How about Typhoon for U.S. Military?

[StevoJH]

For example, the Typhoon is notoriously short-legged.

Compared to what?

Much longer range then F-16, Mig-29, F-104S, Drakken, F-4.....

Not sure how the range compares with Tornado F3...but....

EFA-2000 Eurofighter
# Combat Radius ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
# ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
# air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
# air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km

Hardly short legged....

Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission

Doesnt list if hi-lo-hi or just all high, no way its lo-lo-lo.

Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs

Less then half the radius of typhoon for same mission profile.

# Combat radius: 367 nmi (422 mi, 680 km)
# Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Compared to what?
Hardly short legged....

My apologies. I used an inaccurate text source I have at home (an estimate based off of prototype performance figures, and now obviously not an accurate one) and failed to cross-reference the source or to compare it.

Entirely my fault, and wholly unprofessional on my part not to verify basic research. Serious lapse in judgment on my part :frown

Later tranches aren't more expensive.

I should have clarified. After adjustment for inflation and compensation for the strength of the Euro, there would be added cost for US buyer.

Also, wouldn't the proposed changes to the Tranche 3 (If I remember rightly, Captor AESA was one) add some margin of extra cost? I doesn't seem to make any sense to me what they'd cost the same.

Could you explain? I'm genuinely interested as to the reasons why this might be so.

 

[swerve]

Also, wouldn't the proposed changes to the Tranche 3 (If I remember rightly, Captor AESA was one) add some margin of extra cost? I doesn't seem to make any sense to me what they'd cost the same.

Could you explain? I'm genuinely interested as to the reasons why this might be so.

CAPTOR-E would cost more to buy than the current mechanically scanned CAPTOR (though with TRM prices falling, not vastly more, & Euroradar reckon reduced maintenance costs make it cheaper over its lifetime), but the unit price of Tranche 2 is less than that of Tranche 1, & Tranche 3A has been held to no more, & perhaps less (no exact figures are available), than T2. As with F-16, F-18 & F-22, & predicted for F-35, the unit cost of manufacturing falls as you build more, & move up the learning curve. Note that this is not the same as the fixed costs per unit falling as you build more: I mean a drop in marginal unit cost.

If a customer specifies additional capabilities, such as CAPTOR-E or another new radar, costs could go up, but that's a matter of customer choice.

The training & other costs you alluded to in an earlier post apply to any new type, including F-35, for which such costs have not yet been incurred.

But it ain't, ever, going to happen.

 

[Tony Soprano]

The answer is rather simple. The JSF is the best deal for the money.

In essence it capitalizes on what you perceive to be benefits of the Typhoon purchase, i.e. outsourcing R&D to European partners, and then producing it domestically. Granted the outsourcing is not as major. But then again the finished product is far more sophisticated then the Typhoon. Marc already addressed the plethora of other reasons.

Truth is many countries do opt that route, mainly when they are unable to develop, or it would cost too much to develop, a domestic alternative. The US doesn't do that because the US has a very large military, and extensive R&D. It can develop and field in large numbers practically any weapon system it needs. Hence why importing anything, other then minor items, components, or (as in a few cases in the 90s) foreign technology for evaluation and possible application.

I would love to see some evidence for this claim As far as I'm informed the F35 only flies as a prototype and is having difficulties meeting it''s budgets in every area.

I would like to see a capabillity and cost analysis that support your claim, compared to 4th and 4,5 generation jets.

 

[Marc 1]

I would love to see some evidence for this claim As far as I'm informed the F35 only flies as a prototype and is having difficulties meeting it''s budgets in every area.

I would like to see a capabillity and cost analysis that support your claim, compared to 4th and 4,5 generation jets.

I don't know where I saw the stats, but the F-35 will take out 6 less than 5th gen aircraft for every F-35 downed all other factors (pilot experience etc)being equal. So even if the F-35 costs $150m each (highly unlikely over the entire production run) it's competitors would have to be priced at under $25m each to 'compete'. Given that a modern 4.5gen aircraft such as a Super Hornet goes for upward of $50m....

