Eurofighter Rafale and Gripen v. JSF

[atulbansal]

i dont know who told u that F-15 went up against Su-30...... F-15 faced 3 Mig-21 bisons and the Su-30 faced F-16 (pakistan has F-16s remember)

And as far as F-15 with AMRAAM goes and Su-30 with R-77ve you can go read the study conducted by BAE systems

 

[rjmaz1]

i dont know who told u that F-15 went up against Su-30...... F-15 faced 3 Mig-21 bisons and the Su-30 faced F-16 (pakistan has F-16s remember)

And as far as F-15 with AMRAAM goes and Su-30 with R-77ve you can go read the study conducted by BAE systems

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004101421.asp

http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html

The US used F-15's against the Su-30k's in cope india 2004. Singapore has flown their F-16's against the SU-30Mk1's thats probably where u got confused. The latest Mk1 suhkois did not fly againsts the F-15's, however they still flew against the SU-30.

All those facts are true, that they put limits on the amraam, had no AESA radar and india had 3 times as many aircraft with a simulated awac. :lol3

Even the pakistani defence forum has its fact right

Cope inda 2006 saw the US put even more inferior aircraft in the air. F-16's and India flew the SU-27Mk1. Very one sided but intentional.

Then next time the US will bring out the F-22 and get a 100:0 kill ratio and it will make headlines. The F-22 will get its production extended for another 5 years. Very smart move.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Rubbish.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004101421.asp

http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html

All those facts are true, that they put limits on the amraam, had no AESA radar and india had 3 times as many aircraft with a simulated awac. :lol3
Even the pakistani defence forum has its fact right

NO Aesa so you concede Russian Mech steered array is better than the US stuff,Amraam with range reduced to 1/3rd go and tell that to a school boy they should have gone in for a Sidewinder(why this consideration) guess what might have saved fuel and increased range too.Awacs simulated hey did we have one ,then why are we interested in Phalcon,eh......... dude that's just loose talking.Your last comment sums it up man:fly

 

[McZosch]

You are forgetting that acquisition cost of a platform in a project is approximately 70% of the budget. A whopping 30% is devoted to support, training, weapons etc. Woeking out the budget for a program and the dividing it by the number of aircraft sought does NOT give you the price of the actual aircraft.

I have compared total program-costs and devided this by the number of aircraft sought. So it's a fair comparision.

If you want to tell me the Australian estimates are only 70% of the JSF-price-tag, then it will grow even worse. Then you have to add 42% to the figures I stated.

That makes 228 million Aus$ at best or 304 millions at worst. OUCH, I would say.

If my figures are false, then - please - tell me where.

 

[atulbansal]

I have seen indian papers claim a victory of 9:1, pakistani papers saying loosing ratio of 1:3 and americans explaining how their awesome F-15 kicked Sukhois even when outnumbered
and the two links you provided.... one is blog... so creditable that i can eat a bullet for it and the second quotes from a source it doesnt even mention..... all these are a mix of reports that came in from various sources....... all wrong

I live in IIT kharagpur.... thats 15 km away from the Kalaikunda airbase these execises were held..... go look up the map.... ppl from the base regularly visit our campus and i personally know some of them.... so dont u tell me wat happened

 

[atulbansal]

and yeah..... the indians side had the same restriction of maintaning a radar lock while fire and a max. range of 32km for a missile use

if indians had been allowed to use their missiles at any range..... even a mig-21bison which can fire R-77 at 50+ km will make a toast out of a F-15 when they are limited to a 32 km range

 

[rjmaz1]

atulbansal and powerslavenegi nice biased opinions i take it you are both from india?

Im not going to argue about Cope India anymore as we are getting off topic.

I have compared total program-costs and devided this by the number of aircraft sought. So it's a fair comparision.

No thats now how it works, not a fair comparison at all. Most of the development cost has already been paid. I just posted the cost of all the fighters a few posts before.

Heres an example of a Super hornet.

Fly away cost of a super hornet is only $53.8 million US according to boeing
The Unit flyaway cost in the Navy FY07 budget costs $78.4 million US
Add the development cost to that and the cost is now $95.3 million per aircraft.

Now if Australia bought a Super hornet we would not pay the same price as the US, which is 78.4 million. We'd have to pay a royalty fee a little bit extra to recoup all the development money. Based on history and an "average order" a customer generally pays a quarter of the way between Unit cost and Program Cost for each aircraft.

