F-X deal is back on. Brazil back in action

[Bonza]

Fact is the The Link-16 does not have all the capabilities of the TIDLS.

I wasn't taking issue with anything TIDLS related that you said, I was taking issue with the fact you claimed the SH ' lacks a state of the art tactical datalink that Rafale and Gripen is equipped with' before subsequently admitting in a later post that you weren't up to date with the Rafale's datalink systems. Why make such a claim when you don't know?

Fact is the SH did not become the improvement of the F/A-18 it was meant to be, the toe out of the weapon pylons is real and that did affect the performance of the aircraft.

Can you please outline for me exactly what sort of improvement the SH was "meant to be"? This is just the sort of statement I take issue with - it asserts something without any kind of specifics as to why that assertion is correct. Yes, the pylon issue is real - but does that alone mean the SH "did not become the improvement of the F/A-18 it was meant to be"? Don't you think an assessment of the Super Hornet's capabilities should be a little more involved than that?

Fact is the SH is heavier than for example the Rafale (4 tons is a lot) but the payload is not as impressive as the payload of the Rafale.

Payload, and indeed any platform comparison altogether, is totally beside the point I was making. I'm not trying to bash the Rafale, or praise the Super Hornet, or do anything of the sort. I'm taking issue with the way you presented your opinions, such as your assertion that the Super Hornet "is probably the most overrated fighter flying today" when you haven't given any information as to why that is so.

You seem like you're out to prove a point, which is fair enough, but a platform comparison and a reference to the pylon issue isn't going to convince me of what you're saying because the issue of the Super Hornet's capability, and indeed the capability of any modern fighter, is so much more complex than that.

 

[F35Owns]

Thanks mate! My bust.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Rumour mill has the Rafale and F-35 as the top contenders.

Are you guys forgeting the F-15SE??? The baby will be flying in early 2010. The plane was conceived for international customers, as the US is going with the more advanced F-35. Brazil and India could jump on the SE bandwagon, who knows, Boeing could be the real winner here. Although the initial price will drop, currently at 100 million USD, when more people sign on for the project and production is in full-force. The F-15C is proven (thats the key) to be better then any fighter out of Europe. If everything goes according to plan, the F-15SE will be a better fighter then the C.

 

[B3LA]

Behind the scenes...

I think (and this is of course just my wild imagination@work) that the technical specifications actually DO have some impact on the final decision.
I'm sure that they form the base of the recommendations given to the decision makers.
But then there are the political issues, the general pricing and the personal reasons too.

Dassault is by now desperate to get in to the game and France is probably ready to give the planes away. If they finally manage to sell some Rafales to Brazil, it will give France some vindications for the decision to leave the Eurofighter consortium back in 1985.

Nicolas Sarkozy will be much appreciated back home if he succeeds in this endeavour.
He and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will have a long and pleasant chat over a nice cup of tea and talk about the future and then it won’t matter much what radar the different fighters comes with.

If France doesn’t win with the current set up…well, the Monty Python’s Fish Slapping Dance comes vividly to my mind ;-)

 

[swerve]

Are you guys forgeting the F-15SE???

No, but it isn't in contention. It isn't flying, unlike everything else (at least a prototype is flying for every other contender), & neither Brazil nor India wants to pay for its development. Evaluating it would mean putting back the competition, for both countries - and both have already been delayed more than the respective air forces are comfortable with.

The F-15C is proven (thats the key) to be better then any fighter out of Europe.

Oh dear. Care to explain why you believe this?

 

[simdude97]

Dassault is by now desperate to get in to the game and France is probably ready to give the planes away. If they finally manage to sell some Rafales to Brazil, it will give France some vindications for the decision to leave the Eurofighter consortium back in 1985.

I agree and judging from the best and final offer fly away price of 50 million Euros that is exactly what is happening. These planes are being given away. How else do you explain a 20 million Euro price reduction and no development costs added on. If I where a French tax payer I would be pretty angry that my government cannot afford an adequate number of planes for our air force yet we can subsidize Brazil's air force.

Nicolas Sarkozy will be much appreciated back home if he succeeds in this endeavour.