Yes I know that there is a lot more to covering airspace than a simple stat like this, and flight profiles other than air to air it may not be as efficient, but that to me is a pretty good indication - particularly as its replacing primarily air superiority platforms (F16, F15C).

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would love to see some evidence for this claim As far as I'm informed the F35 only flies as a prototype and is having difficulties meeting it''s budgets in every area.

I would like to see a capabillity and cost analysis that support your claim, compared to 4th and 4,5 generation jets.

F-35A, current "projected" flyaway price, USD$113m. (Source - GAO).

Rafale current flyaway price. USD$142m. (Source - French MoD).

Typhoon 2008 flyaway price USD$103m (based on UK Govt disclosure 2008. Current price unknown exactly, but likely to be slightly higher due to inflation).

F-16 Block 60, unit cost of USD$87.5m in 1996 dollars. Price,in excess of USD$100m in current year dollars due to inflationary effect.

Korean/Singaporean F-15K/SG fighters - flyaway price USD$110m. (based on DSCA disclosures and estimated at aircraft price being "70% of all up contract price).

Super Hornet Block II+ unit cost of $55m (based on announced Boeing build contract for Australian Super Hornets).

F-35A capabilities -

1. All aspect low observability? Yes.

2. Internal weapons sensor and fuel carriage? Yes.

3. External weapons carriage? Yes.

4. Advanced EODAS? Yes.

5. Advanced networking capability? Yes.

6. Superior than legacy fighter force (F-16/F/A-18) performance? Yes.

7. Helmet mounted sighting systems for WVR air to air and A2G combat? Yes.

8. Internal IRST system? Yes.

9. AESA radar system? Yes.


Typhoon capabilities -

1. All aspect low observability? No.

2. Internal weapons, sensor and fuel carriage? Partial. Some fuel carried internally and radar and ESM/EWSP carried internally. EO, all weapons and most of the aircrafts fuel have to be carried externally, resulting in drag penalties

3. External weapons carriage? Yes.

4. Advanced EODAS system? No.

5. Advanced networking capability? No. Only Link 16 at present time and no known plans for more advanced system.

6. Superior than legacy fighter force performance? Yes.

7. Helmet mounted sighting systems? Yes.

8. Internal IRST? Partial. It is available as an option, however is not fitted to all Typhoon variants.

9. AESA radar system? No. Though CAPTOR-E is being worked upon, no orders have been placed on it, AFAIK.


Rafales capabilities -

1. All aspect low observability? No.

2. Internal weapons, sensor and fuel carriage? Partial. Some fuel carried internally and radar and ESM/EWSP carried internally. EO sensors, all weapons and most of the aircrafts fuel have to be carried externally, resulting in drag penalties

3. External weapons carriage? Yes.

4. Advanced EODAS system? No.

5. Advanced networking capability? No. Only Link 16 at present time and no known plans for more advanced system.

6. Superior than legacy fighter force performance? Yes.

7. Helmet mounted sighting systems? No.

8. Internal IRST? Partial. It is available as an option, however is not fitted to all Rafale variants.

9. AESA radar system? No. Though an AESA has been trialled in the aircraft, no systems have yet been ordered, AFAIK.

F-16 Block 60 capabilities -

1. All aspect low observability? No.

2. Internal weapons, sensor and fuel carriage? Partial. Some fuel carried internally and radar and ESM/EWSP carried internally. EO sensors partially carried internally, all weapons and most of the aircrafts fuel have to be carried externally, resulting in drag penalties

3. External weapons carriage? Yes.

4. Advanced EODAS system? No.

5. Advanced networking capability? No. Only Link 16 at present time and no known plans for more advanced system.

6. Superior than legacy fighter force performance? No.

7. Helmet mounted sighting systems? Yes.

8. Internal IRST? Yes.

9. AESA radar system? Yes.


F-15K/SG

1. All aspect low observability? No.

2. Internal weapons, sensor and fuel carriage? Partial. Most fuel carried internally and radar and ESM/EWSP carried internally. EO sensors partally internally carried ("Tiger eyes"), all weapons and some of the aircraft's fuel have to be carried externally, resulting in drag penalties

