dark light

Yama

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 599 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2166024
    Yama
    Participant

    The current cost per flight hour is $29.5k. The good thing about the US is we have a direct relationship while the SAR making it very clear the F-16, assessed as similarly as possible, is $25K cost per flight hour.

    Most recent number I’ve seen is $42000 per flight hour for F-35A and $20000 for F-16C. These probably do not include upgrade programmes. Even within same service, direct comparison might be hard as maintenance requirements decrease when the plane matures, only to increase again towards the end of service life.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2166042
    Yama
    Participant

    I don’t how that goes. Why will the cost reduction plateau because they’ve matched the SH’s peak production rate? Cost savings realized through efficiencies in the production process will eventually taper off but another 75% increase in the production rate should still squeeze costs further. Another 10-12% drop in the URFC seems quite feasible.

    Basically IMO we’re seeing same pattern as in Super Hornet production run, where most of the cost savings were realized in LRIP batches. Also, it’s not given that projected production rates are realized – orders have been reduced and may be reduced further. That would drive unit cost up.

    Not really that strange now. Its got all the political baggage of the F-35 without the stealth. All the sales of its peers (EF, Rafale, Gripen E) have been on entirely political grounds save for the (still in doldrums) Indian contract and the (corruption mired) Austrian one. The SH wasn’t in the running in Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman or UAE. And the NSA scandal torpedoed its chances in Brazil. If the Euros secure Malaysia, it’ll be its first bonafide loss to them IMO.

    They didn’t even make it to the final in Indian competition, and declined to participate to Swiss bid. Latter particularly seemed strange as it should have suited SHornet well. Sure the Middle Eastern states favour European fighters because of politics and because they are not perhaps as cost-conscious as many other countries, but even then it is hard to put lack of export success entirely on bad luck. I’m starting to suspect that either it’s not as cheap or not as good as it ought to be.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2166053
    Yama
    Participant

    Very much to lose if you take the notion that an already biased report will further twist numbers. Saab very much relies on “grass roots” marketing. People see Saab as honest and open. Saab has excellent PR. Gripen is held in high regard. Saab is believed until proven wrong. as opposed to LM who assumed wrong until proven right. A bunch of charts and graphs and numbers showing up that lose the public trust is not helpful to saab if the whole point of the aircraft is cheap cost that punches well above its weight.

    example as covered here at key pubs, a Gripen E will cost more than Saabs claim of $4200 CPFH. people who looked beyond the surface here figured that out. but if a report comes out that says its closer to say $10,000 then it casts a lot of doubt with people who took that number to the bank. There is a german article i read

    http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/schweiz/standard/Die-Schweiz-erhaelt-umgebaute-OccasionsGripen/story/18471087

    put the Gripen E CPFH at $21,000 from the Swiss report. IF that was true, you really don’t want that coming out. Imagine if they participated in this danish report and the Gripen Survivability was at the bottom every time.

    Uh, what would it matter? It’s just calculated differently. Remember that USAF estimated F-35 to have cost-per-flight-hour of $32000, so next to that Swiss number seems pretty good! Of course in reality they probably aren’t directly comparable.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2166057
    Yama
    Participant

    Do you think those numbers will hold once US DoD orders run out and Boeing has a total of just 27 orders in hand (down from a peak of ~70/yr) to keep its production line running to 2027?

    On the F-35, you’re twisting numbers to support your case. The F-35’s latest flyaway cost is about $96 mil, and the program is still a long way from peak production. There’s nothing to suggest that the program wouldn’t achieve the threshold price of $85 mil flyaway by 2019 (they’re targeting $80 mil through a bulk buy).

    Cost reduction for F-35 lots seem to start to plateau: given that current ‘low’ rate production is already as high as full rate production of Super Hornet, I believe that they have made most of the available cost savings already.

    Of course at present, there is not enough Super Hornet orders to keep the line open, much less cost-effective, for 2020’s. They need to score export orders quick and that doesn’t seem to be happening (or convince USMC to buy it – but that ain’t happening either). Strangely, SHornet seems to compete poorly against European fighters even though it should be cheaper than them. Well, of course political scandal destroyed Brazilian bid, but they didn’t even participate to Swiss fighter contest.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2169594
    Yama
    Participant

    The Allied Force operation in Kosovo/Serbia is a perfect example of this. You will periodically see enthusiasts make the claim that most HARM missiles missed or that Serbia was able to preserve much of its forces as if this represents a victory.

    Of course preserving your forces isn’t worth much if the result is a crushing strategic defeat. Allied Force was one of the most successful applications of air power in history, because it achieved its strategic objectives… not because of raw numbers of targets destroyed.

    Well of course, you could say pretty much same about the Yugoslavian IADS.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2169598
    Yama
    Participant

    NASAM is not a long range SAM.

    Do you have a source the Patriot, Stunner, H-9 and S-400 have these systems?

    Patriot, probably not, S-400 likely yes, don’t know about the rest.

    It’s irrelevant as such systems are widely available and integrating them to existing air defence networks is quite trivial.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2170112
    Yama
    Participant

    From what I know optical systems are common on short range systems like Pantsir and IRIS-T, but not in long ranged missile defenses such as S-400.

    No, they are commonplace nowadays, after all many semiactive SAM systems have optical backup guidance. NASAMS 2 has IR sensors as part of the network, and you can always buy off-the-shelf sensor and integrate it to existing system.
    But of course they don’t give good range information and range is shorter and subject to weather disturbances etc.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2170187
    Yama
    Participant

    Ground based IRSTs? Yeah……they don’t exist.

    They do, in fact they are rather common in more modern AA systems. How useful they are for example in detecting stealth aircraft, well that’s another question.

    in reply to: Finland Air Force #2173463
    Yama
    Participant

    Finland Mulls Investment In Drones Alongside New Fighter Jets

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/173306/finland-may-buy-combat-drones-alongside-new-fighters.html

    Would that help decide which fighter to choose?

    At this point they are still looking for different potential options, and RoI’s include proposals for two-type fleet (which is not likely option but worth checking out) or manned fighter+UAV combos if such are possible. Likely UAV’s would be for ground attack mostly, as this is nowadays also part of Hornet’s duties.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2177777
    Yama
    Participant

    Amm, yeah, what is up with russian bombs being so … non aerodynamic or .. so WW2 looking. Even in syria, they look like they are getting rid of WW2 stock!!

    Different tradeoffs. Low drag bombs are less efficient in terms of explosive power. If you don’t need to haul bombs over long distances, cylinder shaped bombs are better for same weight.

    in reply to: Russian Navy Thread 2. #2015678
    Yama
    Participant

    Udaloys are large, oceangoing deployable ships, of which RuN has shortage of. 956’s are too unreliable and frigates too few/too small. So they’ll build up fleet a bit before starting modernization cycle for Udaloys.

    Oh no, I hope they don’t give up one of the 100mm guns. I have a thing for superfiring turrets.

    in reply to: Russian Navy Thread 2. #2015742
    Yama
    Participant

    I don’t think Metel will be dumped, the Uran bins do not require much space to be mounted on deck.

    But is there any need for Metel anymore? Vyuga can be launched from torpedo tubes, and as an anti-ship missile, Metel is surely obsolete.

    in reply to: Russian Navy Thread 2. #2015763
    Yama
    Participant

    What, Udaloy with Uran? Sacrilege!

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2184848
    Yama
    Participant

    Not sure about that. US defence contractors are making a 6-8% profit on you compared to Apple making 60-70% profit on your iphone… The difference is Apple paid for the dev themselves…

    Not really. They stole a lot and licensed most of the rest.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -V #2016083
    Yama
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 599 total)