However If you ordered 5 aircraft u'd probably have to pay the full $95 million. If you ordered 1000 u'd probably pay only $80 million. Australia would pay low 80 million per aircraft in US dollars.

So based on that i doubt the JSF will cost more than $100 million US based on current orders. If alot of orders do get dropped then maybe it will creep over the $100 million mark.

 

[Grand Danois]

atulbansal and powerslavenegi nice biased opinions i take it you are both from india?

Im not going to argue about Cope India anymore as we are getting off topic.


No thats now how it works, not a fair comparison at all. Most of the development cost has already been paid. I just posted the cost of all the fighters a few posts before.

Heres an example of a Super hornet.

Fly away cost of a super hornet is only $53.8 million US according to boeing
The Unit flyaway cost in the Navy FY07 budget costs $78.4 million US
Add the development cost to that and the cost is now $95.3 million per aircraft.

Now if Australia bought a Super hornet we would not pay the same price as the US, which is 78.4 million. We'd have to pay a royalty fee a little bit extra to recoup all the development money. Based on history and an "average order" a customer generally pays a quarter of the way between Unit cost and Program Cost for each aircraft.

However If you ordered 5 aircraft u'd probably have to pay the full $95 million. If you ordered 1000 u'd probably pay only $80 million. Australia would pay low 80 million per aircraft in US dollars.

So based on that i doubt the JSF will cost more than $100 million US based on current orders. If alot of orders do get dropped then maybe it will creep over the $100 million mark.

Correct, if you buy the JSF through the FMS, which Australia doesn't. As a partner Australia will get it at clean unit procument cost/fly away cost. And gets a share of development, offsets on investment and ownership of the fighter.

That ain't the case of the Super Hornet. A purely imported plane is much more expensive to a national economy.

 

[Grand Danois]

Double post.

 

[hybrid]

NO Aesa so you concede Russian Mech steered array is better than the US stuff,Amraam with range reduced to 1/3rd go and tell that to a school boy they should have gone in for a Sidewinder(why this consideration) guess what might have saved fuel and increased range too.Awacs simulated hey did we have one ,then why are we interested in Phalcon,eh......... dude that's just loose talking.Your last comment sums it up man:fly

Might want to re-read what he posted along with the link, he specifically said the DACT excercise had the US forces in a "toned down" engagement mode that they wouldn't normally ever fly. The lack of AESA is obvious but might want to also note the Indian AF had AWACs and ground control radar which also simulated as AWACS for the entirety of the excercises. The US forces did not. Also of note in that first excercise is that they weren't using AMRAAMs on the F-15s, but rather simulating Sparrows with semi-active homing. At that even they upped the percentage to miss targets as well assuming degradation in range and target acquistion. Quite simply the US side is told to lose. Its the point of the engagement. Heck there's a sticky on what the DACT stuff is all about. Hence don't take DACT excercises as 'gospel truth' as to whats going to happen in any realistic combat scenario.

 

[hybrid]

atulbansal and powerslavenegi nice biased opinions i take it you are both from india?

Im not going to argue about Cope India anymore as we are getting off topic.


No thats now how it works, not a fair comparison at all. Most of the development cost has already been paid. I just posted the cost of all the fighters a few posts before.

Heres an example of a Super hornet.

Fly away cost of a super hornet is only $53.8 million US according to boeing
The Unit flyaway cost in the Navy FY07 budget costs $78.4 million US
Add the development cost to that and the cost is now $95.3 million per aircraft.

Now if Australia bought a Super hornet we would not pay the same price as the US, which is 78.4 million. We'd have to pay a royalty fee a little bit extra to recoup all the development money. Based on history and an "average order" a customer generally pays a quarter of the way between Unit cost and Program Cost for each aircraft.

However If you ordered 5 aircraft u'd probably have to pay the full $95 million. If you ordered 1000 u'd probably pay only $80 million. Australia would pay low 80 million per aircraft in US dollars.

So based on that i doubt the JSF will cost more than $100 million US based on current orders. If alot of orders do get dropped then maybe it will creep over the $100 million mark.

Don't forget systems package cost, namely what you're paying for the aircraft + maintenance items + electronic/avionics suites if any + weapons packages. That can be well above anything else or lower than might seem obvious (i.e aircraft cost might be high but say the weapons package cost might be lower).

