Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1363

Thread: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    128 million includes initial spares and support.
    You are trying to twist it your way, as always. Simulators are an integral part of the weapon system as whole and they are obviously not included in the $128mil price.

    I am sure the LM will add few sets of screwdrivers with those so that Japanese can at least open the engine cover, muchas gracias for that, but the $128mil are not weapon system cost. You got it there black on white..
    Last edited by MSphere; 19th November 2012 at 13:58.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    What can we expect in a "weapon system cost package"?
    Is it software related or..?
    All related equipment. Tools, spares, sims, training programs for pilots or maintenance technicians, specialized facilities. It pretty much depends on the type, WSC are quite hard to compare as you would find many posts that are not 1-to-1 with other types... but they are a more objective comparison base than pure flyaway.

    With some types, even other aircraft would be included (for instance training aircraft for WSO and radar/sensor operators like BAe Dominie or Tu-134UBL). This all goes into the WS package..
    Last edited by MSphere; 19th November 2012 at 14:01.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    The comparable unit cost of Typhoon is somewhere south of £73m, let alone $120 m, and certainly no where near Spitfire9's stupid figure of $300m.
    I readily confess that my knowledge is limited. It does not extend to me knowing that Typhoon costs $300 million. That knowledge was imparted by another contributor.

    No offence received, however.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,580
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    It's still a high price--175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.
    Programme cost, not weapon system cost. It includes all the R&D & other fixed costs. International customers only pay a small part of them.

    The optimistic F-35 costs sometimes quoted here are generally flyaway cost. That's not been given in the Typhoon T3A contract, but was about €55 mn for the T2 contract, i.e. the one for which deliveries are just finishing. That's just over $70 mn at today's exchange rate.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,121
    T3A production contract amounts to 7.6 bln € + 2.5 bln € for T1 & T2 obsolesence removal. That's about 59 mln € per airframe.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,379
    F 35 expanded its AoA enveloppe up to the 50 deg. limmit in just 4 flight.
    Lockheed Martin Press Release:

    An F-35A Lightning II conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft rapidly expanded its high angle of attack (AOA) test envelope to its 50 degree limit in only four flights during recent flight testing here.

    F-35A test aircraft are limited to AOAs of 20 degrees until their controllability is proven at a higher AOA limit of 50 degrees.

    The ability to rapidly progress to the maximum AOA indicates a sound aerodynamic and flight control system design.

    High AOA testing will continue on the F-35A for several months testing the capabilities of all design loadings and the flight control system.
    http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-and-...light-testing/
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    299
    Is there any central, audited cost analysis for the Typhoon program akin to that published by the US DoD for the F-35 program, particularly one that provides various costings calculated using a defined methodology (similar to those used by the US DoD)?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    The comparable unit cost of Typhoon is somewhere south of £73m, let alone $120 m, and certainly no where near Spitfire9's stupid figure of $300m.

    A figure that ought to be easily agreed is £73 m – ($116 m as of today), though it’s not accurate as a UPC. (see below)

    It’s inaccurate as a true UPC because £73m is calculated on a resource accounting basis, and includes certain programme costs that would not normally be included.

    The T2 contract (signed on 14 December 2004) was €13Bn for 236 fighters. This makes €55.08 m per aircraft. On that day the exchange rate meant that one pound was worth €1.448687 – making the Tranche 2 UPC £38,023,911.14.

    That is the UK UPC as paid and as such is unarguable.

    Scorpion kindly provided figures of €4.18 bn for Germany's 68 T2 Typhoons and €1.132 bn for Austria's 18 T2 Typhoons.

    That equals €61.47 m for each german T2 Eurofighter and €62.88 m for each Austrian EF. This is the fly-away cost for the T2 EF for these countries.

    When the NAO used to produce proper UPCs they were aproximately £45 m for Tranche 1 and £42.42 m for Tranche 2 (including VAT).

    SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
    TYPHOON PAC HEARING

    Q23. Variations in Unit Cost of Typhoon (£73.2M v £120M).

    As was evident from the Hearing, different methodologies for calculating Unit Cost can produce significantly different results.

    The Unit Cost of £73.2M (an increase of 26%) given at the Hearing uses the methodology agreed by the NAO for the Major Project Report (MPR) process, where the NAO then validate the costs as part of that exercise. This methodology removes the Development costs and Cost of Capital Charges before dividing the Production phase costs by the aircraft off-take.

