uss noviceNice to see that the Eurofighter is still in, though I’m not optimistic about an export sucess for Eurofighter here. Therefore I’m voting for the MiG-35 or Rafale. Latest F/A-18E/F are for sure very good either and a new JAS 39E/F would be a good choice too. Considering the type being replaced, funds available and squadrons to be equipped I could imagine that the Gripen would be a logical choice.
MiG 35? Nope, my bet’s on the Super Hornet. The current GOI is very, very pro United States. There are some telling signs in recent media reports that the deal is going towards the Yankees:
1) The recently drafted nuclear deal with the U.S. which was quickly followed by Nicholas Burns’ comment about getting a share of India’s defence needs. Almost every bit of news about the nuke deal has a section the represents access to India’s defence cake, kind of tit for tat deal.
2) The recent downturn taken by Indo-Russian defence ties, again the media is blaring this from roof tops.
3) The robust cooperation with israel for development of an AESA (EL 2052 based).
4) The offer by the United States for GE 414s for the LCA
5) The massive MRCA budget (over $ 10 billion) itself is an indication that the 126 a/c will be western and it shore doesn’t look french or european. Surely no fulcrum is thaat costly.
6) Both Boeing and LM have previously stated their willingness to Soufaize their candidates more to the IAF’s liking using israeli components. Makes sense considering that the U.S. is hardly the one to sell TOT on sensitive techs like AESA radars and India OTOH is not willing to take the hardware as is considering the danger of sanctions/armtwisting and the need for developing indigenous capability..
JMT
USS.
uss noviceAlso, any news on the Zhuk AE radar for the MiG 35? Have they managed to squeeze in more than the 600 odd tr/x modules that they showed at aeroindia?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceAny word on when they plan to turn over the a/c to the IN? Last I checked the schedule was – 2 birds in June 2007 and 6 in November 2007.
Regards,
USS.
uss novice@KKM57P,
the MiG-35 uses the newer and probably less thirsty RD-33MK, not the RD-33 IIIM.@RIDIM,
according to an article (I think it was by Piotr Butowski) internal fuel load of the new MiG-29K is 5200 kg. As it uses the same airframe as the MiG-35 I assume that fuel load should be equal.
The mig 35 is also a lot lighter (800 odd kgs i believe) and that ought to help. I would guess that the Rafale would have the best range specs in this comparison thanks to the M88.2eco and the light weight of the a/c.
KKM57,
Notwithstanding your overwhelming knowledge in such matters as the SFC of the rd 33.mk and the EJ 200, the range difference between the mig 35 and the EF 2000 is hardly very great, which goes back to my original point that the specs of the EF 2000 put it much closer to the mig 35 than the flanker.
Its onboard sensor package though is a different matter, a decent comparison in this is not easily forthcoming.
USS.
uss noviceThe Flanker has an advantage in terms of payload/range capability but there exist the possibility to drop the tanks if necessary and then gain full performance back, while the fuel was consumed before. You have to take into account that the Su-30MKI consumes more fuel as well.
Irrespective of EFTs being dropped or the MKI consuming more fuel, its a TALL order for either of the eurobirds to achieve Su 30/35 type range/payload characteristics or endurance for that matter. IAF jocks are known to have carried out 8-10 hour sorties covering impossible distances with the MKI. Pune-Jaipur-Assam-A&N islands- Pune.
I won’t give the MiG-35 an edge over the Rafale, why? And its range can’t be much greater on internal fuel alone if better at all. There are no exact range data available which would support it and the advantage in terms of internal fuel load isn’t that big. Typhoon’s payload is now given with 7500 kg. 6500 kg is old data.
Check, I didn’t know that about the Ef2000s payload. The Mig 35’s internal fuel ferry range is about 2200km. Any data on the EF2000/Rafale internal fuel range or max range?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceYou only mentioned “support”, instead of naming it as program unit cost. 🙂
Range is definitely compromised compared to the MKI, but comparing their sizes and respective payloads, the Typhoon doesn’t fall too far behind in my opinion. It’s worse, but not “a lower class” kind of worse.
Actually, i’d be surprised if the flight characteristics of both the rafale and the Ef2000 wouldn’t be severely compromised if they had to try and match the MKI in terms of both range and payload. They’d have to carry a bucket load of EFTs/CFTs, which would reduce their ability to carry ammo/weapons.
