Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 214

Thread: Future of Belgian Air Component

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    The french senate numbers on the Rafale are fake. Plenty of hidden costs not accounted for in those. Turbo looked at those documents and found billions in hidden costs.
    Right. So when the French senate (& that's the correct English word for Sénat) reviews the budget submitted by the president, & how public money is spent, it deliberately fudges the figures for the one area that you don't want to believe, but in a way that anyone who reads its reports carefully will be able to spot.

    Really? Do you know how that makes you sound? Especially when you won't supply the information on which this claim is based, saying that the source is sensitive about his data - despite the numbers supposedly being in open, public, papers, freely available to anyone who has an internet connection & cares to read them.

    Unless you supply the numbers, fully referenced, I call foul on this one. Total ********.
    Last edited by swerve; 12th June 2017 at 22:02.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,386
    Swerve, this was a back and forth over Halloweene citing shoddy defense reporting that claimed the US government was hiding the "true cost" of the F-35 despite the myriad of accounting measures and reports published. In other words, what you just said about the French senat reporting was exactly the response of several posters to those claims about the F-35.

    The poster was using sarcasm back at Hallow. This has been an ongoing argument. Not sure you want to wade into this without reading the background posts.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,148
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Right. So when the French senate (& that's the correct English word for Sénat) reviews the budget submitted by the president, & how public money is spent, it deliberately fudges the figures for the one area that you don't want to believe, but in a way that anyone who reads its reports carefully will be able to spot.

    Really? Do you know how that makes you sound? Especially when you won't supply the information on which this claim is based, saying that the source is sensitive about his data - despite the numbers supposedly being in open, public, papers, freely available to anyone who has an internet connection & cares to read them.

    Unless you supply the numbers, fully referenced, I call foul on this one. Total ********.
    You missed the point...

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    127
    The F-35 seems quite expensive according to this study.

    http://defensenews-alert.blogspot.se...se-with-f.html

    "And our analysis of Lot 9 contracts, including all program costs including airframe, engine, components and post-delivery retrofit, upgrades and fixes, the unit cost of a Lot 9 aircraft is $206.3 million."

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    Rafale and Typhoon will be more expensive than the F-35, at least for the time point when Belgium is ready to order...

    Only Gripen will be able to compete on cost, but it is a lightweight 4.5 gen fighter and most likely will not be able to meet the specifications of the Belgian air force which seems tailormade for the F-35 (this is why Boeing dropped out already, I am surprised the other three are still in the race, maybe just to get some publicity?).

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,440
    The F-35 seems quite expensive according to this study.
    Take a look at the source of that $206.

    He added together the long lead & production contracts. This is wrong because the production contract includes the LL items, it's not in addition to.

    He also added a ton of contracts that had no mention of Lot 9 in them at all like a concurrency contract that covered every F-35 flying today (220+ of them), developmental contracts, support contracts, etc.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Even i got his point . Don't worry swerve, he is just teasing me.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Again, no. Check Senat numbers

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,440
    Show the source with numbers, from what year the Euro is set, and exactly what's included.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    I'm not the one that claimed something.

    http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,440
    I'm not the one that claimed something.
    So, $88 in FY2018 dollars without the latest AESA, IR IRST, wing tanks, or LTP.

    Even if it had all of those, it's still more expensive than an FY2018 F-35A at $87 mil.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    74 M€2013 pour le Rafale B (pour 110 avions) de 68,8 M€2013 pour le Rafale C (pour 118 avions) et de 79 M€2011 pour le Rafale M (pour 58 avions).
    including AESA radar and 20%VAT For M (carrier version) Of course you try to compare F35A to Rafale M, well no it should be compared to Rafale C. FY2018 F-35A cost 87 mil according to latest SAR? So no, less expensive. Not to talk about CPFH...

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    FY2018 F-35A cost 87 mil according to latest SAR?
    Belgium isn't buying an FY18 F-35A. If they do, it will probably be a FY2X F-35A.

    Now as explained, Spud is sourcing his data from the best available budget document i.e. the USAF budget submitted to Congress, vetted by the DOD and OMB. Now, we know it is prepared using the SAR but to your point, the latest FY18 SAR is not yet available but should be over the next few months.

    Using the older SAR from last year, the assumed 2018 F-35A URF with the engine in FY12$ would be $85 Million ($72 Million + $13 Million). Of course there is a significant production ramp up ahead of the F-35 the initial portions of which have now received funding, as the initial awards for LRIP 12-14 have demonstrated.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th June 2017 at 15:06.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,386
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    including AESA radar and 20%VAT For M (carrier version)
    You have confirmation of that? Or opinion. The RBE2 wasn't in serial production until mid-2013. Why would the senat report for 2013 include AESA on production Rafale?

