Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • halloweene
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2012
    • 4000

    its a good thing i have ameeting with MBDA director of innovation early march. I'll tell you if i have infos about that.
    Last edited by halloweene; 6th February 2019, 09:57.

    Comment

    • OPIT
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2005
      • 877

      Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
      3x the NEZ of an AIM-120B/C3 is not 3x the NEZ of an AIM-120C7 not to mention D.
      True. But irrelevant.
      The achievements are not the requirements. They're usually better, at least on this side of the ocean. The fact is the Meteor has a much better kinetic performance than any AIM-120 to date, because a TDR packs much more fuel and uses it more efficiently.
      Regarding the INS, ECCM and seeker, your wishful thinkings are just that. Updating an obsolescent design doesn't equate to others building that obsolescent design first and having to update it next.

      Comment

      • St. John
        Rank 4 Registered User
        • Jan 2018
        • 470

        Originally posted by FBW View Post
        You can't use DSCA notifications of FMS to calculate weapon system costs as has been discussed here many times. First, they are estimates, and second they include support, training, and logistics costs. Not to mention non-recurring expenses associated with a new operator or new version.

        Hold on, I'll post the justification book costs for the Aim-120D

        In FY 2018, the Navy spend 197 million procuring 120 Aim-120D, or 1.64 million apiece.

        https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/...s/WPN_Book.pdf
        I used simultaneous equations and several purchase figures to cancel out the support equipment costs. Depending which two I use it gives $2.3 to $3m.

        Comment

        • St. John
          Rank 4 Registered User
          • Jan 2018
          • 470

          Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post

          While the AMRAAM held an advantage in every way to the Sparrow, Meteor only holds a range advantage over the AMRAAM.

          The Meteor started development in the early 2000's and I have not seen any news about updates since then. In that same time-frame, the AMRAAM has gone through 2-3 major updates (C5, C7, and D) along with numerous software updates.

          While most AMRAAM updates are shrouded in secrecy (eg ECCM, seeker performance, etc), others are clear like GPS and a two-way datalink.

          Here is an early MBDA pic showing the AMRAAM initial acceleration performance vs the Meteor. Keep in mind that this is either the AIM-120B or C1 as that is what the U+K had at the time they started Meteor Dev. Also keep in mind that the AMRAAM C5 came win all new seeker, guidance, and a longer rocket motor which would make the initial performance of the AMRAAM in the below pic even better.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	wzo3FwS.jpg
Views:	603
Size:	59.8 KB
ID:	3849701
          Well we don't really know what advantages each holds over the other. Sparrow was superior to AMRAAM on warhead size too. That said, there is an AESA Meteor variant being produced by Japan and MBDA.

          The range performance was specified relative to a solid rocket period. The range increases AMRAAM has enjoyed are mainly due to smaller electronics allowing for a larger motor section and more efficient control algorithms.. The same increases are equally applicable to Meteor relative to the 1990s, so the same range advantage applies.

          Comment

          • FBW
            FBW
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2011
            • 3034

            I used simultaneous equations and several purchase figures to cancel out the support equipment costs. Depending which two I use it gives $2.3 to $3m.
            The US government has a multitude of ways of calculating costs of a weapon system. DSCA notifications arent one of them. I gave you the unit cost which the navy paid for Aim-120D in FY2018. You could use the Selected acquisition report for a deeper dive into costs.

            These DSCA notifications are estimates, high ones. So, unless we track down the actual contracts, using simultaneous calculations is just giving you an estimated unit cost. Not to mention unless you know the itemized cost of a spare Aim-120D seeker head, for instance, you not getting an accurate number.

            DSCA notifications will give you a rough idea what one particular nation is paying to acquire that weapon system. You cant really even use it to compare different FMS sales of the same weapon system.

            As far as actual unit cost, if were to walk into a hypothetical DoD shopping mall and throw one Aim-120D on the counter, it would cost you roughly 1.6 million. Obviously a rather useless figure, as every weapon system requires support, logistics, various extras.

            Comment

            • St. John
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Jan 2018
              • 470

              US internal prices are not export prices though.

              The Luftwaffe paid $323m for 150 Meteors and $423m for 180 AIM-120Ds, giving $2.15m and $2.35m respectively

              https://warisboring.com/the-best-air...-is-in-sweden/
              Last edited by St. John; 6th February 2019, 15:47.

              Comment

              • SpudmanWP
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2009
                • 5137

                Actually, US internal prices are FMS prices (plus admin fees).
                "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                Comment

                • FBW
                  FBW
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2011
                  • 3034

                  US internal prices are not export prices though.

                  The Luftwaffe paid $323m for 150 Meteors and $423m for 180 AIM-120Ds, giving $2.15m and $2.35m respectively

                  https://warisboring.com/the-best-air...-is-in-sweden/
                  There is absolutely zero cost transparency in any of the contracts for Meteor, Period. The French deal for 200 missiles omitted contract value. There is no detailed breakdown for the German contract for Meteors (for all we know that was the cost of the missiles themselves and nothing else). The most recent government figure I could find on the unit cost of the Meteor was from 2007 in UK MoD major projects report.
                  The estimated unit production cost for Meteor was 1.1 million pounds (2.18 million USD FY 2007), which, by the way is double the SAR report TY 2008 Aim-120D cost.
                  Do you need an MBDA official telling you the Meteor is more expensive to aquire? I can provide that as well:

                  With Meteor's expanded range, three combat jets equipped with the missiles could cover the entire length of the inter-Korean land border, which is more cost effective despite the higher per-unit price of the Meteor, according to the MBDA official
                  - http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...d=167809&cat=3



                  An FMS customer pays what DoD does. There are fees for contract oversight, and a % of non-recurring costs based on their share of overall procurement.. As an aside, GAO issued a report to congress in 2018 showing that FMS customers were undercharged or granted excessive waivers for non-recurring acquisition costs (in layman's terms- FMS customers haven't been charged the correct % of R&D costs)
                  Last edited by FBW; 6th February 2019, 16:18.