3. External weapons carriage? Yes.

4. Advanced EODAS system? No.

5. Advanced networking capability? No. Only Link 16 at present time and no known plans for more advanced system.

6. Superior than legacy fighter force performance? Yes.

7. Helmet mounted sighting systems? Yes.

8. Internal IRST? Yes. "Tiger eyes" system.

9. AESA radar system? Yes.

Super Hornet Block II+ capabilities -

1. All aspect low observability? No.

2. Internal weapons, sensor and fuel carriage? Partial. Some fuel carried internally and radar and ESM/EWSP carried internally. EO, all weapons and most of the aircrafts fuel have to be carried externally, resulting in drag penalties

3. External weapons carriage? Yes.

4. Advanced EODAS system? No.

5. Advanced networking capability? No. Only Link 16 at present time and no known plans for more advanced system.

6. Superior than legacy fighter force performance? No.

7. Helmet mounted sighting systems? Yes.

8. Internal IRST? No.

9. AESA radar system? Yes.

Hope this helps illustrate somewhat, what you get for what you pay with modern fighters, at a simplistic level...

 

[swerve]

Rafale current flyaway price. USD$142m. (Source - French MoD).

Typhoon 2008 flyaway price USD$103m (based on UK Govt disclosure 2008. Current price unknown exactly, but likely to be slightly higher due to inflation)...

Can you elucidate?

The first figure is incompatible with the costs given in French Senat reports, which are legally required to be accurate. In 2008 they gave flyaway figures, including VAT at 19.6%, of 64 or 70 million Euros (53.5 or 58.5mn without VAT), with the naval version being the more expensive. Note that US budget prices for weapons do not include tax, & VAT is not payable on exports, so it should be excluded from comparisons. At todays exchange rate those flyaway prices are USD 71 mn & USD 78 mn.
Projet de loi de finances pour 2009 : Défense - Equipement des forces

The Typhoon cost you quote appears to be the 2008 NAO production cost figure (£69.3 mn) , which is not a flyaway price. It includes all fixed production costs, capital charges, & some other costs, none of which are part of the US definition of 'flyaway'. The fixed costs are apportioned to 144 aircraft, although the currently contracted number is (with the Saudi order & Tranche 3a) considerably more.

The 15th December 2009 NAO figure is £69.7 mn, or USD 103.7 mn at todays exchange rate. As described above, that is definitely NOT a flyaway price.
Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2009

You have to be careful to compare like with like. The best 'flyaway' price we have for Typhoon is still the Tranche 2 production contract price, of 55 million euros. That doesn't include fixed production costs, as they'd already been paid for, nor capital charges, as they're not paid to the manufacturer, or any of the other costs included in the NAO figure.

 

[fretburner]

F-35A, current "projected" flyaway price, USD$113m. (Source - GAO).

Rafale current flyaway price. USD$142m. (Source - French MoD).

Typhoon 2008 flyaway price USD$103m (based on UK Govt disclosure 2008. Current price unknown exactly, but likely to be slightly higher due to inflation).

F-16 Block 60, unit cost of USD$87.5m in 1996 dollars. Price,in excess of USD$100m in current year dollars due to inflationary effect.

Korean/Singaporean F-15K/SG fighters - flyaway price USD$110m. (based on DSCA disclosures and estimated at aircraft price being "70% of all up contract price).

Super Hornet Block II+ unit cost of $55m (based on announced Boeing build contract for Australian Super Hornets).

Wow. I didn't know the Super Hornets were that "cheap"! Nations should be buying these things instead of F-16s! You can almost buy 2 SHs for each Blk 60 F-16!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Can you elucidate?

I was trying to be polite, whilst giving a simple view of aircraft costs v capability in the marketplace. It is pointless to try and pin point costs in aircraft acquisitions, because EVERY combat aircraft acquisition package is different.