    Development costs are removed to reflect that they are sunk costs from a separate phase of the project. The calculation used by the NAO in the Value For Money study report does not follow the MPR methodology. The inclusion of Development costs in effect creates a supplementary increase in Unit Cost because it penalises rather than recognises the increased effectiveness of reduced, more capable, aircraft numbers. Whichever methodology is chosen, the key points are that NAO analysis (para 2.4 of the Value For Money report) confirms production costs as being similar to comparable types of aircraft, and that we are paying the right price.
    Translation: Lets spin the numbers that paint the EF in the best light possible.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    54
    Also notice how when people discuss costs on the EF program then only talk about fly away. When the F-35 is discussed, you get the costs over 50 years LOL.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    54
    Just out of curiosity, whats the MAX AOA of Griphen, EF, and Rafale?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,580
    What's a Griphen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    Also notice how when people discuss costs on the EF program then only talk about fly away. When the F-35 is discussed, you get the costs over 50 years LOL.
    Now you're standing it on its head. Over the years this has been going on, for every time anyone's given the numbers that way round I've seen ten cases of someone comparing the F-35 flyaway price (often in 2002 prices) with the programme cost of Typhoon.

    It's obvious that your sole purpose is to make trouble.
    Last edited by swerve; 20th November 2012 at 08:46.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,889
    To the best of my knowledge, they tested Gripen to 100-110 degree AoA,
    and Demo Gripen to 70-80 degree AoA.
    But for regular pilots it's FCS is limited to 26 degree AoA.
    Here's on Demo Gripen
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=OXKvNe2VWt4
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    Also notice how when people discuss costs on the EF program then only talk about fly away. When the F-35 is discussed, you get the costs over 50 years LOL.
    .. especially those $50mil in then-year dollars cost figures that you guys just love to throw around..

    Pot-kettle..

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    To the best of my knowledge, they tested Gripen to 100-110 degree AoA,
    and Demo Gripen to 70-80 degree AoA.
    But for regular pilots it's FCS is limited to 26 degree AoA.
    Here's on Demo Gripen
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=OXKvNe2VWt4
    Transient not sustained.To my knowledge, except for the TV fighters, only the Superhornt can do the same 50 deg..

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,814
    on another hand, standing at 50° AoA is pretty much useless anyway... even for maneuvering, you're a sitting duck if you pull any similar amount of AoA.

    The interesting thing is: what's your lowest speed at which you can pull your maximum G and stay there (meaning, "turn in the tightest possible way").

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    on another hand, standing at 50° AoA is pretty much useless anyway... even for maneuvering, you're a sitting duck if you pull any similar amount of AoA.

    The interesting thing is: what's your lowest speed at which you can pull your maximum G and stay there (meaning, "turn in the tightest possible way").
    A nice, sensible, real question. Who cares if you can hit 100 degrees AOA (or a 1000, 10,000 or whatever) unless it enhances the performance of the aircraft? On that tack, roughly after what point does a higher AOA never improve performance? After 20 degrees/30 degrees/40 degrees?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,066
    Who cares if you can hit 100 degrees AOA (or a 1000, 10,000 or whatever) unless it enhances the performance of the aircraft?
    If your aircraft hits 1000 degrees of AoA it is way past time to eject...


    It isn't likely that an F-35 will actually reach 50 AoA during any real world scenario but it does show once again that the F-35 is anything but the slow, unmaneuverable aircraft critics wish it were.

    For comparison the Rafale is limited to 29 degrees AoA.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    F 35 expanded its AoA enveloppe up to the 50 deg. limmit in just 4 flight.http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-and-...light-testing/
    None is surprised to learn that the successor of the F-18E f.e. will offer a similar flight envelope a decade later at least. The aerodynamic limitations in mind that is just a temporary capability.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    If your aircraft hits 1000 degrees of AoA it is way past time to eject...


    It isn't likely that an F-35 will actually reach 50 AoA during any real world scenario but it does show once again that the F-35 is anything but the slow, unmaneuverable aircraft critics wish it were.

    For comparison the Rafale is limited to 29 degrees AoA.
    .. and the F-35 will be limited to a value below 30 AoA as well in operational service for care free handling in the sound part of the flying envelope, whatever values were achieved during testing.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    .. and the F-35 will be limited to a value below 30 AoA as well in operational service for care free handling in the sound part of the flying envelope, whatever values were achieved during testing.
    Actually, no, the plan is for the real operational limit to be 50 AoA, which is where the limiter will be set.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    If your aircraft hits 1000 degrees of AoA it is way past time to eject...


    It isn't likely that an F-35 will actually reach 50 AoA during any real world scenario but it does show once again that the F-35 is anything but the slow, unmaneuverable aircraft critics wish it were.

