Should we take this as a hint that the Mirage 2000 will shift more and more towards the ground attack role? Possibly even getting more of a strategic role with Scalp-EG.
Is there any word about the AASM being integrated?
Nic
Why?
I like the idea of a VTOL Mirage. I know it was dangerous and that its range was very limited but same goes with the Harrier for instance. I’m sure the Mirage could have been even more successful than the Harrier. I wonder if it could have been carrier capable though.
Nic
IIRC the RDY-3 is the new name of the RC400, which means it would actually be a downgrade from the RDY-2.
I suspect that the deal includes RDY-2 and not RDY-3, and that Air & Cosmos just made a mistake.
Nic
I’d like to know what and how many weapons are included in that 4bn package.
I phrased my first post as a question not as an irrefutable fact. And I did provide a link from Bloomberg as well, which I had no reason to disbelieve. So I don’t think I was being unfair when I brought it up.
I didn’t mean to say that you were intentionally misleading, I just wanted to say that you were comparing apples and oranges.
Nic
I suppose you intended to quote and reply to someone else as this was my first post here in this thread..
You are right and you’ll notice that I have already edited my post. Sorry for that 🙂
Nic
OK I agree that we can’t compare both costs, because they don’t seem to include the same things at all. Then again the original comparison was just as bad, if not worse.
Nic
That isn’t the acquisition cost. An effective comparison would require an actual breakdown of the €40 billion spent on the Rafale. The report does not seem to mention what period that amount is budgeted for (one would have to assume its the expenditure for orders placed so far). Or what heads it breaks down into.
Between 2005 and 2010 the quoted figure rose by almost a third. How is possible to budget for a future deliveries starting in 2018 (presumably), that AFAIK the state isn’t financially committed to buy?
Whatever your comparison was unfair in the first place if you don’t know what the costs you were talking about include 😎
Nic
As Swerve said that’s the estimated programme cost from inception to the retirement of the last aircraft after 25 years of operation. People would do better in reading the NAO report instead of wikipedia, or Lewis Page articles…
I know. But my understanding is that the cost for the Rafale programme is also total program cost including support.
Nic
You’re right. My bad. Same price if Nicholas’s take on it is true.
Still wondering though, how the cost of the next 286-180=106 aircraft was estimated. Especially given that defence inflation usually runs independent (and usually in excess) of the CPI, which in itself is not predictable.
BTW your calculation on the cost of the EF to the UK MOD is wrong, as per wiki again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Costs
After 2003 the Ministry of Defence have refused to release updated cost estimates on the grounds of ‘commercial sensitivity’,[44] however in 2011 the National Audit Office estimated the UK’s “total programme cost [would] eventually hit £37 billion”.[45]
£37bn makes about $60bn
Assuming a Eurofighter order of 160 jets that’s 377 million a pop in program cost. And I doubt a carrier variant is included 😉
Nic
Saying that the french gvt has spend 53bn on the Rafale is just plain lying. I suspect a nice case of disinformation from the author of that article.
Nic
I wonder where they took that 53 bn figure, especially for 180 planes.
As per wiki, the program cost for 294 planes was estimated at 33+bn in 2005, revised at a bit more than 40bn for 286 planes in 2010. That’s global cost including development, purchase and support. Those figures are coherent with everything I’ve read so far, here and elsewhere.
Nic
I love the balzac:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3c1hv_mirage-iii-v-balzac_tech
Explain to me how France has lost out on that? The Rafale doesn’t cost more than what the EF cost to any one of the partners, yet provides better ground attack (scalp/AASM), recon (Reco-NG) capabilities, nuclear strike, and is carrier capable.
I’m not sure it would have been more cost efficient to remain in the consortium.