Australia for instance included all infrastructure, support/test equipment, training, weapons, sensors and through-life-costs as well as it's aircraft in our Super Hornet acquisition and the cost of all this, naturally raised many an eyebrow. The more hysterical among us then claimed that the AUD$6.6b pricetag was simply for the aircraft and then used that to claim that Super Hornets, accordingly cost a rather astronomical AUD$277m a piece...

Now this is patently absurd, it's not an F-22 afterall ( ) but it highlights the dangers of trying to put an "exact" cost on a modern fighter aircraft, when the full particulars of WHAT is being purchased isn't released, for national security, commercial in confidence or perhaps other reasons.


If one were trying to be honest about the cost of an aircraft, then one should include the development costs as well, because they HAVE to be borne, irrespective of how many aircraft are puchased. The Euro-Canards do not come out favourably in this regard and if people think the F-35 is bad, then they will be truly horified at the cost of a Rafale for instance (not that I mean to pick on the Rafale unnecessarily) if these costs are included...

It is an unavoidable economic reality. Building new advanced fighters costs plenty of treasure and if you only have a relatively small production run to amortise costs, then the result will be an increasingly large percentage of your ego making way for your treasure...

Fretburner, yes the difference is significant, but then you've got to include the fact that UAE basically paid for a new aircraftdesign but had a production run of only 80 aircraft to amortise the cost. That is the reason the Rafale is so costly as well. Enormous development costs, but small production run (only 286 in total so far).

The Super Hornet by comparison, has a run of over 480 E/F models, plus over 90 EA-18G aircraft, 24x Super Hornets sold to Australia and the probability of further multi-year purchases by USN (especially as Boeing has offered a reported 10% discount on airframe price if a further multi-year contract is signed). The order book is therefore already more than twice as many as Rafale has achieved, not counting future potential orders (for both aircraft types) and some 7.5 times as many aircraft than the entire F-16 Block 60 program...

It does make the aircraft an interesting choice though, especially if cost effectiveness is an issue, something that is enormously overlooked by those fixated on airframe performance issues....

ope

 

[Scorpion82]

@AD,
as Swerve said you have to compare like with like, I know it's difficult to find accurate figures particularly for the costs, but it draws a wrong picture. We have to take into account that all the capabilities listed for the F-35 won't be available from day one and the situtation for other types might look entirely different at the time the F-35 arrives at the intended configuration. This is particularly true for the sensors and related capabilities. The F-35 won't fit the current brochure descriptions before 2017 at best. A lot of time in which much can happen.

 

[fretburner]

It does make the aircraft an interesting choice though, especially if cost effectiveness is an issue, something that is enormously overlooked by those fixated on airframe performance issues....

ope

Yes it does. With the SH, you have a very capable aircraft (with room for growth still) which is a LOT cheaper than newer designs which really are not that much better. IMO, the SH - with its radar and missiles - will hold its own against the EF, Rafale, and F-16 Blk 60.

 

[SpudmanWP]

FY2011 Super Hornets are $60.3 mil REC Flyaway and $83.1 mil Procurement Unit Cost (WPN system and initial spare costs included).

Source: Page 26 & 27 of the FY2011 USN budget docs.
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/11pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf

 

[jaffo4011]

Yes it does. With the SH, you have a very capable aircraft (with room for growth still) which is a LOT cheaper than newer designs which really are not that much better. IMO, the SH - with its radar and missiles - will hold its own against the EF, Rafale, and F-16 Blk 60.

far inferior in terms of close in air combat maneuverability tho which places it ultimately at a disadvantage when compared like to like and as a platform its at the latter end of its development rather than the beginning....that goes for the f16 however......

i suppose it depends on your requirements but if you are looking at a long term fighter bomber type then its hard not to view the sh as a very capable stopgap rather than a long term and ultimately competitive platform which canl continue to be properly supported and upgraded...unlike the f35,typhoon and rafale which are genuinely newer designs.....not upgrades of older aircraft.

 

[Tony Soprano]

Mod edit: Text deleted. This was an alternate Nic for a previously banned user and the post itself also did not conform to forum rules.
-Preceptor

 

[fretburner]

far inferior in terms of close in air combat maneuverability tho which places it ultimately at a disadvantage when compared like to like and as a platform its at the latter end of its development rather than the beginning....that goes for the f16 however......

