FX impact on the MMRCA?

[zeven]

But you do realise that if you try and intergrate a US Missle/bombs ect onto a non US platform,you will be paying for intergration costs?The US/EU may not even let the weapon be intergrated onto other countrys platforms......This ADDS to the COST,and i wont even go into intergrating avionics.



So you keep saying,but supreme how so?I am under the impression that the Gripen uses a US developed engine too.



Your comparing Gripen program with the JSF program???hwell



Scores pretty high for the US Navy,they seem to think the Aircraft is a goer,and what are these IMPORTANT stats your refering to?

Regards.

1, read Swerves post for an answer. (independence)
2, I never compared Gripen to JSF, i said LM have done more work to decrease the LCC and operational costs for F-35 compared to previously platforms.
3. because something scores high for US navy does not mean it scores high for other countries? you're aware that all countries does not have the same needs/requriements as US navy? because when reading your posts i got that expression.

 

[SpudmanWP]

2, I never compared Gripen to JSF, i said LM have done more work to decrease the LCC and operational costs for F-35 compared to previously platforms.

Little know factoid is that nearly half of the software being written for the F-35 has to do with logistics and the attempt to reduce LCC.

 

[Salty Dog]

Little know factoid is that nearly half of the software being written for the F-35 has to do with logistics and the attempt to reduce LCC.

Are you addressing the F-35 Autonomic Logistics (AL) solution? AFAIK this is comprehensive logistics system for LCC management.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Are you addressing the F-35 Autonomic Logistics (AL) solution? AFAIK this is comprehensive logistics system for LCC management.

I believe so.

A while back, I came across two presentations with audio. The are almost 1.5 hours in total. It was a comment made during one of them that this was said.

Links and instructions here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=159138#159138

Someone else converted them to swf and mp3 files here:
zSHARE - Bossert_Rosa_JSF.rar

The Rick Rosa one is the presentation that deals with the software development and is the likely one.

 

[the road runner]

Ah! You mean like Tornado, Typhoon, Viggen, Draken, Harrier, AMX, Hawk, L159, and of course, Gripen, all of which have or had a variety of US weapons integrated, before a single export customer even expressed an interest. Even Rafale has some US weapons integrated, & in use by France..

So how dose this make you more independant?
Is it because you purchase a number of weapons off different countries,that will make you independant

The EU has nothing to do with what weapons are integrated on anything. There is no such thing as an EU weapon. The USA does object sometimes to the integration of particular weapons, but then one can always buy a non-US alternative. For example, JASSM is quite restricted, but one can always buy Taurus or Scalp. Both are available in range-limited versions for countries where MTCR is an issue. The USA seems to have few worries about integration of lower-end PGMs, though, & both Typhoon & Gripen have AIM-120 & AIM-9 in addition to European AAMs..

Thankyou.
So the US will have issues with intergrating high end weapons on non USD platforms?

It's actually pretty normal for everyone except the French, Russians & Chinese to integrate a selection of US weapons on their aircraft.

A few exceptions like French Tigre with hellfire.
Thanx Swerve for you informative post

Regards

 

[the road runner]

1, read Swerves post for an answer. (independence).

Read it,very informative post,but hopefully someone can answer why its more INDEPENDANT to purchase avionics/missles/bombs from a number of sources?

With independet i mean: you are less dependent on the country where the platform origin from. you can choose avionics/weaponry from a wider variarity of countries

Would this not add more risk?Having a number of contractors delivering weapons/sensors ect.
I would think the PRIME contractor would be the one to go for,to reduce risk.....

2, I never compared Gripen to JSF, i said LM have done more work to decrease the LCC and operational costs for F-35 compared to previously platforms

Agreed,My misunderstanding.

3. because something scores high for US navy does not mean it scores high for other countries? you're aware that all countries does not have the same needs/requriements as US navy? because when reading your posts i got that expression.

Sory for that impression,

Regards

 

[Salty Dog]

Many pundits of the Rafale in the Brazil F-X2 competition have been slamming the Super Hornet and Gripen NG as they both contain US components, an issue for some when it comes to ToT and embargo fears. The French MoD Hervé Morin admitted to Brazil's MoD Nelson Jobim that the Rafale does indeed have US source technology components. This complicates the French promise for 100% ToT for both F-X2 and MRCA.

Original article (in Portuguese):
Jatos Rafale têm tecnologia dos EUA, admite ministro francês

 

[Vivendi]

Many pundits of the Rafale in the Brazil F-X2 competition have been slamming the Super Hornet and Gripen NG as they both contain US components, an issue for some when it comes to ToT and embargo fears. The French MoD Hervé Morin admitted to Brazil's MoD Nelson Jobim that the Rafale does indeed have US source technology components. This complicates the French promise for 100% ToT for both F-X2 and MRCA.

