FBW@ vleugelmoer..@ lukos
None of this belongs in this thread, please move to Eurofighter thread.
FBWLRS-B gets funding cut for this year:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/27/house-cuts-460m-from-air-forces-next-generation-stealth-bomber/
FBWSomething I don’t understand at all in engine prices: LRIP1 (4 engines) @ $21 million each then LRIP2 (16 engines) @ $31 million each. How come the higher rate engines have a higher price?
Because it is another hack job by defense-aerospace.com. Who, if you haven’t noticed, isn’t exactly impartial. Do a little “research’ into the articles they publish. Little bit of Dassault Rafale love, perhaps? Giovanni de Briganti has a history of poorly researched hit pieces on the site. Would love to see the funding source for de Briganti’s publications.
This “article” is no different. I, having read the DoDIG report, can tell you there is no attempt to tie down contract to unit cost as the above piece does. All the DoDIG report gives is contract value and the number of engines, meaning: any contract costs, engineering fixes, testing not related to the actual engines are included in the cost.
Defense-Aerospace attempted to divide the contract by the engines…. fail. Please, it would be nice if people would realize what Defense-Aerospace is, and is not: namely a reliable independent news source.
FBWer, a thing or two jump out: F-35 was reported not to be able to sustain M1+ speed on dry thrust either, as for carrying 14AAMs… er… won’t even bother going through the rest of your list
er…. the’ve stated that the F-35 cannot “technically” supercruise. Have yet to see any docs or test points confirming anything about the F-35 max speed on dry thrust other than the ambiguous statement from O’Brian:
The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said
Either way, flying at Mach 1.2 with max dry thrust, still not clear of the rise in transonic wave drag is not efficient, nor is it that unique. (But then I tend to view a lot of the manufacturer claims of supercruise as crap too, unless you’re able to clear mach 1.4 and are able to throttle back from full mil power, then….)
FBWBravo! I remember quite recent times where folks comparing the F-35 to an F-18 were labeled naysayers. :applause:
sigh, doesn’t it get tiring trying to “validate” your view vs. no-one?
The F-35C is, was, and has been compared to the F-18 many times. If you think that is an insult to the F-35 than it proves that you’ve completely lost perspective.
P.S.- you do realize that there are performance variations between the F-35A and C? Though they are all to have the same “feel”, the testing has revealed the ‘C” to be the worst performer.
Now there is one more claim to disprove – that the sensors, MMI and fusion of the F-35 are far more advanced than the sensors of the contemporary 4+ gen (Gripen-E, Rafale F3R or Typhoon Tranche 3). We have successfully handled the 1), 2) and 3), we will handle this one, as well
“We” who, first you would have to assert who made the above claims. Second, I doubt very much you will have any detailed analysis to prove/disprove point 3.
As your opinion is so skewed to start, you will discard information that does not fit with what you want to believe and embrace anything negative. Confirmation bias is strong with this one.
FBWHow can a platform with better fuel fraction and less drag that carries the same amount of ordinance require more sorties or tanker support?
The reality is that the Rafale can carry more payload further than the heavier F-15 (or the Mirage 4000 if we want to stay with the same manufacturer) because technology advances have resulted in engines with better thrust, stronger fuselage, more powerful sensors… for less weight than the older generations.
Pretty unsubstantiated claim, your comparing a fighter that weighs 10t empty with a 16t fighter. As far a “better thrust”, the aircraft have similar thrust to weight ratios (comparing engines, the M88 has a marginally higher thrust to weight of 8.5:1), and the “E” carries twice as much fuel. Not sure about SFC on the engines.
It is difficult to compare two aircraft as equal when one aircraft that is substantially bigger, heavier, and carries more fuel. The fact that the Rafale had the range and carrying capacity it does is an achievement given it’s modest dimensions…. but lets not get carried away.
FBWF-15E only 14.3 tons? The Non-AESA F-15K is 20 ton class on Boeing site. your numbers are all inaccurate. your order for 116 F-35 only on paper nothing signed. Chinese never published J-10B weight of 9.7tons. and they are already getting upgraded engines.
F-15E weighs 32,300lbs (basic weight with lubricant, unrecoverable fuel, ect) without CFT (37,000lbs with CFT). 20 ton class has to do with the loaded weight. Andraxxus has the right numbers.
FBWSeems ALIS still ails:
Marines adopt new air to air tactics:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/04/20/marines-overhaul-air-to-air-combat-tactics-while-integrating-f-35-fighter-jet/
FBWI know. The -132 is fully qualified for F-16C/D and F-15E, yet no one seems to want it. Could be price tag?
The Block 60 and the upcoming block 61 both have the -132.
FBWLittle more confirmation of Gripen E/F costs:
“SAAB’s preliminary cost estimates suggest they can deliver the Gripen E/F at roughly 80 million per jet.”
FBWWhat does it change? If we take the ~$65mil FY2010 flyaway as a base for comparison, then we end up with $36.4mil flyaway for Gripen E in 2015. It all fits pretty nicely.