Will he be? I wonder. Not only will he be selling the planes at a loss, the value of the contract is reduced even more since a portion of the plane will be built in Brazil.

If France doesn’t win with the current set up…well, the Monty Python’s Fish Slapping Dance comes vividly to my mind ;-)

Actually they still may not win if the Brazilians use the same rigor in selecting the winner as the Norwegians did with the F-35. They may recognize that if you add in the cost of further developing the Rafale, the support costs, the weapons cost, etc, then even with the purchase subsidy the total cost is so much higher than either the Gripen or the Super Hornet that is cannot be justified on financial grounds.

On the other hand, if Brazil and France view this as more than a military deal then it may make sense. Obviously France needs an industrial partner in order to compete globally for weapon sales and Brazil would like to acquire the technology and industrial base to compete as well. A Dassault/Embraer partnership may make a lot of sense.

 

[simdude97]

Are you guys forgeting the F-15SE??? The baby will be flying in early 2010. The plane was conceived for international customers, as the US is going with the more advanced F-35. Brazil and India could jump on the SE bandwagon, who knows, Boeing could be the real winner here. Although the initial price will drop, currently at 100 million USD, when more people sign on for the project and production is in full-force. The F-15C is proven (thats the key) to be better then any fighter out of Europe. If everything goes according to plan, the F-15SE will be a better fighter then the C.

I think Silent Eagle is mainly aimed at the Japanese and Saudi Arabian markets. Neither can get the F-35 in the time frame they want so this is aimed at giving them and other air forces a highly competitive alternative to the Typhoon.

 

[Grand Danois]

I agree and judging from the best and final offer fly away price of 50 million Euros that is exactly what is happening. These planes are being given away. How else do you explain a 20 million Euro price reduction and no development costs added on. If I where a French tax payer I would be pretty angry that my government cannot afford an adequate number of planes for our air force yet we can subsidize Brazil's air force.

It is not necessarily that simple.

The Rafale line is running at its smallest possible viable output at the current 11-12 per year.

Adding 36 jets over e.g. a three-year period doubles that number and significant savings are realized across all 72 jets. There is the possibility that the savings from all those 72 jets are factored into the Brazilian offer.

For example, iirc, a three-year MYP of 120 F-22 shaves $30M off fly-away cost over a three-year MYP of 60.

 

[Sintra]

That article says "about 1000" not "1000" and with a significantly smaller nose I can't see how Rafale will manage a radar almost the same size as the Super Hornet, but it doesn't really matter I guess.

This discussion has been going on on quite a number of fora in severall languages.
In the two biggest defense Brasilian forúns it went add-nauseum, so much that they counted (!) the number of T/R modules in the RBE-2 AESA prototype (Imageshack - japan1xe9.jpg).
The RBE-2 AESA prototype had precisely 863 T/R modules.

As to the US missiles, AIM-120C-7 is THE current highest standard of AMRAAM available for purchase. AIM-120D is still undergoing testing. No doubt AIM-120D will be released for sale in a few years, but it isn't ready yet.

AIM-9M is included in this package and yes, it is not as capable as AIM-9X. I wonder about that though, whether that is because Brazil intends to integrate it's own weapon, A-Darter etc having been mentioned around the traps and these weapons are merely to "tie them over" in the meantime?

That´s exactly what they want to do.

 

[OPSSG]

Are you guys forgeting the F-15SE??? The baby will be flying in early 2010...

The F-15SE and F-35 isn't in contention for the Brazil F-X competition. As such, my discussion below for the benefit of simdude97 is a little off-topic.

I think Silent Eagle is mainly aimed at the Japanese and Saudi Arabian markets. Neither can get the F-35 in the time frame they want so this is aimed at giving them and other air forces a highly competitive alternative to the Typhoon.

@simdude97, there are five foreign F-15 users: Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Singapore. I think Japan (with 223 Eagles), South Korea (with 60 F-15Ks on order), and Singapore (with 24 F-15SGs on order) are the likely potential candidates for future F-15SE sales.