I’m actually a huge fan of the MiG-35 and it’s my secret favorite for the Indian 126 aircraft MMRCA tender. Seems like a very sensible update to the platform and I’m sure that as a 4+ generation incarnation it will offer very competitive performance and pricing.
The MiG 35 actually seems to have better range compared to both the Rafale and EF2000 esp. on internal fuel (as it carries over 6000 liters of fuel internally IIRC). Add to that the ability to carry 4-5 EFTs (2150ltrX1+4X1150ltr), it could serve as a tanker!. In terms of payload, it is slightly restricted – 6500 kg as compared to the Rafale, but equals the EF2000. Personally, I definitely see a comparison between the Typhoon/Rafale and MiG 35 as more appropriate than say against a flanker or F15.
My take is that A2A (BVR), the EF2000 has a lead and will continue to lead after it gets the AESA, the MiG 35 comes in a close second (BVR), leads in WVR, the Rafale comes in 3rd. A2G, the Rafale leads, the EF2000 and the MiG35 come in second. Of course, this is just speculation because things might change considerably.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceHere’s DID’s exact wording for the Venezuela deal:
“DID would add that the likely contract value is over $1 billion, as these aircraft traditionally sell for about $60 million per aircraft, and support deals also factor in. A sale of 24 aircraft at $60 million each is $1.44 billion all by itself. Hopefully, future reports will bring some clarity to this aspect [N.B. They are beginning to, suggesting that the purchase will be more like $3 billion].”
I understood “and support deals also factor in” as meaning that support deals factor in the whole deal being worth more than $1 billion, not the aircraft being $60m a piece. Additionally, there’s no mention of weapons.
The calculation seems to be 24 a/c * 60m + support + weapons = 1+ billion. Or as corrected, more like $3 billion.
Ultimately, the purchase was indeed well over $ 3 billion ($ 3.4 billion as per one source) but that included goodies like helos, Tors etc.
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Briefing/2007/08/15/russia_to_build_ak_plants_in_venezuela/9601/
and support deals also factor in
– i took this to mean that such “support deals” would be factored into that figure of $ 1.4 billion. However, as said before, the venezuelan purchase seems to be the odd one out when compared to other deals (including with china, india, malaysia and the proposed offer to brazil).
And the German $140m Typhoon isn’t just with support, but with R&D, spares, simulators, logistics, training materials, documentation and everything else. Not fly-away or unit procurement cost, but program unit cost.
When did i say anything otherwise? The unit flyaway cost was quoted at $ 99.8 mill in the post made by you and about $ 137 milion including all the spares etc. But that is tremendously more expensive than the Su 30MKI for example (i’d put it at more than double considering common sources put the MKI @ $ 40 odd million flyaway).
Oh, come on, let’s keep it level-headed. Typhoon being pricey? Yes. Rafale being a better deal? Perhaps. But Typhoon being in the MiG-29 class? Please…
Sorry I should’ve said MiG 35. Its obviously not in the MKI’s class when it comes to range and payload and is far closer to the latest avatar of the fulcrum in these criteria. As far as the other parameters go, the 35 is quite competitive.
Quick question: would an Ef 2000 speced @ tranche 3 with AESA be more expensive than the current versions with the Captor?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceOld Number´s
Inflation as hit Russia. Venezuela paid $1.600 million for 24 aircraft´s, plus logistical suport, training and armament. That´s almost $67 million per plane. A MKK… The number came directly from the Venezuelan MOD. (it´s in Spanish, but more here: http://www.fav-club.com/articulos/flankeranida/flankervzla.htm)
That number sounds awfully high for an MKK type, perhaps there is more involved in the contract than meets the eye. And I have no idea where you got the idea that russia is being hit with inflation; IIRC russian inflation rates set new lows in 2006 (under 10%), which is not too bad at all.
The 2004/2006 Sukhoi offer to Brazil, the SU-35BR (a SU30 MKI with one hole) was for 24 fighter´s at $50 million per plane plus a logistical contract worth $232 million, for ten year´s. The number´s came from Pedro Resende, the Brasilian correspondent to JANE´s (if you read Portuguese i can send you the link).
