Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 198

Thread: Future of Belgian Air Component

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    companies like Boeing, NG, Airbus... have been begging for years for funding to develop advanced cutting edge UCAVs, with little success as Europe doesn't have the money or the political unity, and the Pentagon is killing everything that poses a threat to the F-35 (such as J-UCAS and the X-47b)
    Ever heard about FCAS... Btw, Germany is knocking at the door.

    well the F-35's technology is a generation ahead of the F-22
    For a big part of it is it directly derived from F-22 tech, not so much more advanced (except in visual/IR spectrum)

  2. #152
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1

    F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet or Gripen for BAF

    I'm pleased to read the thread on the BAF procurement program. Some things on this choice solve themselves, as candidates can choose to opt out of the race as did Boeing with the SH. Remains 4 candidates, for which many things are to say. But if you look at them individually, here's what I feel are some objective findings on them.

    1) F-35 : Rumors go this would be the favoured candidate. But it costs the most of all candidates, whether at fly-away or through-lifecycle costs. Despite economies of scale, based on production numbers that since decades have never been realised anymore in aviation industry. Complete dependency of US for evolution on hard/software (no production line will be based outside US territory as LM needs it to replace F-16 production that is coming to an end. Even Britain, as the only tier1 partner, doesn't get access to the classified parts of the planes' system and coding, so Belgium certainly won't. Not as agile as overweight penalty. Technology most probably the most advanced, but at what price and for how long before it reaches FOC and all it's been promised to do by LM. Collaboration with neighbouring countries and/or allies is important, but essentially comes to connectivity (communication/datalink), types of weapons used, spare parts and training.

    2) Typhoon : luckily the British have been pushing ahead independently to integrate other weapons and technologies otherwise, Typhoon would have become obsolete very soon. Still a lot of catching up to do and hindered by the multi-national quarrels (they'd better enhance collaboration like on the A-400M) and be proud to work on such machines. Nevertheless failing to attract more customers. Cheaper than F-35, but medium priced compared to other candidates. No chance Belgium would get production or evolution rights neither.

    3) Rafale : similar to Typhoon, only little customers yet (small numbers to Egypt, India, ....). Technologically trying its best to keep up with latest evolutions. E.g. Will be the 2nd country to operate Meteor in operational service. Numbers too small to be produced elsewhere (even for India, the deal almost wouldn't be realised completely, much less than original # of planes). Credits for their steadiness to want to remain developing indigenously.

    4) Gripen
    : Last of the 4, but not the least. Developed with model based development technology and processes (even recognized by Boeing as they wanted Saab to assist them on the T-X program as main partner), the evolutions spiral up much faster than any other fighter around. Smart seperation of flight and other systems and software. Experienced with datalinks since 1960's Draken, 1st to test and introduce Meteor. AESA, advanced RWR and EW capabilities, ... all packed together in a small plane. Proven maintainability records and lowest cost per flying hour (including fuel!) in the world for 4.5gen plane or higher. Proven offset deals with previous buying countries and full transfer of technologies and collaboration of local development, construction or maintenance center (see Brazil as example). Integration of new features can now brought down to a few days, depending of the feature, without requiring the extensive testing needed in more traditional planes and systems. Training is done mainly on simulators, illiminating the need for dual-seat planes (Even though Brazil will build some, testimony of the national independence). Yes it doesn't offer the stealth characteristics as the F-35, but Belgium would never order its air force in such a scenario (even as part of an alliance) in which it needs this 'brake-down the doors' capability. The same goes for the alledged nuclear capability with decades-old B-61s which the government would never allow to use.

    To conclude : in my own humble opinion, which is just one of the 6+ billion in the world, but more as a Belgian citizen, Gripen would be the best choice for my home nation, based on capabilities acquired for the best price (total life-cycle costs) (in times of ever stringent defence budgets) offering local independence (maintenance, evolution, production) in a smart multi-role (Air, Ground, Sea, Reconnaissance) fighter plane with the best options for the future (rapid and independent development, integration with UCAV, ...).