Following your argument, it would be like saying that an F-16C would always beat an F-15C because the F-16 is superior in maneuverability. I don't think this is the case.

i suppose it depends on your requirements but if you are looking at a long term fighter bomber type then its hard not to view the sh as a very capable stopgap rather than a long term and ultimately competitive platform which canl continue to be properly supported and upgraded...unlike the f35,typhoon and rafale which are genuinely newer designs.....not upgrades of older aircraft.

They may be newer designs but the improvements are not a generation ahead. How much of a difference can you make to the EF and Rafale's airframes and systems for it to be a leap ahead of the SH? You can't just put some RAM coating and thrust vectoring engines on those right? And by the time those fighters have their own operation AESA radars and ground attack whatever, I'm pretty sure the SH would have upgraded in those areas as well? If I remember it correctly, the SH has a modular design and still had "empty" spaces to put new systems in.

 

[Aussie Digger]

far inferior in terms of close in air combat maneuverability tho which places it ultimately at a disadvantage when compared like to like and as a platform its at the latter end of its development rather than the beginning....that goes for the f16 however......

Actually the Super Hornet is widely acclaimed for it's slow speed handling and maneuvering capabilities (nose authority) and this performance coupled with JHMCS and AIM-9X missiles, makes it a very handy "dogfighting" airframe.

There have been any number of reports which show that the Super Hornet is anything BUT inferior in the "phone box" and even current F-16 pilots have described the Super Hornet as very capable.

With added IRST, an uprated 9G airframe (and appropriate software modifications to allow this), F414 enhanced performance engines on offer for the Indian MMRCA and Boeing offering to undertake a Block III Super Hornet upgrade should further orders be placed by customers, I would suggest that "development" still has rather a long way to go yet and the aeroshell has hardly reached it's growth limits...

In fact, in my opinion you've actually, inadvertently referred to the Super Hornet's strengths. As a carrier aircraft, slow speed handling is it's obvious strength. It's in sheer acceleration/supersonic performance and sustained turning rate areas, that the Super Hornet is acknowledged as a less than stellar performer, which is probably why GE and Boeing have come up with an engine upgrade that offers an additional 4400lbs of thrust, per engine along with improved fuel economy AND engine reliability...

i suppose it depends on your requirements but if you are looking at a long term fighter bomber type then its hard not to view the sh as a very capable stopgap rather than a long term and ultimately competitive platform which canl continue to be properly supported and upgraded...unlike the f35,typhoon and rafale which are genuinely newer designs.....not upgrades of older aircraft.

USN is planning on operating it until 2030 at least. Again, Boeing will be more than happy to keep rolling out upgrades to keep it relevant.

It is interesting that Sukhoi and it's evolved SU-27 types (SU-30, SU-22, SU-35 etc) are rarely criticised in such a manner, despite them being less radical evolutions of the same basic airframe, than the Super Hornet...

 

[Kilo 2-3]

far inferior in terms of close in air combat maneuverability tho which places it ultimately at a disadvantage when compared like to like and as a platform its at the latter end of its development rather than the beginning....that goes for the f16 however......

i suppose it depends on your requirements but if you are looking at a long term fighter bomber type then its hard not to view the sh as a very capable stopgap rather than a long term and ultimately competitive platform which canl continue to be properly supported and upgraded...unlike the f35,typhoon and rafale which are genuinely newer designs.....not upgrades of older aircraft.

The be fair, all three (F-35, Rafale, and Typhoon), while as you noted, are new aircraft, they borrow heavily from older legacy designs in their basic structure. The F-35 is a cousin design to the F-22, the Rafale has a clear Mirage heritage, and the Typhoon's basic canard layout has been floating around in Europe for a while, even if, to the best of my knowledge it does not have a clear predecessor in German/UK/Italian military aviation.

