and Saab had been invited by Parliament’s defense committee to present their alternatives to the F-35 during hearings scheduled for April
It is also reported in the article that the air force is down to 24 serviceable F-16’s due to spares and maintenance issues.
Personally I see dropping consideration of other types as foolhardy. The F-16 replacement budget is extremely tight @ €3.72 billion + VAT (ie only €3.72 billion available to pay suppliers). Asking a single supplier for a price does not get you their best price. An airline that wanted to buy Airbus narrowbodies would be pretty dumb not to approach Boeing as well, if only to force down Airbus’ price. While Dassault and Eurofighter do not see it being worth their while to provide levers to reduce F-35 prices, Boeing and SAAB are prepared to take that risk, so why drop them from consideration? Boeing and SAAB may also be betting on F-35 costs being higher than the budget available, forcing the Netherlands to choose a cheaper alternative. With this new situation, what happens if LM will not agree to a price that fits the budget? Does the Netherlands then ask SAAB and Boeing to submit proposals in 2014/2015, delaying F-16 replacement still further?
I am sure that the Netherlands never planned to operate a mere 24 fighters as is the case now. It’s time to get real and ask a number of suppliers to come up with binding offers of what they can supply, when they can supply and at what cost so that contracts can be signed and the air force can retrieve lost capability ASAP.
Spitfire9Dutch Consensus Building on Acquisition of 30-36 F-35 Fighters
The lower aircraft number also remains within the budgetary envelope approved by the coalition for the replacement of the F-16s, which amounts to € 4.5 billion but, when 21% Value-Added Tax is stripped out, the actual acquisition budget is only € 3.72 billion, which in the best of conditions will probably have to be stretched to buy 36 F-35s.
VAT is almost irrelevant when the government is buying: it is a tax levied on the buyer paid to the government. What is given by one hand is received by the other.
Finally, a 60% cut in the original Dutch order will inevitably increase acquisition costs for other countries, especially when added to similar, if smaller, cuts in orders already announced by Italy, Australia, Canada and Denmark.
The increase in cost due to a cut of 50 in F-35A production for the Netherlands should be negligible.
Spitfire9Cancelling the F-35A would be foolish given that it is the cheapest variant and offers the best performance of the three: recall that it was the C model that had transonic acceleration time increased by 40 seconds recently.
With only a single customer on the books and an alternative platform in production, F-35C is the only possible candidate for cancellation at this point. And it doesn’t appear USN would be too broken up about it either.
In the absence of big problems affecting the A (but not the C) it does not make sense to me to consider dropping the A.
Re: possibly reducing the US orders to 1,500 from 2,400+ I see no cost death spiral if it is predicted to increase unit costs by less than 10%. Cost has already risen by far more than 10% without procurement numbers changing.
Spitfire9What to do to replace F-16’s? Sorry if I repeat much that has already been said.
The Lockheed Martin pitch to a number of European F-16 users was that the F-35 would be a more capable aircraft costing much the same. On that basis countries signing up to the project could expect to commit about the same proportion of their defence budget to buy and operate their F-16 replacement.
That has not turned out to be the case. LM have not come up with the goods (F-35 is years late) at the price expected (F-35 is far more expensive than F-16) at the operating cost expected (F-35 is far more expensive than F-16). To exacerbate problems for F-16 users, their economies are weak due to the world banking crisis and defence budgets are under pressure.
Some countries find themselves in a position where they have ageing F-16’s. They need to make a decision about what to do soon. Countries can
-revise their defence plans and cut other capabilities due to the unexpected cost of F-35
– retain other capabilities but reduce their fighter stength to a minimum number of F-35’s (but this may not be an option if minimum practical numbers still exceed the budget)
– choose a different type
F-35 may provide distinct advantages in strike operations against defended air space in conjunction with the USA but does that justify reducing fighter numbers for other duties to a minimum? Using F-35 for air policing / air defence would be much more expensive than F-16 and one would expect the great majority of flying hours to be in a defensive mode.
Did Denmark and the Netherlands plan to change the emphasis of their air forces to strike rather than defence when selecting an F-16 replacement? I doubt it, in which case why replace F-16 with F-35 at the cost of other defence capabilities? As Tu22m points out, if a strike capability against defended air space should be required, cruise missiles are a low cost option.
It gets pretty clear that we now are in an era when cruise missiles can be seen a a low cost option. Every jet that gets taken out costs the enemy 220m$. Every airfield has over 12 jets (in the case of Norway it will be ~45 in one airfield and a few up north). This means that you can send cruise missiles, stealth drones etc worth 220*12m$ at minimum per enemy airbase or 2,6 billion $ if the damage is expected to be 12 F35. And due to the costs most F35s will be stationed in large bases.