That was the “Offer”, if Brazil had decided to buy it, I’m sure there would have been some bargaining and the price might have come down. Also, the “offer” itself is not too bad – $ 60 million per a/c including a logistical contract for 10 years. Again, this highlights the discrepancy with the Venezuelan deal – While brazil gets advanced flankers for $ 60 million a pop including a degree of support, Venezuela gets not-so-advanced flankers for $ 60+ million a pop? The Malaysian deal for 18 Su 30MKM (advanced flankers) too cost only around $ 900 million. The Indian deal for 240 MKI costs $ 8.5-9 billion,
The number for the “Unit Cost Production” of the MKI came from report´s of the Indian Congress that are widely available.
Can you show me some of these reports, even if that is the case, it would include “production costs” that go with the set up of infrastructure required to make the bird. It has little to do with the contract price itself, which is $ 8.5 billion (due to increase to $ 9 billion after cost escalation) for ALL the a/c . The common numbers thrown around for MKI cost in open sources seem to range from $ 35 million – 45 million max. This includes wiki, indianexpress, the Hindu and others.
The $8.5 Billion that you mention seem´s to be for just the first 100 fighter´s, but i might be wrong on this one.
Actually, thats the latest figure that I got from newspapers that were complaining about how the cost escalation was a raw deal. And it was mentioned for the entire 238 odd a/c. The cost escalation rate is to be increased from 2.5% to 4.5% for the remaining 138 a/c (the first 100 are to be delivered according to the original contract @ 2.5%), this means an additonal 0.5 billion USD for the entire contract hiking it up to about $ 9 billion.
The Indian´s are furious with a very high cost escalation of every single piece of military equipment suplied by the Russian´s. That goes from Aircraft Carrier´s to fighter´s.
Please refer to the above, there is more to it than meets the eye, a lot of back door negotiation goes on between india and russia on everything from a/c carriers to strategic assets like Akulas and Backfires. The picture will take time to clear. But undoubtedly there has been plenty of moaning from both sides esp in the media – lots of smoke. The latest news from the Indian ambassador in Russia is that the Gorshkov will be delivered on time 😮 Go figure.
Its not for nothing that the former Indian Def minister, G. Fernandes in 2004said: “I want to state without hesitation that the acquisition of this (su 30MKI) is because of our close ties with Russia. Nocountry has been able to match Russia’s edge in critical areas related to India’s security”.
The Saudis aren´t paying $10 Billion for 72 Typhoon´s. The contract isn´t inked yet. That number as been “thrown” around by the press, it´s just speculation. It MIGHT get to $10 Billion, but I bet that pay´s the “Tiffies” and something like 50 BAE´s Hawk´s and a few new airbases built as a bonus.
Forget the Saudis, India paid some $ 2 billion for just 66 hawks. I seriously doubt the 126 typhoons are going to fit in the touted $ 10 billion budget.
Bottom line. If the Russian´s can pull a “fly away” price of 50 million for the SU-35BM, i am going to be very surprised.
I wouldn’t be. It is their strength to produce extremely low cost high end hardware, if the cost is not low, they tend to lose their advantage in the market bigtime.
Don’t mix total costs for an aircraft including R&D etc. with system price offered for another aicraft which is intended for export.
Scorpion, I went with the figures that Satorian quoted for the German Ef2000, again the unit cost is clearly $ 99.8 million ($ 100 million). Take the Austrian figures as well – 63 million euro is approximately $ 85 million unit price. The system price is around 108 million euro/ $ 140 million.
According to the German Bundeshaushalt for 2004, the Typhoon’s program unit cost comes down to 118.3 million EUR per aircraft, with unit procurement cost at 85.7 million EUR. Adjusting for purchasing power parity with 2006 OECD data, to give the cost comparison any meaning at all in an international comparison, this translates into $137.7 million USD program unit cost and $99.8 million USD unit procurement cost.
According to Defence Industry Daily the Venezuelan Su-30MK2 are estimated to be priced at ~60m USD a piece, and they don’t have canards, TVC and the latest pieces of kit. Whether fly-away or unit procurement cost, it’s not that much cheaper than the Austrian Typhoon price.
That $ 60 million includes weapons and support for the Su 30MKV as per DID. How does that come even close to the $ 85 million mark for the austrian EF 2000 flyaway OR $ 140 million per a/c including support etc? And like i pointed out earlier, the venezuelan deal seems a little odd – nowhere else have flankers been that costly – not even the MKI or MKM, which are far more advanced.