As for relative ages, the Super Hornet and the Typhoon actually flew at roughly the same time (the Super Hornet flew slightly less than a year after the Typhoon). Now, the more relevant statistics is probably when their developments started, but the fact the two flew at roughly the same time is barometer with some utility in making rough comparisons between the two.

In fact, based solely on that statistic, the Typhoon and the Super Hornet will theoretically age at the same pace and reach obsolescence at the same point.(Now I don't think that will happen, simply because some Super Hornet customers (Australia for example) have pre-existing plans for UAVs and/or F-35s, and the F/A-18E/F helps bridge that temporary gap very nicely. Plus, Hornets are carrier aircraft, and carrier ops are rough on the airframe and can shorten the lifespan of the jet. Thus, an RAF Typhoon will probably last a few years longer than a heavily-used F/A-18E).

I'd also add that the software and the integrated technology of a fighter are almost as important as the platform/airframe itself. In the highly electronic modern battlespace, the guts of the plane are as important as its skin.

 

[the_big_m_in_ok]

I guess this question is hypothetical... Why do we (the U.S.) HAVE to always develop our own aircraft?

American national security would probably best be served by having it controlled by Americans. Buying foreign aircraft can potentially leave us vulnerable to the harmful effects of weak economies in Europe or Asia. Congress, the President and the Pentagon should know this. Seems obvious to me.

Why (again hypothetically,) couldn't we buy "off the shelf" aircraft such as the Typhoon, which has already proven superior to the teen series fighters? If jobs are a concern, I'm sure we could work out a license build contract (with Boeing or Northrop, etc.) building them here with jobs saved here...

Building or sharing technology with foreign allies also generates jobs in this country. And there commonality of parts between both sides. A win-win situation if I ever saw one.

I think the vast amounts of money being spent on the F35 that probably won't enter service for many years and keeps taking more and more money is a joke. ... I just think there's better solutions out there right now than dumping all that money into a program that's been misrun and starts to take on a "money pit" kind of feel...

Bad politics is what's going on in Congress. They're responsible for the fiasco of the JSF and other programs. A change of heart in Washington might or might not happen, but I do think it's necessary to bring these newest programs into production promptly.

Military topics are a hobby for me, not a job, this thought has just occurred to me, so go easy on me, here...

It is for me, too. I've just been interested in this subject for 40+ yrs. But, we all start somewhere.

 

[golden]

Typhoon is a waste of money for the u.s.

I cannot really see any reason for the U.S. to buy the TYPHOON. If one of the European canard fighters (GRIFFIN, RAFALE and TYPHOON) were to be purchased by the U.S., it would be the RAFALE.

Comparing the two aircraft, the TYPHOON was optimized for air superiority and the RAFALE for ground attack and strike. Right now, no one is dog fighting or shooting down enemy aircraft. Everything is ground attack.
Also, while the NAVY and MARINES could use the RAFALE for their missions which require a carrier capable aircraft, the U.S. would have to pay for a carrier version of the TYPHOON to be developed. There goes any cost advantage over the F-35.

Also, where is the stealth going to come from. The F-35 is a performance replacement for the F-16. It will probably be no better at dog fighting and ground attack than the F-16, but the stealth features could be the key to surviving in a complex surface to air environment. That, the carrier capable and the short field/vertical take-off features are the key improvements over the F-16. The TYPHOON offers nothing in these areas and adds a complex, expensive (remember those twin engines) maintenance requirements.

The reality is that except in the air defense and air dominance roles, the TYPHOON really offers the U.S. very little.

If an F-22 strike derivative or new aircraft is not developed to replace the F-15E STRIKE EAGLE, then the TYPHOON might have a chance as a strike aircraft replacement, but only if it offers a real advantage (like range) over the F-35. Also, the F-15E might be replaced by the SILENT EAGLE or a UAV.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It makes no sense to me whatsoever why US taxpayers would pay the Eurofighter consortium hard earned dollars when Boeing currently has an arguably more capable 4.5th gen fighter in production with, AFAIK, a lower fly away cost. Sorry, someone needs to explain that one to me. More money spent going to foreign powers employing foreign workers for less capability!?!