OzairA nice try.. Except the price Denmark will get will be nowhere near what USAF pay.
Do you understand how the program works? All partner nations pay the same price, barring extra modifications they want completed such as the drag chute for the Norwegians. As partner nations they don’t pay FMS fees or any other costs other than the contributions all have made to the SDD phase and for any joint funded upgrade work going forward.
Who will pay more are the Japanese and the Koreans, as they are not partner nations.
Ozair#1 What exactly would be “a reasonable argument”, in your books?
#2 According to you, which figures were doctored in favor of the Typhoon or SH?
Let us be clear, I did not say doctored. What I said was that some of the figures fair on the good side for the F-35 and have done so as well for the SH and Eurofighter. Doctored and taking the better of different numbers are not the same thing.
#1 – If you disagree, then provide a logical reason why, including data to support your claim, and then it can be assessed.
#2 – Here are a couple of simple examples
For a start, the report provides an assessment of the capability of the Eurofighter and SH against threat systems. As the link Halo provided indicates, the threat systems they were graded against were vanilla SU-30MK and MiG-29SMT. Given the airframe is expected to serve for 30 years, so until at least 2055, do you think there will be greater threats to encounter than those in that timeframe? I certainly do and the ability of the F-35 to counter those emerging, almost certainly LO or even VLO threats, will be significantly better than either Eurofighter or SH. Therefore, grading the threat to that vanilla level allows both airframes to look credible.
As for sustainment of Eurofighter and SH, the likelihood, and this is an assumption of my part, is that most major operators of those platforms will have retired their jets before the Danes do. The USN won’t have SH’s flying past 2040, the RAAF certainly won’t, except perhaps a limited fleet of growlers between both, and other than the Germans, I doubt the Eurofighter nations will be flying past 2045 either. That makes supporting either type more difficult. Compared to that, the Danes assessed they could comfortably sustain either airframe out to their expected end of service date with the cost numbers. The RAAF experience of sustaining the F-111, as the only operator in the 2000s, is an excellent example of how costs can skyrocket, even when there are airframes available from the boneyard to cannibalise.
OzairI’m not saying Super Hornet acquisition cost is incorrect. I am saying that the acquisition costs for F-35 and Super Hornet in Danish report are not comparable as 1/ explicitly stated in the report 2/ as shown by F-35 acquisition cost per airframe which is exact same as projected unit flyaway cost in F-35 SAR. Thus it cannot include any spares or support.
Why do they need to be comparable? They will be purchased under different methods.
The 2016 SAR has various prices for various years for F-35A but it appears that the Danes used the 2023 price of US$6591.2 mill over a production run of 80 jets. That figure includes support and both recurring and non-recurring fly away costs. This is obviously where the Danes have made their case for price. The 2023 figure is the lowest for a F-35A within that decade and comes to US$82.39 mill per jet. For reference, the subsequent years play out in the following way,
2024 – US$85 mill
2025 – US$91.7 mill
2026 – US$105 mill
2027 – US$96.5 mill
2028 – US$88.85 mill
2029 – US$88.66 mill
All the above costs are in then year dollars. The Danish report, if I remember correctly, was in now year dollars?
So the Danes used the lowest price of the decade but the above figures only include aircraft purchased by the USAF. There may be additional savings from partner nations and others purchasing aircraft in those block years thereby reducing the cost. The partner nations are already talking about a three year block buy that will reduce the cost for all. The Danes could also decide to order all their aircraft in 2023 and try to lock in that price?
Given the US$20 mill variance from 2024 to 2026 there are also clearly other costs the USAF is factoring into those numbers. That may be additional mission equipment, updates to F-35A from engines, sensors or other changes etc.
Probably. F-35’s maintenance model makes lots of assumptions which may prove incorrect. Life seldom offers free lunches. Also, it increases the dependancy from supplies to much higher level than previously.
