OzairIt can’t be an opposite, that would be a logical fallacy.. if I say “this offer sounds too good to be true”, then it means the offer is very good but I do not believe the opposite party shall keep their promises..
The logical fallacy is your initial claim that the offer is better than LM.
How could any of us, including the Belgians, even know that given only LM and Airbus, yes toocool via their government channels, answered the RFT. France/Dassault didn’t except for a piece of paper and a few media releases. The irony of the situation is the tender was very clear and simple to understand and I have no doubt some of the Rafale folkhere could have made a good go at a response, but France/dassault didn’t.
As for the claim it is biased to the F-35, that is simply false. Would you like the Belgians to reduce the threat even further to allow more airframes to compete? They have a responsibility to their citizens and their military personnel to get the platform that will best meet the expected threat through the lifetime of service, nothing more and nothing less.
OzairNot only that.. by claiming the offer was too good to be true he basically admitted the offer was much better than what LM had offered..
In fact it is the opposite. As Dassault were unable to answer the RFT as requested, while LM and Airbus did, it speaks volumes for the level of information provided and calls into question any claims they now make. Dassault didn’t provide a response to any of the scenarios or actually any of the questions at all. They have conducted their tender response by media, hoping the swell of political infighting and undiscerning public will make up for the lack of a valid response.
OzairWell the F-18 offers an ideal replacement for the ECR Tornado in the form of the EA-18G, something the Rafale can’t offer.
The F-15 and E/F Hornets offer a huge number of integrated weapons, more than Rafale for sure. Even Taurus is available on the F-15.
But this is most likely only between F-35 and EF T4.
The one weapon the Rafale cannot offer is the US B-61 and that IMO is why the German Air Force remain keen on a US airframe.
OzairI was under the impression those RAAF F/A-18’s were flogged. I remember reading a RAAF doc mentioning airframe life was expiring on majority of the fleet and it was considered uneconomical to extend.
You are probably referring to the ANAO report from 2012 which said the following,
In recent years, Tactical Fighter SPO and the ACG have implemented a range of initiatives designed to ensure that the Hornet fleet can meet its operational requirements out to its Planned Withdrawal Date, which at the time of the audit was 2020.7 Defence records indicate that, while F/A-18A/B operational availability and logistics support satisfy DMO’s agreement with the RAAF, this is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve, because significant aged-aircraft issues are resulting in maintenance durations and costs becoming less predictable. Annual spending to sustain the Hornet fleet has averaged $118 million since 2000–01, but is trending towards $170 million per annum over the next several years. The cost of airframe corrosion-related repairs has also increased significantly, from $721 000 in 2007 to $1.367 million as estimated in 2011.
17. The F/A-18A/B Hornet was designed for a safe life of 6000 airframe hours under specified flight profiles. Defence data indicates that, at the current rate of effort of 13 000 airframe hours per year for the fleet (reducing to 12 000 hours from 2013–14), the Hornet fleet as a whole will not exceed 6000 flying hours for each aircraft until after the current Planned Withdrawal Date of 2020. That said, all but nine aircraft have experienced structural fatigue above that expected for the airframe hours flown, leading the ACG to take steps to conserve the remaining fatigue life of its F/A-18A/Bs to ensure they remain operable up to the safe life of 6000 airframe hours.
Since that report the RAAF has undertaken further analysis and have determined the corrosion is not as bad as first thought and can be managed to maintain the required capability. The good news is L-3 in Canada are the recognised experts for classic Hornet sustainment including being the primary location for all Centre Barrel replacements, so if anyone can get more time out of the RAAF Hornets they will.
OzairAn article in French is available with commentary by the former Chief of the RCAF (who retired in 2015 from the position) on the current Canadian Fighter replacement program.
Using Google translate.
Retired General Yvan Blondin, former Commander of the Bagotville Base and now Defense Systems Consultant, was in the front row when Canada conducted studies to determine the best fighter aircraft to replace the aging CF fleet. -18.
“To avoid the bias of the military, the work was done by Public Works Canada and the three studies were clear: the F-35, if it fulfilled its promise of performance and cost, was the best camera and the best value for money. -price “, explains the retired general.
“Of course, the plane was still developing; problems occurred and the price was high. It was perfectly normal. But since then, the hunter has proven that he is able to fulfill his promises and the costs have gone from $ 120 million to $ 90 million each (estimated delivery price starting in 2022). “
That said, Yvan Blondin is convinced that the F-35 will still be in the lead if we redo the studies and that it will win the tenders that will be launched by the government by 2019.
OzairThat sounds like a good deal to me.
Will be interesting to see if any ex-RAAF Hornets actually fly with the RCAF. The RAAF jets apparently have more corrosion but fewer hours so the thought is L-3 will frankenise a few RCAF Hornets with RAAF parts. I also doubt some of the specific Australian modifications will make it to the RCAF, such as the BOL countermeasures and integration of the EL-8222. Both would be very handy for the RCAF and probably wouldn’t cost too much to acquire from the RAAF, who can’t use them on the SH and F-35.