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    How a plane (Gripen *E) can have proven maintanability record whil it hasn't flown yet? Separation of flight and other systems done since Mirage 2000 btw. Nothing really new. Proven offset deals? YES, you mean monkey money for Lula's son? Nothing proven yet, Brazil do not have a single plane yet... Integration of new features... Sorry, you will allways need aerodynamics, separation tests, not to talk with weapon system nupgrades... Systems are virtualized? Well yes, on F-35 and Rafale also.
    Btw, SAAB learnt model development model from Dassault during NeuroN project... Nvm.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    1) F-35 : But it costs the most of all candidates,
    Maybe if you use old numbers, but it's already less expensive to buy than the Rafale (see the Indian contract) and is likely less than Eurofighter. Where it is expensive is CPFH but the published numbers are all based on US usage & labor rates which put it about 20% above the F-16.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Maybe if you use old numbers, but it's already less expensive to buy than the Rafale (see the Indian contract) and is likely less than Eurofighter
    compare apples to apples please.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    compare apples to apples please.
    I did the best I could.

    There were multiple reports that the "bare aircraft" price was around $101 mil and this did not include the ~$50 mil per "customization" fees, laser targeting pod, or likely wing fuel tanks.

    That same "bare aircraft", ie Flyaway cost, of the F-35A is already under $100 mil and getting cheaper every day.


    At the end of negotiations, India has arrived at a cost of Euro 91 million for each of the fighter versions of the Rafale aircraft and Euro 94 million for each of the trainer versions. This figure is for the bare aircraft without any weapons or India specific components.

    91 mil Euro = $101 mil US
    https://defencenext.com/2016/09/23/i...r-superiority/
    Senior ministry of defence (MoD) officials, speaking anonymously after the signing, said the average cost of each Rafale was fixed at euro 91.7 million (Rs 686 crore). This included 28 single-seat fighters, each costing euro 91.07 million (Rs 681 crore); and eight twin-seat fighters priced at euro 94 million (Rs 703 crore).

    Surprisingly, the contract for 36 fighters has no “options clause”. This means the Indian Air Force (IAF) must operate just two squadrons of this new fighter — the seventh type in the IAF inventory — or negotiate afresh for additional Rafales.

    With 36 bare-bones aircraft costing euro 3.3 billion, the remaining euro 4.5 billion is for spares, logistics and weaponry, say MoD officials.

    http://www.business-standard.com/art...2301019_1.html
    Of the total reported amount, €3.42 billion is for the cost of the platform; another €1.8 billion is for support and infrastructure supplies; €1.7 billion will be spent to meet India-specific changes on the aircraft; €710 million is the additional weapons package; and €353 million is the cost of performance-based logistics support, the MoD official said.

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...e-fighter-jets
    Total cost of the deal is €7.87 billion (US$ 8.82 billion) or approximately Rs 56,000 crores. The basic aircraft is said to cost about €3.4 billion, the balance covering weapons, simulators, spares, and performance-linked maintenance over five years ensuring 75 percent serviceability (ie, at least 27 aircraft are available for active duty at any time). The final price is considerably less than the €12 billion at which the inter-governmental negotiations is believed to have started, but a lot more expensive than the estimated $12 billion price tag for 126 bare bones Rafale aircraft at which the procurement process began in 2007. Even acknowledging that these prices are not really comparable since they refer to the aircraft variously with or without weaponry and other special customisations that India has apparently been demanding and finally got, as well as different degrees of technology transfer or indigenous manufacture, the final price tag is heavy indeed. It may not be the “mother of all deals,” but Rs1,200 crores per fighter with maintenance and add-ons is steep indeed.

    http://newsclick.in/rafale-planes-ma...expensive-deal
    What is the cost of the Rafale for the Indian Air Force?

    Just the bare single-seat Rafale will cost Euro 91 million each. The twin-seat trainer version (that can also be flown by just one pilot) would cost Euro 94.7 million each. India has contracted 24 single-seaters and eight twin-seaters.

    https://www.telegraphindia.com/11609...ory_109993.jsp
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 9th June 2017 at 21:25.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #157
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiebuster
    F-35 : Rumors go this would be the favoured candidate. But it costs the most of all candidates, whether at fly-away or through-lifecycle costs. Despite economies of scale, based on production numbers that since decades have never been realised anymore in aviation industry. Complete dependency of US for evolution on hard/software (no production line will be based outside US territory as LM needs it to replace F-16 production that is coming to an end.
    Don't kid yourself, buying the Gripen or Rafale would lead to just as much dependency on Sweden/France as well.