In that case perhaps they should assess the capability of the F-35 without stealth, after all the other airframes are not VLO so it would be unfair to allow the F-35 to have that advantage…
The program is what it is, yes there are assumptions there and the Danes are very clear that there is uncertainty. It is certainly possible as Sintra suggested they may be on the hook for more than they have assessed, although they provided a risk range for that exact situation, but the same could be said of the Eurofighter and SH. There are already identified issues, such as the drill holes, with the Eurofighter which makes sustainment of the current fleet a greater challenge. Super Hornet as an FMS case limits the ability of the acquirer to contract maintenance outside the Prime as Australia has found. It can be circumvented but comes with cost, time and political will.
As for dependency, yes the sustainment does come at that price but Denmark is a member of NATO and what they have selected is a NATO compatible jet that will be in service with many other NATO nations, all operating the same sustainment program.
OzairIt is stated on page 82. Also it’s obvious when you calculate the unit costs from procurement costs: 28 F-35’s 15.4 billion krona (1 USD = 0.15 Krona) equals to 82.5 million USD per plane. 38 Super Hornets 30.9 billion krona, 121.9 million USD per plane.
The RAAF paid just over US$100 mil per jet for the SH in 2008 at the height of SH production. 15 years later with inflation, a production rate a quarter of that in 2008, only two nations operating the type, a necessity to pay FMS fees and probably a more capable product and I am supposed to believe that US$122 is not a realistic number? They will never pay the price the USN does. Not only that, the Kuwaitis were expecting to pay US$3 billion for 28 aircraft, over US$107 million per jet.
Compared to that F-35 will be at the height of production with probably 150 jets coming off the line a year, will have at least eight operating nations, the Danes are not liable for any FMS fees and the product will have been FOC with the primary customer for over three years.
This is not what the report says, see “Logistic Concept” on pages 82 and 85. Clearly, this “common profile” is not in use in Royal Danish Air Force currently, and neither Eurofighter or Boeing offered such concept.
Of course it isn’t in use with the Danish Air Force for the F-16. The jet is 40 years old and clearly wasn’t designed with the same maintenance philosophy. Should the Danes force an antiquated logistical footprint on the F-35 because the competitors don’t operate the same way?
Have a read of the following, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR900/RR999/RAND_RR999.pdf It illustrates accurately how hard it is to implement, especially if considered or attempted post development of the aircraft and why the F-35 has every chance of succeeding.
OzairThey are not my main thing, others have comprehensibly covered the other issues with the “evaluation”, If you cannot or refuse to see the evidence then there is little I can say to change your perspective.
Sorry, I haven’t seen a reasonable argument against what is provided by anyone here yet. Yes some of the figures fair on the good side for the F-35 but the same can be said for segments of the assessments on the Eurofighter and SH.
As for evidence… we have a 111 page report of what is far and away the most comprehensive assessment of the three airframes we have seen in the public sector. You claim that I refuse to see the evidence but what you have provided is nothing of the sort, merely expressing a point of view without any supporting documentation…
Thanks, that really improves the quality of your argument…
OzairBecause if you pick publicly available ramdom numbers, more precisely the SAR CPFH for DAVE A, the US Navy CPFH for the Super Hornet and the Germans numbers for the Phoon (and i am willing to bet that this was precisely what the Danes did), and compare them, you end up with an entirely flawed comparison, the methodologies to get those numbers are vastly diferent.
We know they talked to a set of Air Forces, we know they considered the numbers provided by the respective competitors and we know they validated those numbers against their experience with the F-16. What we don’t know is the specific numbers they used and how they validated them.
(and i am willing to bet that this was precisely what the Danes did)
I highly doubt they used publicly available numbers. They had three companies trying to sell them jets and almost certainly existing agreements with other Air Forces to share information.
If we looked at sustainment going forward just from a risk perspective, right now there are approx 500 Eurofighters and SH flying around. The Danes are confident, and so they should be, that there will be two to three times that many F-35As flying around. That has a massive affect on risk reduction, and that is before we factor in that SH and Eurofighter will not be in production past 2025 while the F-35 will almost certainly be in production until 2030 and likely 2040.
OzairAs explained in the report, Super Hornet and Eurofighter acquisition cost included initial package of spares, support equipment and so on, which is normally prerequisite for starting to operate a new aircraft. By contrast, F-35 acquisition cost included bare airframes and nothing else (not sure if it included even engines).