OzairAny news on the projected cost of the ex-RAAF aircraft? This deal could be good for both customer and supplier at quite a low cost. I guess Australia would scrap them if Canada did not buy them so no pressure to get a high price. Any money received would be an unexpected financial boost to Australia’s MOD.
The Canadian Government has apparently set aside $500 million for the purchase and I have seen an acquisition price of approximately $350 million for the 18 aircraft. The first two aircraft arrive in 2019 with the last delivered in 2022.
OzairMAybe the truth is ALSO the former gov. lied to canadian people about F-35 lifecycle costs (see KPMG…)
And if you actually read the KPMG report you realise the previous Canadian Government didn’t lie, they just didn’t forecast as far forward as the KPMG report. The Canadian Government forecast was initially to 20 years, then to 30 years while the KPMG report forecast 42 years. How many assumptions does the Government, and KPMG, have to make in deciding the cost of labour, fuel, spares and inflation across a 30 or 42 year timeframe? It makes these long term forecasts mostly meaningless.
What we do know is that of the options available to Canada the F-35 will be the one that is most likely to remain in production the longest, is the most likely to be in service with its primary operator the longest and is most likely to see the most manufactured. That all points to in service costs being cheaper than alternatives.
OzairProbably because Belgium will follow the Netherlands in procuring whatever the Netherlands procured, which was not Rafale
I doubt Belgium went to all the trouble of the following, http://www.vandeput.fgov.be/sites/default/files/articles/Request%20for%20Government%20Proposal_0.pdf just so they could blindly follow what the Dutch did. That may factor in the decision and the RFP speaks specifically to the great benefits Belgium has had operating a similar aircraft to its neighbours, but it won’t be the only factor.
OzairCan someone please explain to me why anyone would take time to write a reply to KGB? Thanks.
I block his idiocy and have to sign on to avoid his tripe, and people reply to him and circumvent the block
Sorry mate, realised what I was doing after I posted. Will desist.
OzairIt is just hilarious if you think that the economies of scale principal is going to bridge the gap. The Rafale plant was turned on in 1992. Every little issue was worked out of it decades ago. Its probably paid for itself. Dassault can bang out a copy of the Rafale with their eyes closed.
And this claim is supported by what evidence?
The facts are:
Dassault has never manufactured more than 12 Rafales a year. If anything the age of the Rafale production actually limits it and Dassault recently upgraded the line in an attempt to increase production. In essence Dassault hand builds every Rafale.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]257698[/ATTACH]
The F-35 has already manufactured over 50 F-35s in one year and the production line is being built in the same factory that housed and manufactured almost 200 F-16s a year for 3-5 years of its production run twenty five years ago. The F-35 has production orders and processes in place and will increase the line rate to 150+ orders.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]257697[/ATTACH]
Compare that with this trans Atlantic , multi national monstrosity that is the JSF production program. Its going to take years to get the production right.
If we use your completely invalid metric of years since production started then the F-35 has already been in production for 10 years.
Just to bring this back to Canada. The good news is Canada already manufacture a large number of components for the F-35 and for the approx. US$300 million investment the Canadian Government has made in the F-35 SDD program they have already received over US$1 billion in industrial work. That is for a total fleet of approx 200 aircraft. Now add ten times that number to the production run and you can see why Canadian Industry is so supportive of the F-35 against any of the other potential options.
(see the F-22)
So if you want to include the F-22. Please tell me how many F-22 were manufactured a year at the height of its production run and what the price reduction was for F-22 from the start to end of production?
Ozair^ It does not matter who’s bids said what.
An F-35 is never going to be cheaper than a Rafale.
Except economies of scale principals established for the last 250 years disagrees with you. The F-35 will hit 150+ a year compared to the Rafale looking at 15-18. Do you understand why making more of one thing at a time allows you to reduce the cost of manufacture?
Extending that further. If we consider the cost of spare parts and maintenance over an operational life of type, comparing the cost of an aircraft fleet of approx 250 flying to one that has 2500 flying, there is notionally 10 times the requirement for spare parts. Again efficiencies of production and volume ordering allows for reduced cost for those same parts.
OzairYes, but the MAWS is MMW radar and therefore not passive (EMCON!). A passive IIR scanning mirror system very similar to Rafale’s DDM-NG was under development (PIMAWS) but appears to have been cancelled.
In the low level strike role that we are discussing the respective airframes are already emitting radar energy from the TFR. In that context the Eurofighter MAWS is sufficient for the role and could be argued is more precise than IR MAWS that are likely more prone to false alerts.
OzairCompare OFFICIAL numbers (SAR and french senate). There is nothing such as F-35 cheaper quote. Just poor extrapolation of misinformed journalists, without any precicion about content…
Unfortunately Halloweene we can’t compare the acquisition and operating costs of both because the French didn’t submit a valid bid in the Belgium tender. Had the French decided to submit as per the tender guidelines we would have had a valid comparison given it is the first time the aircraft would have gone head to head. Yet the French withdrew and declined to answer the RFP.
I wonder why…
OzairI’m sorry, was this source a point of what?
Afaik there are trade issues that has not been resolved, unless you have any better sources.
The only reason for the trade issues is the invention of a capability gap that fostered a possible SH order.
Sign In