(This means one can afford to waste over 1800 Tomahawks per airfield that holds 12 F35, or 7200 per normal airfield with 48 F35 jets… or use another missile like the Kh55-series, RBS15MK4 (coming in a couple of years) etc. If we divide the cruise missile numbers by 2 we include an additional air force that can be used once the F35s are gone)
Spitfire9In the case of the Rafale program, what exactly are you calling “death spiral” ?
Don’t you think it’s a bit late for its cancellation ?
Dassault appear to be able to assemble <1 per month without losing money while charging something like 50 million euros (?) a frame. Short of going below this number per month, the price should not spiral.
Spitfire9Meteor deliveries scheduled to start this year:
MBDA has confirmed that production rounds of the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile are scheduled for delivery before year-end. However, MBDA managing director Steve Wadey would not disclose which air force will be the first to get the new missile, which MBDA UK claims represents a “step change in the air-to-air world.” AIN reported last year that French Rafale and Swedish Gripen fighters would be flying operational Meteors ahead of the four Eurofighter nations.
Spitfire9A 20% order cut from a program already operating at its minimum sustainable production rate.
Naturally since this isn’t the F-35 we won’t hear anyone talking about a death spiral, etc etc… :rolleyes:
Not good news. Don’t know about a death spiral though. If India orders there will be a nett rise in numbers to produce albeit less to be assembled by Dassault. Unless the process of placing an order takes such a long time that India opts to take more than the projected 18 Dassault-assembled Rafales.
Spitfire9it must be noted that the French aircraft company’s commercial bid comes to an end on 31 March 2013. If a decision is not made by this time, the old bid will not be considered and a fresh revised bid will be called for.
From Dassault, I presume (revised prices).
Spitfire9Where do we get a cost of 4 billion dollars for 30 F-35A + set up costs + spears when its just cost Iraq 6.5 billion dollars for 36 F-16IQ’s + set up costs and spears
I was being very “kind” when I said $4 billion+. I think your example shows that the my figure is extremely optimistic. Perhaps getting 30 F-35’s operational would represent more like 2 years of Denmark’s defence budget.
Even if that were spread out over 10 years (and who would provide the credit to cover the high front end costs – US govt? LM?) this one weapons system would be soaking up perhaps 20%+ of all defence spending. Then there is the cost of actually flying the aircraft to find from the budget (ie to strip out of non-F-35 defence items). LM said it would be comparable to the cost of the F-16 – flying an aircraft with ~50% more thrust would cost around the same. Somehow I just don’t see that.
Spitfire9The real question is why anyone in their right mind would want to participate in ‘coalition operations’.
Originally Posted by obligatory
sustainable war economyThis is obscene.
IIRC one of the observations made during the Libya intervention was that once air defences had been depleted missions could have been undertaken at much lower cost had such aircraft been available. Once enemy air defences have been dealt with you are spending much more than needed using F-35, Typhoon, Rafale to strike, aren’t you?
Spitfire9The question for Denmark and other smaller NATO nations is a simple one: do they want an air force, or do they want F-35?
Nicely put.
Spitfire9Just to give a perspective to Danish projected defence spending and cuts:
The Danish government’s two-year push for greater economies culminated, in February, in the formalizing of a cross-party five-year plan on defense development covering 2013 to 2017. Under the plan, the government will require the military to find $445 million in new operational savings in 2014, $450 million in 2015, $455 million in 2016 and $380 million in 2017.
The Danish annual military budget, in line with force reduction plans, is set to fall from $4 billion in 2013 to $3.56 billion in 2015.
The cross-party deal boosts political consensus and cohesion on fundamental national defense issues in Denmark, ahead of force reorganization reforms and the re-launching of the Fighter Replacement Acquisition Program over the next 12 months.
The DDF proposes the closure of garrisons and military bases in Fredericia, Almegård-Bornholm, Sønderborg, Haderslev, Høvelte and Vordingborg. The Defense Ministry will have the final say as to which bases are closed.
“The proposals handed in to the MoD will be included in the future political process. The recommendations take specific military conditions into consideration. We expect that other points and considerations will be included in the final political decision and that these may deviate from my recommendations,” defense chief Gen. Peter Bartram said in a statement.
While the government-led defense modernization plan is well-intentioned, it does leave whole strategic regions in Denmark without military installations.
I guess that 30 F-35A + setup costs + spares would cost $4+ billion. That sum exceeds the country’s existing annual defence budget which is set to fall to about $3.5 billion in 2015.
Can anyone explain how it will be possible to buy any of the aircraft under consideration, let alone the most expensive?
Sign In