IMHO, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to be in the market for more F-15SEs as they currently have have a 72 Typhoons on order (some of which are in the process of being delivered) and a large fleet of F-15s, the details of which are set out below:

(i) under the "Peace Sun" series of export programs, the US supplied 46 F-15Cs and 16 F-15Ds, for a total of 62 aircraft;

(ii) during the Gulf War, and 24 F-15C/Ds were transferred from the USAF to build up Saudi warfighting strength; and

(iii) a further 72 F-15Ss were received from 1995 into 2000.​

(NB. My figures are not the most updated and I have excluded attrition replacements. I'll be happy to be corrected, if the numbers cited are wrong )

 

[simdude97]

It is not necessarily that simple.

The Rafale line is running at its smallest possible viable output at the current 11-12 per year.

Adding 36 jets over e.g. a three-year period doubles that number and significant savings are realized across all 72 jets. There is the possibility that the savings from all those 72 jets are factored into the Brazilian offer.

For example, iirc, a three-year MYP of 120 F-22 shaves $30M off fly-away cost over a three-year MYP of 60.

I understand the concept of efficiencies of scale, but shaving 20 million Euros off the price of an airplane because of an increase by 36 units? That's some economy if scale.

To your point that the savings from all 72 are factored into the Brazilian order would get hackles up if I where a french taxpayer.

 

[simdude97]

The F-15SE and F-35 isn't in contention for the Brazil F-X competition. As such, my discussion below for the benefit of simdude97 is a little off-topic.

@simdude97, there are five foreign F-15 users: Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Singapore. I think Japan (with 223 Eagles), South Korea (with 60 F-15Ks on order), and Singapore (with 24 F-15SGs on order) are the likely potential candidates for future F-15SE sales.

IMHO, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to be in the market for more F-15SEs as they currently have have a 72 Typhoons on order (some of which are in the process of being delivered) and a large fleet of F-15s, the details of which are set out below:

(i) under the "Peace Sun" series of export programs, the US supplied 46 F-15Cs and 16 F-15Ds, for a total of 62 aircraft;

(ii) during the Gulf War, and 24 F-15C/Ds were transferred from the USAF to build up Saudi warfighting strength; and

(iii) a further 72 F-15Ss were received from 1995 into 2000.​

(NB. My figures are not the most updated and I have excluded attrition replacements. I'll be happy to be corrected, if the numbers cited are wrong )

Agreed it is off topic and I wont take it any further except to state that I thought that there may be a follow on order to the Typhoons for Saudi Arabia. Those early Peace Sun Eagles must be getting on in years.

 

[swerve]

How else do you explain a 20 million Euro price reduction and no development costs added on. If I where a French tax payer I would be pretty angry that my government cannot afford an adequate number of planes for our air force yet we can subsidize Brazil's air force.

Will he be? I wonder. Not only will he be selling the planes at a loss,.

Why do you keep saying this? I've already told you, more than once, that the price is similar to what the AdlA are paying (in published documents submitted to the French parliament). Since the contract will include support, spares & weapons, all of which can be expected to be sold at a profit, where is the subsidy? Where is the loss? At worst, I'd say it's break-even.

BTW, how much money does Boeing give the US government towards development costs for each F-18E exported. Anything? Nothing?

 

[Grand Danois]

BTW, how much money does Boeing give the US government towards development costs for each F-18E exported. Anything? Nothing?

In Europe the companies own their tech; in the US it is the USG. Recouperation is via FMS fee of 3.75%.

Anyways, the three quoted prices all look to be URF to me.

 

[swerve]

Yeah. What really matters is the contract price, not the element of it which (in theory) pays for the aircraft themselves. The only number I've seen for that is the high, but not necessarily final, figure in the US export notification.

 

[simdude97]

Hello Swerve. This is direct from French budgetary documents which I included on one of my recent posts.

"Le coût total du programme pour l'Etat est de 39,6 milliards d'euros, (conditions financières au 1er janvier 2008) ce qui ramène le coût unitaire par avion (hors développement) entre 64 et 70 millions d'euros en fonction des versions, cette valeur devant toutefois augmenter du fait des négociations en cours avec l'industriel résultant de la réduction de la cible initiale."