    As of 2017, only 32 sets have been produced. Does not add up.
    Last edited by FBW; 18th June 2017 at 15:05.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,440
    including AESA radar and 20%VAT For M (carrier version) Of course you try to compare F35A to Rafale M, well no it should be compared to Rafale C. FY2018 F-35A cost 87 mil according to latest SAR? So no, less expensive. Not to talk about CPFH...
    Actually, I used the Rafale B, not the M, converted the euro to $ and added the inflation to adjust it to FY2018 so that they would be apples to apples.

    Where in that Senate doc does it mention CPFH?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    The senate doc do not mention CPFH. Easy to find anyway. So in the end, better use Rafale C and deduct 20% VAT.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,440
    Deducting VAT on the India sale just makes it look that much worse and give credence to the notion that France is silently subsidizing or shifting internal costs to keep the price down in the Senate docs.

    I can't see any other explanation for $100 mil for a "bare plane".
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,929
    the first explanation is that Dassault had an agreement with the french state that development costs were covered for a good part by the state (so they won't pay for it twice and it's not in the aircraft price they buy), but one part was also by Dassault, and the agreement says that Dassault is to recover its investments from exports. fact is, now that they started selling, they started also recovering their investment. How much they did recover and how much more they need to charge to get even is anybody's guess, but they definitely have more margin now to lower their export price further down and closer to the price the airframe really costs

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    135
    Sweden is out of the competition in a statement from FMV, the swedish Defence Materiel Administration. No big surprise really.

  20. #200
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,362
    Actually, I used the Rafale B, not the M, converted the euro to $ and added the inflation to adjust it to FY2018 so that they would be apples to apples.


    So what reason did you have to use the Rafale B instead of the Rafale C, other than to tweak numbers so the F35 appears cheaper than the Rafale ?

    Nic

  21. #201
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,362
    Deducting VAT on the India sale just makes it look that much worse and give credence to the notion that France is silently subsidizing or shifting internal costs to keep the price down in the Senate docs.

    I can't see any other explanation for $100 mil for a "bare plane".
    Senate numbers for french birds include VAT, who talked about deducting VAT from the Indian order? (besides you that is).

    Indian birds (may) cost 100 mil / bird, but it's probably because the french recoup part of the development cost (which was planned in the Rafale program from the start), and for other indian specific upgrades, development.

    France paid 68,8 Million € for 1 Rafale C including 20% VAT. Live with it (invoicing VAT on defense deals is probably yet another commie plan to steal from 1 budget column and pour the money into another, but I digress).

    I'm eager to see if you are actually going to argue that it's more expensive in 2018 when production doubled

    Nic

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    Deducting VAT on the India sale just makes it look that much worse and give credence to the notion that France is silently subsidizing or shifting internal costs to keep the price down in the Senate docs.
    No. That's the law. VAT is not charged on exports, but is on imports. It's the same all over the world. Sales taxes (& VAT is essentially a sales tax) are charged on what's sold within a country, not on what's exported from it. Same for cars, bottles of wine, jet fighters - everything.

    Why do you think it's a subsidy?
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    127
    The Swedish Government has, according to Svenska Dagbladet, decided not to goahead with a Gripen bid to Belgium.
    The reason is that Belgium requires support from the vendor in the form of air refuelling and reconnaissance,
    which would require Sweden to support some NATO actions where Sweden otherwise would not get involved


    https://www.svd.se/forsvarsministern...port-av-gripen

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,929
    after Boeing pulled out, and now Sweden, that leaves Typhoon, F-35 and Rafale

  25. #205
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,440
    Typhoon, F-35 and Rafale
    If they all stay in and the detailed bids are made public, it will finally allow for an Apples-to-Apples comparison amongst the three contenders.

    Very much looking forward to that.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    We are all.

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    The Swedish Government has, according to Svenska Dagbladet, decided not to go ahead with a Gripen bid to Belgium.
    The reason is that Belgium requires support from the vendor in the form of air refuelling and reconnaissance,
    which would require Sweden to support some NATO actions where Sweden otherwise would not get involved
    Odd. Why would Belgium want AAR from the vendor? Why not just sign up to that NATO AAR consortium which three of its neighbours have already joined, & which it's been dithering over joining? The tankers are to be based just next door in the Netherlands, IIRC.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    It is specified in the rfpg. They want transport, refuelings etc. For opex.

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318
    Understood but let's hope that no one made such promise.

  30. #210
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    127
    The US has the resource to make the promise. Unlikely Airbus or Dassault can make it.

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