Where did you find that? The report lists on page 84 that they assessed each candidate on a URF cost as well as subsequently the spares load required for each aircraft. When measuring URF only the SH was cheaper than the F-35.
In F-35’s maintenance model, national air forces only own the airframes and all spares are delivered ‘on-need’ basis. Operators do not need to keep around large stores of spares but just buy what they need, when they need it. This is supposed to bring major savings in lifecycle costs, and the report is calculated under the assumption that it does. Whether it does in real life, well…
Sorry wrong again. With the F-35 there was still a requirement to establish a minimun baseline of spares but by having access to the global pool of spares they are able to reduce the overall cost. Not only is this maintenance profile very common in civil aviation but it is a common issue and practise now for Militaries today, moving from a traditional heavy spares model to a lite on demand model. This type of management is hardly new, http://www.smi-online.co.uk/defence/uk/military-spares-inventory-management
OzairI really hope I won’t need to once you have read it. look at the offsets, and training clauses.
Almost through and frankly I don’t know what you’re complaining about. The report overall, despite the awful translation, seems pretty straight forward. They clearly indicate areas where there is uncertainty and risk including in both the areas you have an issue with.
Again, I find it telling that after 111 pages the main things that stick out to you are offsets and training.
OzairThe Short version…..So your arguing from a point of ignorance.
Before you nail your colours to the mast I suggest you read the full version, Here’s a link to a machine translated version.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23011
Thanks, I’m keen to give it a read. While I do, why don’t you provide me with any issues you have with the way the Danes assessed the capabilities of the different platforms?
OzairYou have Boeing stating that the costs assigned to their product were 50%-100% inflated…. So Boeing are not credible as the producer of the item in question.
And yet we have a price for the SH which is pretty consistent with what the RAAF paid. We also don’t know what version of the SH the Danes were offered. It could well have been the ASH which would not only require some more development, which the Danes as the only customer would be liable for, but would cost more due to conformal tanks, increased thrust engines etc.
The irony is people here spend so much time rubbishing LM figures and not realistic, then when an Air Force makes a call on another manufacturer not having realistic figures then the sky falls in…
Re the German auditors report On Eurofighter maintenance costs, its a pity they didn’t use the any of the other Eurofighter air forces costs, Germany’s were inflated by their insistence on using the old style maintenance program and not carrying the recommended number spares, guess who’s changed their maintenance program.
So? The Eurofighter costs more than both the SH and F-35, everyone on this board knows that. Evidence from the UK, Germany and Austria point to the Eurofighter having a high sustainment cost. Again no surprise there.
So guess which set of costs the Danish picked!! That’s why the report is discredited.
Discredited by you and a few others with limited or no industry experience and access to unclassified information only. The Danes are sticking to their gun and good on them. It is clear they did due diligence, especially given the report and the assumptions used by the Danes have been vetting and cleared by three independent European consultant firms.
Simulators playing almost no role LOL isn’t the same as playing no role……. they added air frames for it while the F-35 didn’t, did you read the reason why?
Have you read the full report?, what do you think of the caveats, are there any you think are bias?
I have read the report available in english, so the short version. As for caveats that are bias, there are a couple but nothing glaring. Again, all you have done is nitpicked at the edges. The report is clear on the assessment of the capabilities of the respective airframes, if you have a problem with the capabilities then air them, if you have a problem with a few of the assumptions you are crying over spilt milk.
OzairIt rather depends on which random guys ;-)….
Anyhow onto the discredited Danish report.
It does seem to have blown the argument out of the water regarding “accurate costing” 50-100% more expensive isn’t an accident, If you read it the caveats they are quite astonishing.
And the fact that they ignored the usual costing for the Eurofighter in favour of the 2014 German reports on it being twice as expensive to maintain… and the fact that the Eurofighter simulators have software around 1 year behind the latest software version means you add more aircraft because you cannot use the simulators! apparently something the JSF would not suffer from LOL.There does seem to be a certain amount of cherry picking going on there, I would go as far as to say the whole frikken orchard has been stripped.