Original article (in Portuguese):
Jatos Rafale têm tecnologia dos EUA, admite ministro francês

Thanks for this -- when I tried Google Translate I got something about "tiles". Is it explained what US components the Rafale actually contain?

One non-French component I am aware of is the Martin-Baker ejection seat -- I believe that's a UK company?

Another would be any GPS navigation systems aboard; since the GPS satellite system is US, I assume the French would at least need some kind of licence agreement?

 

[Salty Dog]

Thanks for this -- when I tried Google Translate I got something about "tiles". Is it explained what US components the Rafale actually contain?

The word is "tijolos" which translates to "building blocks". The French MoD downplays that these are small components and that within a globalized world with complex technologies there could be some "minute" origin from the "mentioned" country.

 

[Rythm]

It could have an impact on indian MMRCA competition, it depends where India sees its future. If India wishes to further develop south-south cooperation, say via IBSA or something similar, then the brazilian outcome could have an impact.

 

[swerve]

Read it,very informative post,but hopefully someone can answer why its more INDEPENDANT to purchase avionics/missles/bombs from a number of sources?

Because you are not dependent on one supplier. You can substitute weapons from alternative suppliers. Your suppliers know this, & are likely to give you better terms.

Would this not add more risk?Having a number of contractors delivering weapons/sensors ect.
I would think the PRIME contractor would be the one to go for,to reduce risk.....

For an aircraft, you have to buy from a prime contractor, which generally buys in sensors, etc. Lockheed Martin & Boeing don't make radars, for example, they get them from Northrop Grumman & Raytheon. Dassault gets radars from Thales, Saab used to buy radars from Ericsson, until it bought Ericsson. It's now buying in a radar from Selex, which SAAB-Ericsson will modify. Etc.

For weapons, why would buying everything from a prime contractor reduce risk? Single source is inherently more risky than diversified sources. One political falling-out & you're stuffed.

BTW, I've worked for industrial firms that deliberately bought a proportion of critical components from what they considered the second best source. That was a risk reduction measure, in case of problems (strikes, fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) with their preferred supplier.

 

[swerve]

So the US will have issues with intergrating high end weapons on non USD platforms?

Not in general. What the USA does do is restrict exports of some high end weapons. E.g. JASSM can be integrated onto non-US platforms, but not everyone is allowed to buy it. Some countries (even close allies) weren't allowed to have AIM-120 at one time, while at the same time other countries (e.g. the UK & Sweden) were allowed to integrate it onto non-US aircraft.

The USA sometimes forbids the integration of non-US weapons onto US aircraft, BTW. For example, the UAE was restricted in the US weapons it could buy for its F-16Es, & was not allowed to integrate foreign equivalents of the weapons the USA wouldn't sell. To get the weapons it wanted, it had to buy non-US weapons & put them on non-US aircraft - hence the Mirage 2000-9 with Black Shaheen (a range-limited version of Scalp) from France.

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys, i have a couple of doubts here:

1) several times i have come across the rafales weights given as 9500 kgs (loaded),does this mean the weight of the aircraft fully loaded with all the onboard equipment minus internal fuel and weapons?

2)what would be the maximum all up weight of the rafale with the full internal fuel load and the full weapon load?

3)how does rafale's loaded weight,maximum all up weight and thrust to weight ratio under both the load conditions compare with the ef-2000's.

 

[the road runner]

For an aircraft, you have to buy from a prime contractor, which generally buys in sensors, etc. Lockheed Martin & Boeing don't make radars, for example, they get them from Northrop Grumman & Raytheon. Dassault gets radars from Thales, Saab used to buy radars from Ericsson, until it bought Ericsson. It's now buying in a radar from Selex, which SAAB-Ericsson will modify. Etc.

For weapons, why would buying everything from a prime contractor reduce risk? Single source is inherently more risky than diversified sources. One political falling-out & you're stuffed..

Ah so you would purchase the Aircraft,seansors,radar from the Prime.The Prime would sub contract out the radars,seansors ect to Lock,Boeing or Thales(depending on aircraft type selected).

Then you would shop around for missles/bombs from a number of vendors?

*I was assuming a Package deal would be cheaper..........

BTW, I've worked for industrial firms that deliberately bought a proportion of critical components from what they considered the second best source. That was a risk reduction measure, in case of problems (strikes, fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) with their preferred supplier.

So you reduce risk,but you are saying you purchase from both suppliers?
I would assume less risk by going down this path,but it would add to cost Swerve?