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have compared total program-costs and devided this by the number of aircraft sought. So it's a fair comparision.

If you want to tell me the Australian estimates are only 70% of the JSF-price-tag, then it will grow even worse. Then you have to add 42% to the figures I stated.

That makes 228 million Aus$ at best or 304 millions at worst. OUCH, I would say.

If my figures are false, then - please - tell me where.

Okay, for starters inclusion in the JSF SDD program excuses Countries from paying the cost of the development in the aircraft. No other aircraft program offers such a benefit, or do you think Countries spend billions of dollars developing new weapon systems and then not passing this cost on to customers as much as possible?

As such the enormous cost of the JSF development is not at ALL relevant to Australia because our initial $300m investment in the program means we don't pay those costs...

Secondly the need for weapons packages with JSF are negligible for Australia because we already do or will before the first F-35A is inducted into the RAAF, operate the weapons that are likely to be integrated on it.

Even SDB is likely to to be in the RAAF inventory prior to the introduction of F-35A, from what I hear, RAAF is simply awaiting for USN/USMC to integrate it onto the F/A-18A/B platform for us...

So subtract the development/weapons packages cost and then factor in that Australia is only interested in F-35A at present (the CHEAPEST version of the JSF) and I think even you would have to agree that your estimates are looking a little "bloated"...

IMHO, the F-35A will prove to be little more expensive than any of the current generation fighters (with the exception of F-22) yet provide a significant capability enhancement, which is afterall it's design brief...

 

[McZosch]

So subtract the development/weapons packages cost and then factor in that Australia is only interested in F-35A at present (the CHEAPEST version of the JSF) and I think even you would have to agree that your estimates are looking a little "bloated"...

IMHO, the F-35A will prove to be little more expensive than any of the current generation fighters (with the exception of F-22) yet provide a significant capability enhancement, which is afterall it's design brief...

Oh, I haven't included R&D. I never mentioned it.

Also, these are not my estimates. It's a simple task of math, calculated on basis of the program-cost figures both of Australia and Austria. My worst-case numbers will become relevant, if the program-cost will develop like in Austria (only 18 instead of 24 aircraft for the same money). That's called statistics.

In fact, we will have to wait. JSF was designed as a "low cost" plane. Today, i would like to say even 40m US$ are not low cost. The whole shit began, when aircraft companies where merged. Converting a oligopolist market into a monopolist market is always bad for prices.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh, I haven't included R&D. I never mentioned it.

Also, these are not my estimates. It's a simple task of math, calculated on basis of the program-cost figures both of Australia and Austria. My worst-case numbers will become relevant, if the program-cost will develop like in Austria (only 18 instead of 24 aircraft for the same money). That's called statistics.

In fact, we will have to wait. JSF was designed as a "low cost" plane. Today, i would like to say even 40m US$ are not low cost. The whole shit began, when aircraft companies where merged. Converting a oligopolist market into a monopolist market is always bad for prices.

Agreed. "low cost" is something of a misnomer when referring to modern combat aircraft...

I stand by my claim though that JSF should not greatly exceed (if at all) the cost of existing "4th Generation" designs but offer significantly enhanced capability...

 

[swerve]

had no AESA radar

So? Do you know how many USAF F-15s have an AESA radar? 18, m'boy - though more will be refitted, none are in service yet, nor will be this year - the first APG-63(v)3 radar for the F-15 was delivered to Boeing last week. At present, most of the USAs AESA-equipped fighters are F-22s. The F-18E with APG-79 AESA is undergoing acceptance tests, not yet declared operational.

AFAIK, no US AESA-equipped fighter has participated in an exercise abroad. Or, for that matter, ever been deployed outside the USA.

 

[swerve]

Our classic hornets would easily outkill any operational suhkoi. Sure the F-15's lost against india's SU-30's but that was intentional.

• None of the F-15's had AESA radar

• 
  
  Nor do any operational F-18s, or any F-15 deployed outside the USA (& exactly one squadron of 18 inside the USA), or any other operational fighters except the F-22, the Japanese F-2, & the handful of F-16E so far operational in the UAE. Pretty hard to find an AESA-equipped fighter to exercise against, so it would be worthy of note if they did have AESA, not that they didn't.

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys here is an interesting article on the history and the future of the jas39 gripen,the article is from defence news.

here check out this link:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/the-jas39-gripen-swedens-4th-generation-wild-card/index.php#more