Finally the last bit about how they worked out offsets and industrial transfer is laughable…
Apparently the fact that the JSF doesn’t do offsets and it is done on ‘best value’ contracts, isn’t a problem, so there is no guarantee of work for the Danes, but this scores higher and is less risky than guaranteed offsets.:rolleyes:
Its quite an accomplishment to get a report published and then discredited in such a short time..
Sorry, I haven’t seen credible arguments against the report. I have seen a whole lot of posturing and strawmen. I have also seen a whole lot of ignorant posts on the capabilities of the respective platforms against the evaluated criteria…
As for the report being discredited, for example you complain that the Danes used the German Air Force’s figures for Eurofighter sustainment but how can this be wrong? Germany is the second largest operator of the Eurofighter, if I was Denmark I would be more interested in the costings of a current operator has over those provided by Eurofighter.
As for simulators, given the difference in numbers between the required frames is just six jets and the stated reason for this is airframe hours, the simulators play almost no role in the selection.
So, instead of nitpicking around the edges, how about you present some valid arguments against the capabilities of the respective jets over the expected 40 year lifespan of the capability…
OzairThe idea of stealth is to reflect the RF energy back in some very discrete angles, as far as I understand it. That means you get almost no return in all except few peaks which are then extremely high. These angles have to be avoided during the mission..Second, it is about absorbing the radar energy.. that means all those features which are invisible to the naked eye (honeycombs, composites, various special coatings, RAM) – but these can be applied even to a flying barn door..
Back to the original question, which of that is dominant? If you say shape, then the F-117 cannot be less “stealthy” than F-22 because the smooth curves of the F-22 feature so many angles to provide at least small reflection from that it’s nearly impossible to find any optimum other than head-on (which is obviously optimized to the greatest extent). If you say “structure”, then, of course, you can design even a Gripen to be stealthy, all it takes is to retain the shape and let radiation be absorbed in internal honeycombs.
Can I suggest you purchase a copy of Introduction to RF stealth by David Lynch. Amazon link He is an industry recognized expert and you will gain a better understanding from reading his book than piecemeal questions.
OzairHow can one say “fair evaluation” and “F-35” in one sentence is beyond me.. :confused:
I just wonder how much does it cost to make the whole committee use completely falsified figures and not care, at all..
As said before, a random bunch of guys from this forum would have made a more qualified decision
The character and mood of your posts gets more morose the more success the F-35 has. I can’t image what they will read like 3 years from now…
OzairHeck, they may have even calculated actual figure for F-16, then copypasted the old report and forgot to change the old value. It’s known to happen before *cough cough* :p
Yes, I said as much in my first sentence.
OzairCheck for example F-35 SAR 2013, page 94: F-16 CPFH is $25 541, same as in newest 2015 report.
It appears that, although I cannot confirm it, that the F-16 figure from 2013 to 2015 has not been adjusted. What likely happened, given how formatted and regimented these reports are, is that they simply cut and pasted the old data in and didn’t adjust for the new F-16C/D figures,
So to get a relative comparison; let us look at the 2013 and 2015 F-35 unit operations figures which saw the largest drop and likely where fuel use is calculated. The difference is the 2015 figure is 65% of the 2013 figure. That figure includes both a reduction in fuel cost as well as a reduction in fuel burn although we don’t know the impact of each.
If we use that 68% figure for the F-16 C/D unit operations figures for 2013 to 2015 we get a change from 5.632 to 3.83. If we considered the change just as fuel cost reduction the F-35 CPFH dropped a total of 9% from the 2013 figure, 32.554 to 29.806 while the F-16C/D dropped 7% from the 2013 figure, 25.541 to 23.739. If we add a slight bump to the F-16C/D unit operations figure to accommodate the fuel burn reduction of F-35, moving F-16 to 24.00 then we get a 6% reduction from 2013 to 2015.
In total the CPFH difference, adjusted for fuel cost and fuel burn, between the two platforms is approx 19% compared to the current figure of 15%.
That seems pretty fair to me.
Sign In