Projet de loi de finances pour 2009 : Défense - Equipement des forces

You will also note that the price the AdlA is paying as "flyaway" does not include development costs. This is straight from the French government.

Do you have anything newer and closer to the source than the French Parliament? If you do I would love to see it.
Perhaps I could suggest you read all of the posts in the thread before you take such a confrontational position. If you had you may have noted that I did also mention that there where other factors involved.

Lastly, where did I say anything about subsidies? But, since you would like to take this off subject, it is a fact that excluding direct military foreign aid to such countries like Egypt and Israel, it is against US export law to sell a weapon system to a foreign government for less than the total (including the share of development costs) what the US military pays for the item.
Cheers!

 

[simdude97]

In Europe the companies own their tech; in the US it is the USG. Recouperation is via FMS fee of 3.75%.

Anyways, the three quoted prices all look to be URF to me.

FMS fee covers administrative costs. It has nothing to do with recouping development cost.


55 million dollars flyaway is about right for the Super Hornet. That is about what the navy was paying on 20 per year. No, that does not include development cost. Airframe, avionics, engines, internal gun. Add gas and pilot.

 

[Grand Danois]

FMS fee covers administrative costs. It has nothing to do with recouping development cost.

Technically, yes. In the case of a $7B deal, that's $262M in "administrative costs".

 

[simdude97]

Technically, yes. In the case of a $7B deal, that's $262M in "administrative costs".

Yes. I thiknn you may be taking the 7 billion out of context. That is for a certain number of years and it includes much more than just the planes. So yes over the course of the deal, given government accounting 262M is not that much for admin. Remember is also pays for US nationals to serve in country as US government representatives to coordinate the program, liaise with the host government, and ensure that US export agreements and sensitive technology is not tampered with.

Do you really think that 3.75%, as a constant covers every weapon system's development cost. Think about it. Regardless of the scale of production 3.75 always covers development copst per unit. I don;t think so.

 

[Grand Danois]

Do you really think that 3.75%, as a constant covers every weapon system's development cost. Think about it. Regardless of the scale of production 3.75 always covers development copst per unit. I don;t think so.

No, I don't, but that wasn't what I was saying either. I was pointing to the difference that comes from technology owned by the firms as opposed to tech owned by a govt. The USG has decided that 3.75% will cover admin costs and some of the money they've poured into the development of a platform.

Iirc, e.g. the JSF partners will get a share of the 3.75% from JSF FMS sales proportional to their contribution to SDD and PFSD - which can roughly be considered RD&T money.

 

[Sintra]

Hello Swerve. This is direct from French budgetary documents which I included on one of my recent posts.

"Le coût total du programme pour l'Etat est de 39,6 milliards d'euros, (conditions financières au 1er janvier 2008) ce qui ramène le coût unitaire par avion (hors développement) entre 64 et 70 millions d'euros en fonction des versions, cette valeur devant toutefois augmenter du fait des négociations en cours avec l'industriel résultant de la réduction de la cible initiale."

Projet de loi de finances pour 2009 : Défense - Equipement des forces

You will also note that the price the AdlA is paying as "flyaway" does not include development costs. This is straight from the French government.

Do you have anything newer and closer to the source than the French Parliament? If you do I would love to see it.
Perhaps I could suggest you read all of the posts in the thread before you take such a confrontational position. If you had you may have noted that I did also mention that there where other factors involved.

Lastly, where did I say anything about subsidies? But, since you would like to take this off subject, it is a fact that excluding direct military foreign aid to such countries like Egypt and Israel, it is against US export law to sell a weapon system to a foreign government for less than the total (including the share of development costs) what the US military pays for the item.
Cheers!

Sim

If you take VAT out of the equation you end with some very similar numbers to Swerve.
VAT is a tax, in this case the French State when buying from a French company pays VAT to that same company who afterwards pays the exact same amount to the... French state, and if i am not mistaken is around 19,5%.
VAT doesnt aply to exports, so...

Cheers