One way or another, the $37mil flyaway is entirely realistic and that is all I have claimed. Even if the provided evidence indicated say $39mil bcs of AESA and dontknowwhatelse, I would still be satisfied…
My 0.02..
I would buy that SAAB’s portion of the Gripen would be 37 million. To that you would add: F-414 engine, Selex’s ES-05 Raven AESA, Selex Skyward G IRST, comms: Link 16, Havequick/SATURN, Selex SIT426 IFF, MAWS, MFS-EW, and on and on…..
It’s going to cost in the 70-80 million dollar range at the lowest.
And that is not a knock on the Gripen E/F, I do believe that it will be the cheapest of the newer western fighters when it enters service in 2018, and one of the cheapest western fighters period. But while comparing how cheap it will be, you have to look realistically at what fighters cost now.
FBWThe flyaway was $60.9 million in 2013 dollars. Which makes the 2010 figure almost exactly $55 mil assuming 3% annual inflation.
Try harder..FY2015 President’s Budget Submission: Navy Justification Book Volume 1 Aircraft Procurement, U.S. Department of Defense, March 2014.
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/15pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236860[/ATTACH]It’s flyaway cost what is discussed here. Your article quotes entirely different cost.
You most likely would. It’s imperative that you compare flyaway with flyaway. Swedes will surely pay more than just naked flyaway because their Gripens, too, will need spares, weapons and whatever comes to one’s mind. But that is an entirely different story.
Don’t need to try harder because we are talking past each other… your quoting “flyaway” I’m quoting APUC (a more accurate representation of what buying the aircraft actually cost)
Look up what APUC means then look at the SAR report below:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Navy/F-A-18E-F_December_2012_SAR.pdf
APUC: SAR 2012 estimate 72.247 million.
Anyone buying a Gripen E/F will pay for more than naked flyaway because it is a somewhat meaningless comparison. Think, do we quote the Cost of a Super hornet at 34 million in 2013 because that is what MYP III with Boeing cost? No, because it did not include government furnished equipment, like engines and radar, ect.
Look at the link you posted the scroll down to what is included in Unit cost (engines, Government furnished Equipment GFE, engines, armament-read gun, ect.) then look at the unit cost for 2013, 70.5 million. Basically, to get a flying super hornet in the years 2010-2013 you were paying roughly 70-72 million.
FBWAs a rule of thumb, the flyaway value of fighter aircraft embracing identical level of technology can be calculated using roughly similar price per kilogram/ton of weight. If we account a Super Hornet for $55 mil in FY2010, then we get 55*1.03^5 * (7.0 ton / 14.5 ton) = ~ $31 mil. Now count few mils for AESA and you get there.. It’s completely realistic assuming no spares, no support, no servicing, no armament, no training and integration into already existing infrastructure..
Depending on the definition of the price, you would most probably lose that bet..
The Swiss deal was strange… We don’t know what exactly was included and how much offset was there offered for RUAG.
Hmm, several slight problems: 1. The Supers were 72 million in 2010 dollars so that throws your price per ton figures out the window.
So we have two contracts from SAAB as public record, however “wierd” the Swiss contract was: it was for 22 aircraft, 3.5 billion. Obviously, some is spare, integration and training, ect. The rest is speculation.
Here is a breakdown of the Proposed Swiss contract:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-de…
I am quite confident I would not lose that bet. Again, let’s see what the Swedish are actually paying for the Gripen.
Here is the unit cost according to the Chief of the Swiss Air Force, I think he might have a better idea, “Each new Gripen E/F is worth less than 100 million per basic unit”.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-28/saab-closes-in-on-swi…
FBWWhen your main opponent has F-16C/D and FC-1 as primary assets, the MKI is perfectly adequate.
For what price? HAL built MKI is likely less costly to procure than a Gripen and can be readily built directly in India.
If India could keep the MKI in the air. The F-16 has a proven record of good serviceability and sortie rate, the Indian experience with the MKI leaves something to be desired. I’m not knocking the engineering of the aircraft from the Russian side, perhaps there has been a failure on the IAF/HAL but the fact that the MKI has not broken the 60% availability mark yet would lend credence to the IAF’s desire to purchase the Rafale. India, for whatever reason, has had complaints with the serviceability of the fighters they’ve sourced from Russia, they have not voiced the same complaints for their Mirage 2000 fleet.
FBWYou seem to be saying that a current production aircraft twice the size of Gripen E, with twice as many of the same engines, is cheaper than Gripen E. What do you base that on?
If you want to reduce the comparison down to size, yes I get your point. The point of my post was that the development costs of the F-18 E/F and the Gripen E/F would be somewhat analogous. That and the Super had a large production run, multi-year contracts which introduces economies of scale that the newer Gripen projects does not yet have. Not to mention that when the F-18 contract was signed it was 2010 dollars, we are talking 2015. A Super ordered in 2015 may be more expensive than a Gripen E/F, or may not be. But I would be wiling to bet it does not have a unit cost of 37.5 million.
What makes it even more absurd to consider is that we already know that the Swiss contract, which did not include license production, or other add ons, was 3.5 billion for 22 aircraft (though it did include support costs). You do the math.
Sign In