Quite frankly, my point is that the Typhoon seems to be really pricey considering its more in the MiG 29 class (which by the way is even cheaper than the uber-flankers) than the flanker’s. At least the rafale @ about 50 million euros seems a bit better costwise.
JMT
USS.
uss noviceThose 40-45 mln USD fly-away look “consistent” with the price paid by Venezuela for the MKV, actually a MKK.
I dunno what venezuela paid for the MKV (MKK derived), pit would know; but malaysia paid a mere $ 900 million for 18 Su 30mkm (based on the much more advanced MKI), which equals about $ 45+ per bird, and the russians even agreed to put a malaysian astronaut in space for that much. 🙂
Surely the IAF MKI does not cost $ 60 million. The last reports i read put the entire deal for 240 a/c at about $ 8.5 billion (including weapons, spares, support, TOT, and perhaps even upgrades!) beat that. And even if it turns out about $ 60 million including all the extras, its waaay cheaper than the Typhoon. Remember, the saudis are paying upwards of $ 10 billion for 70 typhoons. pricey stuff.
scorpion,
i’d estimate the Su 35 (single seater) with IRBIS etc @ around $ 50 million + support, weapons etc. no more than $ 70 million tops. thats less than 1/2 of the ef 2000. As far as the HUGE fuel load goes, the EF would cost more too if it lugged around that much in tanks. with extra fuel comes extra range and performance. And lets not forget (the very “weaknesses” of the flanker” allow it to outperform the EF2000 in criteria such as payload, range, and a tremendously powerful radar.
regards,
USS.
uss noviceMaybe, but the procurement cost is one thing, operating costs are another. And in terms of operating costs the Typhoon is likely to “beat” the Su-35. So in the long run it’s maybe even cheaper to purchase a similar number of Typhoons rather than Su-35.
I seriously doubt that. Saving around $ 70-80 million in terms of life time costs seems a tall order.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceNo I meant all this is included in the 100 mln €, not that you have to pay for it extra.
I see; sorry about that misunderstanding. So you have 1 Ef2000 including all the goodies (support, spares etc) for USD 140 million approx. Much better. Phew. But still thats a lot of $$$$. i’m betting you can manage two Su 35s in that.
Beistrich,
Indeed less expensive russian labor helps in a big way. And yes, compared to USD 200 million a pop, the Ef2000 is definitely not sooo expensive. 🙂
Satorian, thanks for that detailed report, very helpful. So, each Luftwaffe EF2000 costs about USD 100 million. Add to that another $ 40-60 million for the support etc and the above mentioned price of about $ 140-160 million makes sense.
Regards,
USS.
uss novice100 million € for the Eurofighter aircraft plus spares, training, R&D, production preparation etc..
So you are looking @ about $ 200 million per a/c (100 million euros+spares etc)! Damn! Too bad the Ef2000 is such an expensive bird, I do like it. However, it might be far, far more reasonable to get a Su 35; offers far more for half the cost!
ya, ya i know the typhoon fans don’t like that comparison, but its pretty obvious :diablo:
USS.
uss noviceGarry, i think you’re wrong on this one. For LOBL, seekerhead needs to acquire the contact upon launch, and it’s impossible for the R-27ER seeker to do that from, let’s say 80 km distance. Even the R-37 seeker, 40 kg heavy and 38 centimeters in diameter, does 70km against 5m2 RCS.
Thats what got me as well; i mean whats the point in having a max range of 120 odd km if the blasted missile has to lock on before launch? It’s tiny seeker’s never going to lock on @ such ranges, the russians can’t be that daft – build a whopper of a missile with a kinematic range in excess of 100kms only to have the need for LOBL, which probly is not possible for distances above 15-25 km! or were they? 😮 i’m talking mainly of the IR version here (not the SARH).
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceR-27T didnt run with MCGU, it’s LOBL. MICA IR did receives MCGU so it could be a LOAL weapon.
Thanks Pit, do they have any plans of getting MCGU with alamo versions? It would make it a fearsome beast esp. if they added an IIR seeker.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceWhile we are on the topic of alamos, I was wondering how is the guidance of a Mica IR different from the IR version of the alamo (R27 T1)? Would they both use inertial guidance/datalinks until the seeker goes active?
Regards,
USS.
Sign In