Thanx for pointing me in the right direction,and molding my mellon:crazy

Regards

 

[zeven]

hey guys, i have a couple of doubts here:

1) several times i have come across the rafales weights given as 9500 kgs (loaded),does this mean the weight of the aircraft fully loaded with all the onboard equipment minus internal fuel and weapons?

this is empty wheight.

2)what would be the maximum all up weight of the rafale with the full internal fuel load and the full weapon load?

MTOW is 24.500 kg

3)how does rafale's loaded weight,maximum all up weight and thrust to weight ratio under both the load conditions compare with the ef-2000's.

Rafale (MTOW 24.500 kg)
* Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
* Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN with M88-Eco >90 kN after 2010 (17,000 lbf) each

Eurofighter: (MTOW 21.000 kg)
thrust 60 kN (90 kN with AB) x2 (twin engine configuration)

 

[swerve]

Rafale (MTOW 24.500 kg)
* Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
* Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN with M88-Eco >90 kN after 2010 (17,000 lbf) each

Eurofighter: (MTOW 21.000 kg)
thrust 60 kN (90 kN with AB) x2 (twin engine configuration)

Eurofighter Tranche 2 MTOW 24500 kg according to a recent press briefing reported elsewhere.

Eurofighter Tranche 1 reported in the same briefing to be currently limited to 20000 kg in service, despite having demonstrated TOW of over 24500 kg in tests. Thought to be for fatigue life reasons.

 

[swerve]

Ah so you would purchase the Aircraft,seansors,radar from the Prime.The Prime would sub contract out the radars,seansors ect to Lock,Boeing or Thales(depending on aircraft type selected).

Then you would shop around for missles/bombs from a number of vendors?

*I was assuming a Package deal would be cheaper..........

So you reduce risk,but you are saying you purchase from both suppliers?
I would assume less risk by going down this path,but it would add to cost Swerve?

Thanx for pointing me in the right direction,and molding my mellon:crazy

Regards

The sensors are (except for external sensor pods) built in to the aircraft, & it's not really practical to buy them separately. You can sometimes specify alternate equipment, as with F-16s with a choice of engines, but that's via the aircraft manufacturer.

Weapons (& external sensor pods) are separate pieces of equipment, which can be & often are bought separately. For export sales, they're sometimes supplied as part of a package, but I think that's as much for convenience as price.

In the cases I mentioned, buying from multiple suppliers added slightly to cost, & I expect that would usually be true. It was thought worth it for the risk reduction. Like buying insurance, really. That's also an extra cost, to reduce risk.

 

[swerve]

Back on topic - Gripen Demo is now flying with the ES05 Raven AESA radar.

Gripen - The wings of your nation - Gripen NG Demo returns to the skies

 

[Salty Dog]

Ah so you would purchase the Aircraft,seansors,radar from the Prime.The Prime would sub contract out the radars,seansors ect to Lock,Boeing or Thales(depending on aircraft type selected).

Then you would shop around for missles/bombs from a number of vendors?

*I was assuming a Package deal would be cheaper..........

Regards

In the case of purchases from the USA, fighter aircraft, some subsystems, and certainly weapons falls under MDE (major defense equipment) which can only be purchase via FMS (foreign military sales) which is a gov't - to - gov't purchase. The US Gov't is the purchasing agent and is represented by a designated service, Army, Navy, or Air Force. This means that the purchasing gov't does not sign a contract with the "prime contractor", the USG does the purchase on behalf of the purchasing gov't. Thus each item in the FMS "package" is procured by the USG then transferred to the foreign government. There are advantages to the FMS process:
- The USG as the procurement agent certifies all equipment prior to acceptance/delivery. In the case of the Super Hornet, this is the US Navy.
- The USG works guarantee and warranty issues.
- The USG has in-country reps at US Embassies.
- Purchases can be made in "lots" along with USG purchases to take advantage of "cost scaling"
- Maintenance and support package can be included.
- A single FMS contract can contain the aircraft, subsystems, spares, weapons, maintenance, training, etc.
- Multiple FMS contracts may be implemented as necessary.
- A form of financing is available via a payment schedule to the USG.
- The purchaser pays the same price as the USG.

It's important to note the last bullet above as President Lula specifically requested to President Sarkozy that the Rafale price for Brazil be the same as paid by the French. To date, France has not mentioned any agreement to this important detail. When recently queried about the Rafale price (the highest of the F-X2 contenders), the French MoD responded with all the "political advantages" of the Rafale purchase, obviously skirting the price issue.

 

[swerve]

Interesting, that. Eurofighter sales are direct by the companies, & may not be at a lower price than that charged to the four Eurofighter countries. The governments levy a 7% fee on exports to recover development costs, though that may be waived.