                  Comment

                  • St. John
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • Jan 2018
                    • 470

                    Originally posted by FBW View Post

                    There is absolutely zero cost transparency in any of the contracts for Meteor, Period. The French deal for 200 missiles omitted contract value. There is no detailed breakdown for the German contract for Meteors (for all we know that was the cost of the missiles themselves and nothing else). The most recent government figure I could find on the unit cost of the Meteor was from 2007 in UK MoD major projects report.
                    The estimated unit production cost for Meteor was 1.1 million pounds (2.18 million USD FY 2007), which, by the way is double the SAR report TY 2008 Aim-120D cost.
                    Do you need an MBDA official telling you the Meteor is more expensive to aquire? I can provide that as well:

                    - http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...d=167809&cat=3



                    An FMS customer pays what DoD does. There are fees for contract oversight, and a % of non-recurring costs based on their share of overall procurement.. As an aside, GAO issued a report to congress in 2018 showing that FMS customers were undercharged or granted excessive waivers for non-recurring acquisition costs (in layman's terms- FMS customers haven't been charged the correct % of R&D costs)
                    The exchange rate has changed since 2007 and not in the US favour. 1.1m now is $1.43m. The link states that the Pentagon paid $423m for 180 AIM-120Ds. Any evidence that that wasn't just missiles?

                    The exchange rate has shifted since 2015 too but that article also states that you can patrol the area with less aircraft using Meteor, hence cutting down operational costs.

                    Bottom line, the exact prices are hazy but the evidence suggests that the cost difference isn't large.
                    Last edited by St. John; 6th February 2019, 17:00.

                    Comment

                    • halloweene
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2012
                      • 4000

                      Originally posted by FBW View Post

                      There is absolutely zero cost transparency in any of the contracts for Meteor, Period. The French deal for 200 missiles omitted contract value. There is no detailed breakdown for the German contract for Meteors (for all we know that was the cost of the missiles themselves and nothing else). The most recent government figure I could find on the unit cost of the Meteor was from 2007 in UK MoD major projects report.
                      The estimated unit production cost for Meteor was 1.1 million pounds (2.18 million USD FY 2007), which, by the way is double the SAR report TY 2008 Aim-120D cost.
                      Do you need an MBDA official telling you the Meteor is more expensive to aquire? I can provide that as well:

                      - http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...d=167809&cat=3



                      An FMS customer pays what DoD does. There are fees for contract oversight, and a % of non-recurring costs based on their share of overall procurement.. As an aside, GAO issued a report to congress in 2018 showing that FMS customers were undercharged or granted excessive waivers for non-recurring acquisition costs (in layman's terms- FMS customers haven't been charged the correct % of R&D costs)
                      But they will be lucky if they see the missiles on their homeland... (remember Taiwan?)

                      Comment

                      • Jackonicko
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Nov 2004
                        • 2383

                        This may be of interest, perhaps?

                        RAF Typhoons replace Tornados on Operation Shader
                        https://www.facebook.com/aerospacean...777?__tn__=K-R

                        Its an account of the Typhoons first operational mission on Op Shader carrying MBDAs Brimstone 2 missile an extraordinarily effective weapons whose precision and small warhead allows attacks against fleeting targets in crowded areas without causing massive collateral damage.

                        Comment

                        • halloweene
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2012
                          • 4000

                          yep excellent weapon. Sadly also extremely expensive no? Still good news.

                          Comment

                          • Jackonicko
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Nov 2004
                            • 2383

                            Expensive? Perhaps. But there's nothing more expensive than not achieving mission success.

                            Comment

                            • stealthflanker
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Sep 2015
                              • 860

                              It just need to be purchased in large amount. say 1000 or more to learning curve effect to take place. Nonetheless given mm Wave seeker of Brimestone. The baseline price will always be expensive. as we have clear trend of working in higher frequency means more precision, more precision means more special machinery required. The parabolic antenna of brimestone, is likely need special manufacture with tight tolerance and let's not forget multi-mode-multi spectral approach it has. So yeah.

                              Comment

                              • St. John
                                Rank 4 Registered User
                                • Jan 2018
                                • 470

                                105k per unit. Much cheaper than a tank but most guided weaponry is a waste on terrorists.

                                Comment

                                • halloweene
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2012
                                  • 4000

                                  Expensive? Perhaps. But there's nothing more expensive than not achieving mission success.
                                  Agree. That is why is said still good news. A weapon evluation is directly linked to mission success, not in $. Whatever it hits T14 or a toyota.

                                  Comment

                                  Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                  Collapse

                                   

                                  Working...
                                  X