    To start with, nothing in BAC CONOPS requires the customization of any of the fighters on offer. Well... possibly in the Rafale's case (diversifying the weapons options) but not for the Gripen or F-35. Especially in the F-35's case where its set to be the de facto NATO fighter for the next three decades offered with the widest selection of weaponry and bolstered by MADL connectivity with allied F-35s & Eurofighters.

    And that's not including the nuclear mission of course; the F-35 if ordered by Belgium will be delivered to the BAF in the Blk 4 configuration i.e with B61-12 integrated.

    That aside, even if theoretically some minor customization was required, it would be performed by the OEM on contract - not done in-house by SABCA (generating the requisite local capability would be grossly uneconomical). We're about half a generation past the stage where operators could rig their aircraft with discrete systems acquired from third-parties and carry on unhindered.

    So yes, while the F-35 is a sealed box, in practice, it would make no difference to an operator like the BAC (or RDAF, RNAF, RNoAF).
    Last edited by Vnomad; 10th June 2017 at 01:59.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,329
    Juncker gave speech about EU defence fund and as example he mention Meteor success as it's built by 6 or so countries. Clearly lack of understanding .

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Oedelem, Belgium
    Posts
    467
    most of the candidates (except for the F-35) will be obsolete by the 2030's.
    i would recommend leasing Gripens for a 10 year period (like the Czech's and Hungarians) and invest in the European Future Combat Air System (FCAS).
    by then, other more advanced combat aircraft will see the light of day, such as KF-X, TF-X, FCAS,...

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    92
    @Boogiebuster

    Modern F-16 not included in the comparison?

    Anyway I don't think your government or Air Force will look at it that way.
    At least that wasn't the case in the Netherlands and Norway.
    First you will have to look what missions the Ministry of Defence wants the Air Force to be able to perform.
    What is their ambition.
    Then you will have to look, what missions the Air Force want to perform.
    What is their ambition.
    If you have consensus on that, now you can look at what aircraft can perform those set of missions with highest possible rate of success and highest chance of survivability.
    Then you will buy that particular aircraft.

    This is what happened in the Netherlands and I am pretty sure they will do the same in Belgium.
    If Belgium has the same ambition (and why not) F-35 will come out on top of that, even if it means you can only have 30 or so.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    I did the best I could.

    There were multiple reports that the "bare aircraft" price was around $101 mil and this did not include the ~$50 mil per "customization" fees, laser targeting pod, or likely wing fuel tanks.

    That same "bare aircraft", ie Flyaway cost, of the F-35A is already under $100 mil and getting cheaper every day.
    No. you cannot compare the "under 100 (fake) million dollar" the uspaid with a supposed export price without knowing exactly what is inside. if you want to compare, do, but for e.G. korean F-35, or compare with french senate numbers.

    Modern F-16 not included in the comparison?

    Anyway I don't think your government or Air Force will look at it that way.
    At least that wasn't the case in the Netherlands and Norway.
    First you will have to look what missions the Ministry of Defence wants the Air Force to be able to perform.
    What is their ambition.
    Then you will have to look, what missions the Air Force want to perform.
    What is their ambition.
    If you have consensus on that, now you can look at what aircraft can perform those set of missions with highest possible rate of success and highest chance of survivability.
    Then you will buy that particular aircraft.

    This is what happened in the Netherlands and I am pretty sure they will do the same in Belgium.
    If Belgium has the same ambition (and why not) F-35 will come out on top of that, even if it means you can only have 30 or so.
    The F-16 is't considered anywhere tbh. ust in India as a backoff if LCA MkII would fail. Anw, no RFQ was sent. There was one to US Navy for F-18, but they withdrawed.7
    If you take a look at Belgian RFP, missions, ambitions etc. are fairly well described. (including scenarios).

    MADL connectivity with allied F-35s & Eurofighters.
    MADL connectivity with Eurofighter??? What was tested was only to nsend on L16 data from Madl. And MADL architecture is limited to 4 planes afaik (at least at) and each asset must be described to the MADL net BEFORE operating. Goodby for connecitvity wich, anyway, would nonly be possible within a mixed patrol (extesively rare). Other contenders bring their own tactical datalinks also, be it SAAB on Gripen E and Rafale with F4 standard. All inall, a + for F-35, but very small.

    This is what happened in the Netherlands and I am pretty sure they will do the same in Belgium.
    If Belgium has the same ambition (and why not) F-35 will come out on top of that, even if it means you can only have 30 or so
    Remember the score in Netherland? VERY tight advantage for F-35, and that was before some embarassments...
    Last edited by halloweene; 10th June 2017 at 10:51.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,423
    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.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Wow nice find. Plz send me the data
    More seriously, according to latest SAR, the cost of F-35 is?

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,423
    Turbo is very sensitive and does not want his data to be shared. But I could probably provide additional data from him by October. Regardless, it proves that the data is fake.

    More seriously, according to latest SAR, the cost of F-35 is?
    I haven't seen the 18 SAR for the program but regardless, in the context of Belgium, the URF, or Fly-Away cost component of any potential deal would depend upon the block/lot of aircraft they seek but since its likely to be in the 2020s the production rate would be significantly higher than it is in 2017 which should impact recurring costs on account of economies of scale. Therefore, as far as recurring cost is concerned, what Israel, South Korea or even Japan have paid would matter less for a customer that is buying into Lot XX in the 2020s when the production rate is going to be closer to 150 per year.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 10th June 2017 at 16:13.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    92
    Remember the score in Netherland? VERY tight advantage for F-35, and that was before some embarassments...
    Yeah, I remember that. I am Dutch. Don't worry. I don't miss a thing...
    I wasn't a "tight" thing. Nowhere near.
    The F-35 could fly all 6 missions deemed necessary for the RNLAF.
    New F-16 and Gripen could do 4, according to data the companies provided.
    Not enough, hence my emphasis on ambition when it comes to selecting a new fighter aircraft.
    And F-35 was flying, despite embarrassments. The other contenders where not flying AT ALL. (Adv. F-16/Gripen NG)
    If you want to do QRA only, fifties Hawker Hunter will do the job.
    It depends on what the Belgians want to do with the new jet.
    Some (vile) politics will be involved there too.
    Be sure about that. Get your popcorn out...

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    92
    but since its likely to be in the 2020s the production rate would be significantly higher than it is in 2017 which should impact recurring costs on account of economies of scale.
    I rememberer some report that after 2020 inflation would catch up with economy of scale and F-35 prices would go up again. (GOA?).
    In that case the Belgians need to get in there quickly.
    They are not a partner either, so no hand-outs either. I know Belgium MinDef already regretted not being part of the program.
    It makes perfect sense for the Belgians to select the F-35.
    That way, you will have the old "Dirty Four" back again. Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium all flying the same plane and infrastructure already there.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,423
    Those would be extra block 4 costs compared to baseline block 3F. It wouldn't be significant recurring cost growth although as a trend it is correct there will be some increase in recurring cost on account of newer systems that come onboard with block 4 depending upon what is included. Again, I don't expect that to be much more than 1-2% unless they pursue considerably higher hardware changes.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 10th June 2017 at 16:10.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    if you want to compare, do, but for e.G. korean F-35, or compare with french senate numbers.
    You want me to compare vague, subsidized internal French numbers with a full package export order??? Talk about apples to baseballs!

    However, if you want to include Korean full export package ($195 mil per) with any Rafale export package, be my guest.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	zirJp0F.png 
Views:	119 
Size:	52.1 KB 
ID:	254011
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Authorizes $10.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter program, including $8.5 billion for procurement of 63 aircraft, including
    43 F-35As, 16 F-35Bs, and 4 F-35Cs
    FY 17 NDAA. https://www.armed-services.senate.go...%20Summary.pdf

    Not "les than 100 million/plane"

    What means subsidized? Are you talking about Boeing? what is the problem with "french" numbers? How are they "vague"? one cannot compare export contracts with or without weapons, maintenance, training and installations. Compare procurement costs of each country. Much more relevant...

    Remind me the present CPFH of F-35?

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    You do realize that not only did you mix all three variants, but US purchases include large base construction costs (Flight sims, etc) in LRIPs.

    Here is the FY2018 budget for the F-35A.

    The green row is Full Flyaway cost, yellow is non-recurring. The quotes about the F-35's cost have always been in reference to it's annual "REC Flyaway", ie what it costs to build every year. It's the Green mins the Yellow (they screwed up the doc this year). I'll do the math for you. Full Flyaway is $99 mil an REC flyaway is $87. This is only going to get cheaper every year as production ramps up. Program estimates are that the F-35A REC Flyaway will hit $75 to $80 mil in a few years. The Rafale is not getting any cheaper. So, take the "bare airframe" cost from the Indian order and compare it to even the Full Flyaway of the F-35A and the Rafale is more expensive.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EqUQbW6.png 
Views:	32 
Size:	140.8 KB 
ID:	254013
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 11th June 2017 at 07:51.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    No. First you do not have any official value for REC flyaway inside Indian deal. If you want them, take the data from french senate. Otherwise apples to cocnuts.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    lol.. explain to me why French "Senate" costs are so cheap yet every one of the Export Rafale deals is so expensive. I'll give you a hint.. they are hiding (ie subsidizing) the costs of the Rafale. They can do that for French sales but cannot hide them for Export sales.

    "CPFH of F-35", 20% more than the F-16 for US Usage & labor rates. These are still less than the Rafale's.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 11th June 2017 at 07:56.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    So basically, you are accusing them to lie and to secretely subsidize... Again, why puting "senate" between brackets (they are less legit to you? The answer si very simply weapons, docs, training, non reccuring costs (bases etc) are includin for exports sales till now. About the price, you should wonder why during the seventies US gov asked Rand corp to inquire how could Dassault do so cheap efficient planes (mirage).

    LE RAPPORT DE LA RAND CORPORATION

    Le succès de la société Dassault intrigue. Ses caractéristiques sont analysées à l’étranger, particulièrement aux États-Unis. En 1973, l’armée de l’Air américaine commande une étude à la Rand Corporation, institut de recherche et d’analyse californien, concernant les AMD-BA, qualifiés de société qui « a généralement la réputation d’être l’une des firmes occidentales les plus efficaces dans le domaine de la conception et de la fabrication des avions ». L’objet est d’examiner et d’évaluer la société Dassault, d’identifier ses qualités et d’envisager ce qui, après une certaine adaptation, pourrait être transposé aux États-Unis.

    Le rapport insiste sur « le prix, les performances, la livraison rapide et l’adaptabilité à une vaste gamme d’applications » qui constituent « les atouts majeurs » de la Société.
    CFPH 20% more than F-16. Source?

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,423
    So basically, you are accusing them to lie and to secretely subsidize...
    Wouldn't be the first time someone has accused official budget documents of being fake and hiding true cost. BTW, the data that Turbo dug up lines up with Spuds conclusions.

    Since the French Senate does not pay for Export Rafale's, nor the US Congress for FMS F-35 Sales, why not dig into the couple of Rafale export deals, and compare them specifically to the 3 FMS F-35A deals (Israel, Japan (which is a hybrid of sorts since it involves a FACO), and South Korea), even ignoring the fact that F-35 production is ramping up significantly more than Rafale's and that this will affect future (2020s) production cost which are going to be a large component of a potential future deal.

    F-35A/ROKAF - $180 Million Per Unit w/o Weapons. $193 Million Per Unit with weapons.

    F-35I (Second Batch of 14) - $110 Million Per Unit w/o Weapons.

    F-35A / Japan - $10 Billion for 42 Aircraft (4 from US Line + 38 assembled locally from the Nagoya FACO facility) - $238 Million w/o Weapons.

    For Rafale Export costs, see Spuds post above.

    CFPH 20% more than F-16. Source?
    From the Analysis conducted jointly by CAPE (Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation ) and AFCAA (Air Force Cost Analysis Agency ) as was mandated by Congress.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 11th June 2017 at 10:54.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Still waiting for Turbo . FMS sales are very specific, aswell as export. Find me a way to honestly compare, a cost perimeter. F-35 prodution is rampig up thats true, in percentage i dunno (Rafale prod is doubling). The smaller are the batches, the more ramping up will affect cost, am i wrong? Israel was a parter and paid for development, Japan aswell (+ assembly line). Is Korea still ordering the scheduled number of planes?

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,423
    Still waiting for Turbo . FMS sales are very specific, aswell as export.
    As I said Turbo does a great job. More to come in October. Regarding FMS and Export, of course they are specific but we now have 3 export deals struck each for both the Rafale and F-35. There is enough data out there to sort of ballpark for the next deal for 30-50 aircraft is likely to cost.

    F-35 prodution is rampig up thats true, in percentage i dunno (Rafale prod is doubling)
    Doubling from what to what? The F-35 production ramp up is significant -

    Lot 6 : 36 Aircraft (plus whatever Congress added, if any)

    Lot 10 : 90 Aircraft (plus whatever Congress added, if any)

    Lot13: 156 Aircraft (plus whatever Congress adds, if any)

    That is a 4x+ increase in production from contracts signed in 2013 to contracts signed towards the end of the decade. Of course this will have an impact on cost due to economies of scale. Any future F-35 customers are likely to order the aircraft in the 2020+ timeframe which will impact recurring cost components that are obviously affected by a significantly higher production rate compared to deals of the past.

    The smaller are the batches, the more ramping up will affect cost, am i wrong? Israel was a parter and paid for development, Japan aswell (+ assembly line). Is Korea still ordering the scheduled number of planes?
    Japan was not a partner and yes their deal was not a pure export from US line but involved a FACO facility, hence there higher cost compared to others. How many Korea orders does not matter, FMS announcements cover the deal cost of all orders and options that the Congress is notified for.

    If a Nation x chooses to request 6 aircraft plus 12 options, Congress is notified of the cost and component breakdown for a potential deal for 18, hence saving future notifications and approvals. That way the process of ordering second batch exercising options does not have to go through the same slow FMS process. FMS Notifications serve to inform the Congress of the parameters and cost of a deal. Actual negotiations and details follow later and it possible that orders can be truncated from what was notified to Congress. It is also entirely possible that FMS notifications never materialize but Congress is still submitted these parameters and cost details as per the law.


    Israel procured its F-35s using FMS. They did sign a LOI and paid something like $20 Million but they were never a development partner on the program.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 11th June 2017 at 11:17.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Eager to see Turbo findings . But you allways intended to be strict on cost perimeter, no? So compare what is comparable : USA and french domestic recurrent costs. could you link me the cost analysis of CPFH? Dubious with 20% more than F16, or are we talking about 30 years old F-16? TY.

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,423
    But you allways intended to be strict on cost perimeter, no? So compare what is comparable
    Only when specifically talking about primary customer purchases. What the US pays for its URF on F-35A matters only slightly to Belgium, or Canada or whoever else may be interested. It matters to such an extent that reductions in US URF would normally impact the recurring cost component of a future FMS deal. However, as I commented on Havarlaa's post HERE, if you are a partner nation, or an existing or potential FMS customer, you really ought to be looking at what your budget docs project the program cost to be, or what the cost of a potential future export deal is likely to be based on historical factors. Ultimately this is what matters.

    Could you link me the cost analysis of CPFH? Dubious with 20% more than F16, or are we talking about 30 years old F-16? TY.
    Each of the last couple of SAR's have reported on it.

    The F-35 family of aircraft variants will replace the following current aircraft: F-16C/D, A-10, F/A-18C/D, and AV-8B. The F-35 O&S estimate is based on legacy fleet history only when F-35 specific data is not available.

    Comparing the costs of the 5th Generation F-35 to legacy aircraft is challenging. The cost table above compares an adjusted F-16C/D Cost per Flying Hour (CPFH) to a forecast of the CPFH for the F-35A variant.

    The F-35A CPFH figure is based on the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant only. The F-35A CTOL variant will make up the majority of the DoD F-35 aircraft procurement, accounting for 1,763 of 2,443 total aircraft currently planned for U.S. forces.

    The F-16C/D CPFH figures were developed in a joint effort between CAPE and the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency. The figures have been normalized for comparison to the F-35A CPFH forecast.

    The starting point for the F-16C/D CPFH is an average of actual cost incurred for this fleet during FY 2008 through FY 2010. In order to enable the direct comparison of the CPFH figures, the actual F-16C/D CPFH is adjusted to reflect the cost of fuel, the number of flight hours forecast for the F-35A, and FY 2013 inflation indices.

    The F-16C/D figures include costs that F-16 shares with other Air Force platforms: Systems Engineering/Program Management (SEPM), maintenance training costs, certain software development efforts, and information systems. Costs for mission planning are included in the F-35A CPFH figure, but equivalent costs for the F-16C/D are not available, and no adjustment was made for this element of cost. Finally, the F- 16C/D figures assume full funding of requirements consistent with the F-35A CPFH figures.
    Do note that as Spud cautioned, these are US costs i.e. a globally deployed/deployable Air Force and not one that is operating form 1 or two bases only. This adds to both the actual cost and cost projections since they are looking at US bed down and footprint. This is also a CAPE standard O&S reporting structure and includes manpower costs in addition to costs what one normally associates with CPFH (Fuel, Spare parts, and other consumables).

    Cost Component Definitions :

    Unit-Level Manpower: Cost of operators, maintainers, and other support manpower assigned to operating units. May include military, civilian, and/or contractor manpower.
    Unit Operations: Cost of unit operating material (e.g., fuel and training material), unit support services, and unit travel. Excludes material for maintenance and repair.
    Maintenance: Cost of all system maintenance other than maintenance manpower assigned to operating units. Consists of organic and contractor maintenance.
    Sustaining Support:Cost of system support activities that are provided by organizations other than the system’s operating units.
    Continuing System Improvements: Cost of system hardware and software modifications.
    or are we talking about 30 years old F-16? TY.
    CAPE looked very simply at the entire USAF F-16 fleet i.e. what the US paid (O&S) to sustain its 1000+ F-16 fleet between 2008 and 2010. Using this as a baseline, they adjusted to provide as close as possible an apples to apples comparison in terms of using the same parameters they were using for F-35. Parameters such as deployed footprint, flight hours flown, unit level funding etc etc. The purpose for CAPE to do this is to inform leadership and Congress of what O&S impact is likely to be felt once the US fleet of F-16's is replaced by F-35As. Thats the extent of this exercise and CAPE along with AFCAA did this - Its part of what they do. Foreign partners, and FMS customers can and do seek data on the F-35 specific metrics from the program office and the DOD to gauge how upgrading from say an F-16, or F/A-18 to the F-35A impacts their on cost structure.

    A more modern F-16 is likely to have a different cost structure. Some things are likely to be more expensive and others less so on account of more advanced, more reliable and sophisticated equipment (AESA radars, a DEWS, CFTs etc etc) while greater automation and upgrades could potentially impact other costs.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SAR_CPFH.png 
Views:	26 
Size:	193.4 KB 
ID:	254027   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CAPE_O&S.png 
Views:	20 
Size:	837.6 KB 
ID:	254028  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 11th June 2017 at 13:28.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  29. #179
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene
    No. First you do not have any official value for REC flyaway inside Indian deal. If you want them, take the data from french senate. Otherwise apples to cocnuts.
    This is a fair point. SpudmanWP should include the FMS service charge in the F-35's flyaway cost to get the equivalent 'bare-bones' cost to Belgium. That would be 3-5% charged by the DSCA (though that can be waived by the DoD). For the sake of argument, lets assume its 5%.

    So the flyaway cost of the aircraft ordered in 2020 would be $80M mil x 1.05 ~ $84 mil.

    Problem is, even if you adopt a very conservative outlook and add $15 mil in 'ancillary expenses' to that, the Rafale is still not a viable alternative on economic grounds.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 11th June 2017 at 14:50.

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    I put Senate in brackets because I, not being up on French politics, did not know the English word for whatever French word they used for it. I did not mean anything by it.

    How can the Rafale, in a whole package deal, is still more expensive than the F-35 (see the the Korean deal)?

    The reason why I doubt when someone says "check the Senate numbers" is that to make an apples to apples comparison they need to:

    1. State the year that the Euro is based on for inflation adjusting purposes ($75mil in 1990 is not the same as $75 mil in 2020). There are still those that claim that the F-35 was "promised" to cost $50 mil without saying that the $50 mil estimate was a 1996 dollar.

    2. What exactly is included in the cost (airframe, avionics, radar, engines, pods, LTPs, etc)?

    See a US Budget doc for an example if detailed cost breakdowns.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 11th June 2017 at 18:39.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

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