    For comparison the Rafale is limited to 29 degrees AoA.
    I was a gymnast once, so an AOA of 50 degrees or 29 degrees in the air is not that impressive to me. 180 or 360 was normal for me (also a lot more comfortable when you landed).

    But back to less manoeuvrable things like aircraft, would a 50 degree angle of attack ever produce a tighter turn than a 10-30 degree AOA? If not, who cares about any AOA above that producing the tightest turn?

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,066
    Super high AoA capability is not particularly useful, in that it is similar to the various air-show maneuvers that some designs have produced.

    It is nonetheless noteworthy that the F-35 has an exceptional high AoA capability as it debunks many of the smears critics have invented about the F-35. (That it is unmaneuverable, or helpless in a dogfight, a newer F-105, etc etc.)

    In real world operations the F-35 will be unlikely to reach 50 degrees AoA, but the fact that it can go there if needed means that the airframe is perfectly comfortable operating at the 25-30 degree limits of most of its competitors.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1
    This is maybe a bit OT but have You seen this old movie?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs 1:50 into movie it starts.

    With an old aircraft without FCS restrictions, You can use a very high AOA as a speed break.
    In some situations it might make a pursuer to overshot You?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Tribes View Post
    Is there any central, audited cost analysis for the Typhoon program akin to that published by the US DoD for the F-35 program, particularly one that provides various costings calculated using a defined methodology
    Yes, both the UK NAO and the Spanish Mindef publish every year their acounts for the Eurofighter program.
    Being an English speaking forum i´ll leave here the relevant links for the UK NAO.

    http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1...port_2011.aspx

    The yearly report on the major projects report.

    http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1...n_project.aspx

    The latest NAO "Phoon only" doc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tribes View Post
    (similar to those used by the US DoD)?
    No, the methodology used by the US DOD is not identical to their British and generaly speaking, to their European counterparts (who use vastly diferent methods between them).
    You wont find a UK MOD document with a line called "Recurring Unit Fly Away Cost".
    Last edited by Sintra; 20th November 2012 at 14:59.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    Also notice how when people discuss costs on the EF program then only talk about fly away. When the F-35 is discussed, you get the costs over 50 years LOL.
    Here we go, we have found a winner!

    Congratulations...

    In this last page and a half you were presented with at least three diferent cost indicators for the Typhoon, Scorpion indicated whats the cost to produce one single T3A Typhoon (very roughly equivalent to the US DOD "Fly Away Unit Cost") based on numbers given at the press conference after the 31st July 2009 Typhoon Tranche 3A contract signing, Jacko introduced the latest UK NAO UPC numbers, (available in the "Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report 2011") and myself and Aurcov have compared the "Program Cost" of the JSF and Eurofighter using US DOD/GAO and UK NAO documents


    You, Sir, are a Troll.
    Last edited by Sintra; 20th November 2012 at 15:41.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Now you're standing it on its head. Over the years this has been going on, for every time anyone's given the numbers that way round I've seen ten cases of someone comparing the F-35 flyaway price (often in 2002 prices) with the programme cost of Typhoon.
    Exactly what you are describing was a specialty of Jack De Vries, the ex Dutch state secretary for defense procurement (who after getting out of the government ended up employed by a lobbying company who worked for Lockheed Martin). In several ocasions he compared a theoretical " Fly Away Unit Cost" for the F-35A with program costs or export package costs of the competition, the Typhoon, the Rafale, Gripen, etc.
    He did this on the press, on the parlament, etc, etc...
    Anyone who have any doubts on what i am saying just have to google.
    Mind you, by 2001 LM and DOD officials were doing that trick in every European MOD secretary, i dont have any doubts that this particular "methodology" (comparing a theoretical "Recurring Fly Away Unit Costs" for thousands of JSF´s with program costs for the competition) was official policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    It's obvious that your sole purpose is to make trouble.
    You think so?

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    Also notice how when people discuss costs on the EF program then only talk about fly away. When the F-35 is discussed, you get the costs over 50 years LOL.
    And you do the same the other way round, how does it make you better than others?

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Actually, no, the plan is for the real operational limit to be 50 AoA, which is where the limiter will be set.
    Nonsense to stay polite. That claimed value is just the minimum in control possible by the use of some monentum left to avoid the term going ballistic. Without TVC full control is just reached in the 20s.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    Nonsense to stay factual

    The F-35 retains full control well beyond 20 AoA as the spec is to remain in control at 50 AoA, not just "coasting" at 50. You do not need TVC to have a high AoA as the YF-23 showed. You just need large control surfaces and a good FCS.

    If you have a credible source that says otherwise, feel free to post it.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,066
    I do love how people around here feel free to just make up whatever they want.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES