Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[NRao]

- Self deleted -

[eklavya]

^^^^^
Bringing up Kargil 99 to highlight the sanction the US imposed after Pokhran 98?

Great advocacy for the F-35

[eklavya]

After listening to those vids, I am not sure that one should be thrilled about anything. Things are rather pathetic.

All because the MMRCA process (the most transparent ever) produced a result that you can't digest?

[NRao]

- self deleted -

[eklavya]

^^^^^
On the contrary, the Rafale will be the cutting edge of India's offensive and therefore deterrent capability. It is the one system that will be producing nightmares for PLAAF and PAF commanders. The yahoos that run the PLA and the Pakistan Army know that taking on an IAF equipped with Rafales will lead to certain humiliation. Rafale is the independent insurance policy against having to fight a two-front war.

[NRao]

- self deleted -

[eklavya]

^^^^
Whatever resources India has for the IAF, will be used optimally; which means, for example, that most expensive super-dud F-35 will never enter the equation.

I know that makes some people in the US feel

[NRao]

- self deleted -

[NRao]

OK, enough silliness for the day.

Will delete those posts.

[Manish_Sharma]

Almost a dozen countries which are dependent on the US for their security and do not have an independent foreign policy have ordered the F-35; you would like India to be a member of this illustrious club of nations

India already is.

Outside of a few ships, very unfortunately, what in the Indian Services is India not dependent on another country?

Heck 10+ years ago India had to depend on some other nation to pull her out. Has it changed that much today?

The Rafale will make India further dependent on ..................

It is different to be dependent on countries like France and Russia, compared to poisonous sons of bitches like americans who actively put pressure up Israel to refuse AESA 2052 Radar for LCA Tejas, that too when MMRCA results weren't declared yet it shows how little they care about Bharatvarsh, in fact deep seated hatred they have for us.

While all genorosity for porkis:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1696037

A tape from Sep 10 2001 have come out in which Clinton says "I could have killed bin Laden but I didnt". Reacting to this tape, Andrea Tantaros (Sean Hannity's colleague at Fox News, republican, used to work in DC) said this:

"Presidents have to take such tough decisions, this does not make him bad president. Bill Clinton is the worst president because of his foreign policy: He gave Pakistan nukes..."

http://video.foxnews.com/v/370702550600 ... t-i-didnt/

[NRao]

Fourth vid:

@ 3:50: AM Barbora: Allocation of funds works out to 1.4-1.8% of GDP.
@ 4.00: AM Barbora: PM said that if GDP is this you will get 3%. chidambaram walked up after the meeting and told the Services they will get no more than 2.5%
@ 4:45: AM Barbora: We have no time to re-think. We are already a decade and a half behind
@ 6:30: AM Jimmy Bhatia: We will need 50 squads to deter Pak + China
@ 7:25: Brig G. Kanwal: If a war breaks out 80-90% it will be in the mountains. 60-70% chance it will remain in the mountains. To achieve the military goals, india will need massive air fire power - since ground forces would be limited to maneuver in the mountains. Is the IAF ready for this? {He did not think so}
@12: 30: Nitin Gokhale (NDTV): Priority to build what we need. We do not have funds for 45 squads (perhaps he meant 42)
@ 13:43: Maj Gen A. Mehta: 1999 IAF was not prepared to fight in the mountains
@14:15: Barbora: Agrees. Certain planes could not fire certain ammo beyond a certain altitude, but at Kargil IAF innovated. On Squads: Old sqauds are limited in what they could carry (1 ton as an example). Today the new platforms carry 10 tons. Over time the # of squads sanctioned varied from 39.5 - 42 - 44 (and in 1974 there was a report suggesting 55 squads - if required). But the newer platforms can carry a lot and change their requirements in the air. States that he feel that IAF cannot afford more than 30 squads (??????????)
@16:15; A.Shukla: India will never be ready for a two front war, something the fauj thought about and not the gov
@20:00: Adm A. Prakash: No gov will tell you to prepare for a two front war (!!!!), we (Services) must be prepared for it


Under Other:

* it was not possible to prepare for a two front war without funds - cannot prepare on paper
* forget a two front war, one front with movement of formations by the other is enough for India
* If China starts a war, Pak will certainly join. But perhaps not the other way around
* one area where India has a rather large lead: IN. But it will not matter in a two front war
* problem with a two front war is forces for the mountains vs. plains (cannot switch between them)

[Manish_Sharma]

^^^^
Whatever resources India has for the IAF, will be used optimally; which means, for example, that most expensive super-dud F-35 will never enter the equation.

I know that makes some people in the US feel

Hnair ji had expressed the feelings of americans best when phat panting teens were rejected. Maybe for the first time ever?

Acharayaji, the takleef is this - currently. Khan power is personified by two things amongst World public. Its aircraft carrier sailing ominously over a calm sea and the multi-role fighters that dash off to smote "God's righteous anger". Forget the fact that those 10s of bus-size satellites make it all possible. In fact no lowly tinpot cringes when these satellites silently flit over their heads. But the stock footage of roaring teen fighters and stock footage of a carrier with lots of conveniently parked craft in CNN makes them assume the worst......

So any number of orders for transports is not going to get khan to acknowledge that their wazikashi is blunt. Especially when said by an SDRE warrior with a barely straight face. There is going to be bitterness against India. Bitterness of a kind that would make a paki jihadi or Osamy-mama contemplate apostasy.....

Geez, I cant afford a 2$ meal, but boy am I laughing

http://bit.ly/SMiCU8

[NRao]

It is different to be dependent on countries like France and Russia

Dependency - on anyone - has a cost. It does not matter.

The question is what and where and how one pays that cost.

So, to think India can "depend" on any nation is wrong.

Russians have already complained about India looking West.

France - FM, recently - said, that future cooperation will depend on the Rafale sale.

Up to India though. IF India is happy with a 4th gen set of planes, so be it.


Again, listen to those vids. There is a cultural problem (Jimmy Bhatia mentions one). ldev, in his summary IIRC mentions another (everyone copies, steals, etc. Except India - who has some allergy for it).

My feel: Indians have not made it count. I have seen people complain (there is an entire thread on the strategic side on this) on BR for 15 years. The same noise. Why? Make it count. Hire lobbyists, do whatever it takes to undo it. Take to twitter/facebook/etc. Why make noise here where it makes no difference and where it can make a diff you do nothing?

[ldev]

Again, listen to those vids. There is a cultural problem (Jimmy Bhatia mentions one). ldev, in his summary IIRC mentions another (everyone copies, steals, etc. Except India - who has some allergy for it).

Actually NRao, to be very precise, there is no problem stealing from the country (just look at the bribes, commissions, scandals for every purchase/procurement), there is a big problem stealing for the country.

[Manish_Sharma]

@ 4.00: AM Barbora: PM said that if GDP is this you will get 3%. chidambaram walked up after the meeting and told the Services they will get no more than 2.5%

I hate this chidambaram, if we can't afford 30 squadrons of new jets then how come a bankrupt piddly like porkstan is managing 24 squadrons? Samajh nahin aata!

[Philip]

You know what comes out of the video clips is the staggering realisation that nothing has changed since Kargil,'71,when Sam in a post war interview remarked that he didn't get total support from ACM PCL (not belittling the IAF's great effort during the war) .What was meant was that there was a tri-service attitude that prevailed not a unified command structure which a CDS would bring to the table.Each service is still plowing its lonely furrow.The lack of an overall strategic thinking is very evident. The wars that the services seem engaged in are turf wars.

If the serving chiefs cannot get 3% of the budget,whatever,and that the dispensation of the time is dangerously indifferent to the poss. of a two-front war,then they should use the past chiefs to give interviews enlightening the people and castigating the govt. It doe happen in other democracies where even serving chiefs do on occasion speak out boldly.

[brar_w]

24 squadrons mean absolute nothing without the qualitative element..

[member_20292]

^^^^
Whatever resources India has for the IAF, will be used optimally; which means, for example, that most expensive super-dud F-35 will never enter the equation.

I know that makes some people in the US feel

that makes some indians in india also feel

[member_20317]

^^^^
Whatever resources India has for the IAF, will be used optimally; which means, for example, that most expensive super-dud F-35 will never enter the equation.

I know that makes some people in the US feel

that makes some indians in india also feel

That also makes some Indians in India go

Chalta hai bhai.

[member_20453]

I think reduction in number is the worst thing to do. Either we cancel the deal and go for negotiations with L2 i.e EF or do the opposite, increase immediate order size to 200, get a cost reduction of around 20% and be done with it. Tis a bitter pill, IAF will have cut down other purchases for the next 10 years but the best way forward if the deal goes through. IAF down selected EF & Rafale, we don't know which scored higher during trials so no reason for some here to disqualify the EF, Rafale became L1 due to lower bid which later indeed due to the current sticker seems was somehow a Dassault trick. Rafale is a great bird just like the EF but is pushed by a horrible management. Not a single export order so far clearly shows how terrible it can be to negotiate with Dassault.

If procedure is followed, discussion will be opened up with L2 which can be good too, EF is just as formidable.

[Viv S]

When it mattered, India gave the thumbs down to EF. Get used to it ....

The IAF's technical assessment put both aircraft at par prima facie, though recent comments from retired officers suggest the EF came out on top. The acquisition cost was comparable (within 5% of each other) while the Rafale as a smaller lighter aircraft proved to have a lower lifecycle cost. So it was rightfully designated L1 and I've never disputed that thereafter. Also for the record, I'd not the one who's bringing it up the EF now.

The outcome of the MMRCA selection process still stands. The negotiations take time because the issue at hand is very serious and very complex. Obviously those who lost will make up any number of excuses to cancel the entire programme; but that is because of their narrow commercial interests.

The outcome of the MMRCA is a cost that's overshot the budget by three times in rupee terms and at least 80% in dollar values, a delivery time-frame that's at least 5 years behind date, against an increasingly high-end IADS networked with airborne force multipliers, by an aviation industry that has no less than four stealth fighters in testing.

The world's most expensive super-dud F35 is not under consideration by India, and never will be, so kindly take it to another thread.

No one's suggested that the MMRCA be replaced by the F-35. It is however still an ideal benchmark to assess the value for money offered by the Rafale, and the latter comes off poorly at that.

How DoD's $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force

Don't you end your research at CNBC. That $1.5 trillion figure is about two years out of date. The latest estimate is $857 billion for 2,443 aircraft, which puts the life-cycle cost at $350 million. For the CTOL F-35A that'll be closer to $300 million per unit spent over 40 years. Which is maybe... 50% more than Rafale, possibly less.

Almost a dozen countries which are dependent on the US for their security and do not have an independent foreign policy have ordered the F-35; you would like India to be a member of this illustrious club of nations.

Most of them operate European equipment as well and they all had the option of buying advanced variants of in-service aircraft from the Boeing stables, offering improved performance, logistical commonality and lower costs. Yet despite delays in the decision, each of them settled for the F-35 as its costs began to fall across the board.

[Manish_Sharma]

When it mattered, India gave the thumbs down to EF. Get used to it ....

The IAF's technical assessment put both aircraft at par prima facie, though recent comments from retired officers suggest the EF came out on top.

Not demanding that you must, but would be nice for education if you will provide a couple of links to these comments.

The acquisition cost was comparable (within 5% of each other) while the Rafale as a smaller lighter aircraft proved to have a lower lifecycle cost. So it was rightfully designated L1 and I've never disputed that thereafter. Also for the record, I'd not the one who's bringing it up the EF now.

* MiG-29 is cheap, but its maintenance is terrible. He says that the West German AF Chief told him that the German AF sold their MiG-29 for some token money (1 Euro he says). The German Chief told him "you are rich"!!

Whats quite ironic is that the Eurofighter Typhoon's operating costa reportedly exceed $100,000 per hour(of course the methodology to calculate would matter, but still). I think one of the panelists mentioned that they get only about 50 hours flying time per year, they spend more time in the simulator.

What is included in this per hour operating cost?

1.) Petrol
2.) Mobile oil
3.) Oxygen Tank

What else? Per hour salary of those preparing the a/c?

Or do they also calculate how much used up parts of a/c become, like a tyre that costs 1000$ and has a life of 400 hours how much of that is used up during this one hour sortie?

[Viv S]

The IAF's technical assessment put both aircraft at par prima facie, though recent comments from retired officers suggest the EF came out on top.

Not demanding that you must, but would be nice for education if you will provide a couple of links to these comments.

The acquisition cost was within 5% of the Rafale. Refer. The life-cycle cost was found to be about $5 million (Rs 25 crore at the time) cheaper. Which is slightly less than what sources like Jane's suggest but I'm not disputing it. In fact even at the time, I said that the choice is really between the Rafale's lower flight cost vs EF's better offsets proposal. Of course had someone at the time, mentioned that the economy would tank, the cost would escalate to $20 billion and be signed no earlier than 2015 with deliveries starting near decade end, well nothing could have been a more horrific idea (even if the EF had been selected instead). And yet, here we are (through no fault of mine, I must emphasize ).

Whats quite ironic is that the Eurofighter Typhoon's operating costa reportedly exceed $100,000 per hour(of course the methodology to calculate would matter, but still). I think one of the panelists mentioned that they get only about 50 hours flying time per year, they spend more time in the simulator.

I don't know what all costs are included in that figure, it certainly diverges hugely from most other published sources. Probably includes the aircraft's acquisition, base operation costs, personnel costs, basically everything remotely associated with the aircraft un-adjusted for inflation. Like the Rafale's 44% operational availability claim, its probably a figure taken out of context. As far as flying hours are concerned, the RAF EFs fly the NATO standard 180 hours (ref).

[Philip]

It looks like there is going to be no alternative to the MOD's KJ (knee jerk) strategy,envisioned by jerks. What was it that someone said,that whenever the IAF came with aircraft requirements the answer was to buy another MKI sqd.! Frankly,if the MIG-29K is good enough for the IN's needs ,at $32M a pop,it is a steal.Even at $40M for a better version,with an AESA radar,4 sqds. of the bird to keep company with the 60+ being upgraded would be able to take care of anything in the PAF's arsenal,leaving the bulk of the MKIs to deal with China.2-3 sqds. of Rafales could be bought for the moment,with the LCAs bought as much as HAL can deliver.Both quantity and quality are required.This may be the best interim solution.I can't see the IAF wanting the Rafale dumped entirely and depending upon HAL to deliver the LCA given the uneasiness and discord between the two. The GOI/MOD must tell the IAF that they have only "X" amt. of moolah for acquisitions,and it should spread it around so that the sqd. strength and all round capability can be maintained.

[brar_w]

I don't know what all costs are included in that figure, it certainly diverges hugely from most other published sources. Probably includes the aircraft's acquisition, base operation costs, personnel costs, basically everything remotely associated with the aircraft un-adjusted for inflation. Like the Rafale's 44% operational availability claim, its probably a figure taken out of context. As far as flying hours are concerned, the RAF EFs fly the NATO standard 180 hours (ref).

Around the world there are different parameters that are used to calculate operating costs even within the same countries. The Accounting section might calculate the entire cost to operate a fleet of aircraft including the cost of every possible thing (Salary, base modernization per annum, foreign exercises, spares, tooling upgrades etc etc) and then choose to divide that over the number of hours flown by the fleet. A lot of the times this sort of accounting is inflated if the air-force concerned chooses to fly less according to its readiness needs or the doctrinal requirement to maintain a set capability for X amount of years into the future. Fly more per annum and one would have to extend the service line through an expensive SLEP or accelerate plans to field a replacement. Sunk operating costs do not change whether you fly 1 hour or 300 hours. This sort of accounting practice is OK for auditors and folks that have to allocate funds but it is not indicative of the operating cost of the aircraft or military hardware. Different air-forces around the world have different missions and needs. Take the UK for example. Their entire air wing is created to be able to forward deploy in an expeditionary environment and fight alongside the french, americans and other NATO partners. Every fighter acquired by these expeditionary air forces has to have a logistical train that is kitted out for heavy expeditionary fighting. The US benchmark its fighter deployments (Baked into project KPP's) through airlift loads per squadron or AEF (Air Expeditionary force). Take Saudi Arabis for example, their overall setup costs per year to operate the typhoon for primarily a self defense border protection role would be totally different. This sort of practice has its utility when strategic decisions are being made on whether to have a fighter fleet (such as that just recently made by the Swiss on not going in for the Gripen E) or what size of the fleet to procure.

The second form that is more common and the baseline standard that organizations use to compare operating cost is the basic operating cost to operate a particular military aircraft. Things like fuel, down time costs, maintenance between flying, spare utilizations, ancillary support costs etc are included. Weapons costs or live fire drills etc are usually not included (unless its the CAPE and the F-35 costs which includes 55 years of training missile rounds). The overwhelming contributor to this cost is the fuel burn. Simply put a single engine Gripen, LCA, M2K or F-16 will always burn less fuel per hour of flying compared to a Beagle or Super Flanker.

The third model is used mostly for strategic purposes and to war-game the mission affectiveness of a particular capability vs the cost to bring that capability to war. Lets assume there is vanilla Typhoon/Rafale/Flanker/Raptor/LII that has most of the expensive electronics and systems stripped out of it. The strategic model compares the cost to get this vanilla fighter out and see how economically it performs a particular mission set when everything is factored in that is required to conduct the mission. Support costs - for example using a 4th generation fighter over a modern IAD may require support assets, larger tanking resources, greater mission planning etc etc where as a PAKFA or a F22/F35 may be able to do these missions alone without such support. The strategic model measures the overall mission cost to see whether a particular capability is worth having or not.

Out of all this the second model is more relevant when comparing a particular multi-role fighter with another, while the third model is used primarily to chart out future capability and enter and create basic requirements for a capability set 10, 20 or 30 years into the future. The First model is only good for accountants and GAO, CAG like organizations and media, bloggers that love to sensationalize things without putting them in proper perspective.

[NRao]

if the MIG-29K is good enough for the IN's needs

KJ logic.

If at all I have found out anything new:

* IAF will find it very difficult to fight in the mountains
* IAF is inadequately equipped to prosecute a quick war

The more I think of it the Dud is a *far* better investment.

A good part of the reasoning (if there can be one in considering a Dud) is that the Dud is network centric - a) reducing the pilot load to a very great extent and b) actually allowing others to prosecute a war!! It is more NC than I ever thought a plane could be.

[NRao]

I *think* the IAF *needs* a good mix (50-50) of F-35A and F-35B. They seem to have "deep" and "plains" covered, but, even there no harm investing in improvements.

The IN can follow with a mix of F-35B and F-35C (with perhaps the EMALS + E-2 + whatever)

[Rien]

<snip>
I don't know what all costs are included in that figure, it certainly diverges hugely from most other published sources. Probably includes the aircraft's acquisition, base operation costs, personnel costs, basically everything remotely associated with the aircraft un-adjusted for inflation. Like the Rafale's 44% operational availability claim, its probably a figure taken out of context. As far as flying hours are concerned, the RAF EFs fly the NATO standard 180 hours (ref).

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operati ... ters-janes

Interesting article that places costs in perspective. The Gripen's costs can be taken as being representative of Tejas.
Same size, same engine and same role. Irritating feature of Indics, I can never find a cost figure for any Indian weapon system.

The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”

The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

“At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”

The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane’s estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.

The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.

The obese and extra large F-35 is certainly in a different class, but that class isn't stealth but cost. Every single feature just raises the world's most expensive fighter to stratospheric levels. The EF Typhoon looks like an absolute bargain at 18 000 when compared to the F-35, BUT not so good if you compare it to the Tejas(Gripen) cost of only 4 700. There is no mission that wouldn't be better done by the Tejas. It simply doesn't make sense to take your kids to school in a Mercedes when the Tata nano car can do the job. The USN projections of cost defy reality. The F-35 program has only gone up in cost, and been delayed since the start. But even given these rose coloured estimates, the cost isn't bearable.

[brar_w]

The USN projections of cost defy reality. The F-35 program has only gone up in cost, and been delayed since the start. But even given these rose coloured estimates, the cost isn't bearable

Not that this has any place in this thread, but to point out that the F-35's cost since those projections as adjudged by the CAPE (O&S costs) have been adjusted (reduced) by around 30% (A bit more) and are now around 10% greater than a block 50/52 F-16 as per the CAPE's assessment. The original O&S costs were contested by each and every service for almost 12 months before the adjustments were made by the accountants. It was based on assumptions that were totally ignorant of how each service uses its fighters or intends on using the F-35. Want to discuss more, we can..Come over to the JSF/Turkey thread and we can carry on.

Other cost parameters have consistently fallen since the F-35 went into serial production with LRIP 1. The cost reduction from LRIP 1 to LRIP5 was a little more than 50% (All figures verifiable by official US Government SAR documents that are audited before they are published), O&S costs have fallen from around 1.5 trillion to 1.3 trillion to around 1.04 trillion. The services still claim that even the current estimate does not give due regard to the doctrinal shift in operations and sustainment of the fifth generation fleet. Another point worth noting is that the current O&S estimates are based on fleets that are concurrency represented but not concurrency modified aircraft i.e. they have concurrency changed identified, but not yet implemented. The later LRIP blocks that have some (greater than 50%) concurrency changes baked into the design perform much better in this regard. With 12-18 months to go before a stable ALIS is rolled out, there is absolutely no way any human can calculate the O&S cost with any degree of certainty without inflating the number. The JANES estimates are based on estimates that are quite dated given the fleet hours conducted with current software at that point in time. Lately the numbers as done by the bean counters have been judged to be around 10% more than the F-16 they are replacing. Even if this is true for the rest of the program life (which the trend claims not to be, and the fact that all three services contest this) the increased capability more than justifies a 10% bump in added O&S cost There are many reasons the costs of operational over 55 years have fallen, we can discuss them over at the appropriate thread if required.

[NRao]

the original Jane's study, with better graphics than the StratPost article ................ from 2012 .............................:

2012 :: FAST JET OPERATING COSTS COST PER FLIGHT HOUR STUDY OF SELECTED AIRCRAFT

The drive to make the F-35 as affordable is already on (see Turkey thread) and given its capability the RoI should be *far* better.

[merlin]

I *think* the IAF *needs* a good mix (50-50) of F-35A and F-35B. They seem to have "deep" and "plains" covered, but, even there no harm investing in improvements.

The IN can follow with a mix of F-35B and F-35C (with perhaps the EMALS + E-2 + whatever)

Good wet dreams.

[member_28476]

EF less capable according to whom? Certainly not the IAF.

Lets say Armasuisse?

[brar_w]

The EF is a bird better not touched simply based on integration of capability. The French are the sole drivers of the Rafale growth and so far they have kept very up to date. The Typhoon on the other hand has just one user that is interested in doing anything with that platform and even that user is short on cash most of the time. It would be some years before it becomes a legitimate Multi-role fighter. The rafale on the other hand is being driven by requirements from one customer rather than King Arthur's round table of customers that have to agree on a price and a date.

[member_28476]

Few things...


Jane's cited report is truncated. I am sorry i can't link the full one, but anyone can ask for it to Jane's or Saab (Saab is th owner).
Well Nrao posted it... I guess it is public now.

F-35 costs are -at best - disputable. And disputed.

We have now official CPH for Rafale, and they include salaries etc. Make your homework.

Now, ViVs, i don't like to go down to that level in a debate, but did you see Rafale/Typhoon encounters results? A butchery.

[Viv S]

The EF is a bird better not touched simply based on integration of capability. The French are the sole drivers of the Rafale growth and so far they have kept very up to date. The Typhoon on the other hand has just one user that is interested in doing anything with that platform and even that user is short on cash most of the time.

The UK and (a usually flush) Saudi Arabia. Though with economic conditions improving the rest are getting on board as well.

The EF T3 are to replace the retiring Tornados starting 2016.

It would be some years before it becomes a legitimate Multi-role fighter. The rafale on the other hand is being driven by requirements from one customer rather than King Arthur's round table of customers that have to agree on a price and a date.

1. Full Litening III integration & Paveway IV certification delivered with the P1E upgrade last year. Offers full multi-role capability.
2. The production standard Captor E AESA will have its first flight before the end of the year.
3. The Striker HMS is already operational (with the Striker II helmet in testing).
4. BAE & Selex are under UK MoD contracts (independent of NETMA) to reportedly further the AESA's EW functionality.
5. First phase of Storm Shadow integration ended yesterday. Captive testing completed. First test firing will be next year and the missile will be certified by early 2016. Same for the Taurus KEPD 350.
6. Meteor integration contract was signed last year. First live firing to take place in a few months.
7. Common Brimstone-SPEAR 3 launcher to be operational by 2018. Preliminary contract awarded last month.


- Shares all the downsides of the Rafale (no VLO capability, nearing end of production cycle) while being somewhat more expensive. Not an option for India anymore despite its still-in-the-running L2 status.

[Viv S]

F-35 costs are -at best - disputable. And disputed.

With a spate of export victories and falling cost estimations by the Pentagon, that dispute is certainly tipping in one direction.

We have now official CPH for Rafale, and they include salaries etc. Make your homework.

No point, unless the same auditors do a study with the same parameters on the F-35/Gripen/EF/Tejas etc.

Now, ViVs, i don't like to go down to that level in a debate, but did you see Rafale/Typhoon encounters results? A butchery.

Discussed on the forum over months mate, if not years.

Lets say Armasuisse?

Which flies the naval F-18 instead of more widely used F-16 or Mirage 2000. And tested an early T2 variant of the EF.

I'd be interested in seeing the result of a full spec EF T3 with Captor E, Striker II, upgraded DASS, and a Rafale F3 with RBE-2AA, Topsight & upgraded SPECTRA, but for the purposes of the thread its a defunct debate right now.

[Rien]

Around the world there are different parameters that are used to calculate operating costs even within the same countries. The Accounting section might calculate the entire cost to operate a fleet of aircraft including the cost of every possible thing (Salary, base modernization per annum, foreign exercises, spares, tooling upgrades etc etc) and then choose to divide that over the number of hours flown by the fleet. A lot of the times this sort of accounting is inflated if the air-force concerned chooses to fly less according to its readiness needs or the doctrinal requirement to maintain a set capability for X amount of years into the future. Fly more per annum and one would have to extend the service line through an expensive SLEP or accelerate plans to field a replacement. Sunk operating costs do not change whether you fly 1 hour or 300 hours. This sort of accounting practice is OK for auditors and folks that have to allocate funds but it is not indicative of the operating cost of the aircraft or military hardware.

<Snip> The First model is only good for accountants and GAO, CAG like organizations and media, bloggers that love to sensationalize things without putting them in proper perspective.

You take a long time to get to the point. The 1st model, which is lifecycle costs, is the standard method used by every reputable organization, private and public across the globe. The other two models are accounting tricks used to hide the actual cost of hardware by the military/contractors. I have to say, just hearing you talk makes me want to do a full audit. That kind of practised lying only comes from people with lots to hide.

You're spreading deliberate misinformation there about crazy and illegal accounting tricks which will get you jail time in any civilized country. Bharat uses Life Cycle costing. So does every other nation.

It's precisely to stop the illlegal accounting tricks Lockheed Martin and other military contractors pull that Life Cycle analysis has become popular. What's the cost of this piece of hardware? The razorblade model is popular among manufacturers, but it is unpopular among buyers.

Internationally, there is only one standard. Only the US runs these bizarre and crazy inventive accounting schemes in a desperate attempt to hide the cost from the public. Enron eat your heart out.

[brar_w]

The other two models are accounting tricks used to hide the actual cost of hardware by the military/contractors.

Absolutely incorrect. There are costs that are associated with maintaining a fleet of fighters. Then there is the cost of operating the fighter. If you do not understand the difference, then its not my fault. The first cost of operations is useful for some decisions but not all. For example a large aspect of that cost would not be different when deciding between an LCA and an Su-30MKI. For that decision one has to focus on costs that are hardware specific. When choosing between two aircrafts, or when requiring a certain capability one looks at one's own budget to operate and sustain a particular capability set (LCA and MKI are essentially a totally different capability set).

I'll try to give an example - A nation X does not operate any fighters, however the political class that decides on that nation's national security wishes to incorporate fighter aircraft in its long term national defense policy. Here the said service will do an in-depth analysis on the overall cost to operate a particular fighter - i.e calculate the burden on the finance ministry to fund a set amount of jets and all the cost that the service needs to dish out to operate a set capability.

Now lets fast forward 2 decades down the road. The Nation operates a Fighter X, but wants to upgrade to a Figther Y. It wants to compare the impact the Fighter Y will have on its budgeting. Here it will look at the O&S costs for the military hardware concerned. Much of the sunk cost is sunk and a lot of that will be repetitive until and unless the nation expects to retire its fighter fleet. When comparing the fighter Y to the fighter Z the nation will look at how much more it has to spend on the military operations with the new hardware. Here the overwhelming share of the cost comes from fuel. The pilots salary has no significant contribution here. The air force is interested in its bill on fuel, how much the aircraft costs to fly per hour, its MTBF for critical components that goes towards the per hour cost of operations. Unless there is some huge generational shift the cost of the sunk elements is fairly consistent.

As a buyer for an air force the air cheif or the MOD may not care much for what a french pilot is paid, what the contractual construction or repair cost is on a french air base, what a external contractor charges for services rendered in France. What he is concerned about is how much the jet, its systems, sub-systems, support equipment costs to operate per fleet hour of flying. Here things that are significant are the fuel burn, the MTBF of critical components, the logistical train that is required to deploy the aircraft, the reliability of its parts (impact on storage footprint) among other things that are operationally relevant. This is the best way to peg 2 weapons system head to head and run a comparison. Otherwise there is absolutely no way. A chinese fighter pilot may get a salary quite different from a french pilot. Most air-forces calculate CPH for their internal consumption based on written/baked in practices that are standard irrespective of the system, yet many times these air forces also calculate hardware operations cost and break things down into different parts to study the impact of each element of the system on the overall cost. When bidding for international competition, many times OEM's will cite official data on these costs that then gets verified by folks at the other end whose job it is to verify such things.

The third model is used for strategic planning by all forward thinking air forces. Its a model developed to chart out future capability requirements and run an analysis on what sort of capability is required at what time and what sort of cost will get one there. Capability is added or removed as per the model. The tactician on the ground conducts a mission in a way his hardware allows it. If 4 tac assets need to go up in the air to complete a mission then their cost absolutely has to be calculated. A 5000$ CPH aircraft in 2050 is useless if its gets shot down or if many are required to overcome a set capability in procession of the threat you are trying to counter. Similarly cost rises in CPH have been absorbed by all 4th generation fighters as they have evolved into their current state. At every step of the way an analysis was conducted that balanced out capability with cost. At the end of the day a vanilla F-16 A destroys the current F-16 on CPH comparisons, yet the strategists and planners planned long ago to bring capability addition to the jet knowing full well that the mission success of the vanilla version of the jet is going to be too low to provide any meaningful utility. Cost creap has taken place all along the way with capability addition. Someone somewhere worked out the analysis when they began developing the capability. Things are calculated at every step of the way by most professional war planners in most air forces around the world that do these sort of things. Its the cost of doing business. Strip out the radar, Spectra, and IRST from the Rafale along with a throttle limit on the engine and you will dramatically increase the Mission availability and lower the CPH of the aircraft. You will also kill its mission effectiveness.

Internationally, there is only one standard. Only the US runs these bizarre and crazy inventive accounting schemes in a desperate attempt to hide the cost from the public. Enron eat your heart out.

The cost vs capability analysis is for the future war planning and is an absolute must if one wishes to develop something that counters the evolving threat. How else do you think the PAKFA , F-22 and F-35 justify the greater need to preserve the signature of the jet, monitor it through the various tools available and follow it (chart it) for the lifetime for the aircraft? Why take this step in pursuing stealth? when this was not a cost burden on the F-15, F-16 or Su-27/Mig-29 families? Why bother in exponentially increasing the SA picture when it costs more to do so? Why not just produce the same capability set as the 4th generation in an attempt to stay at par or better the CPH performance of these aircraft. Complexity that comes from integrated avionics, sensor fusion, multiple sensors with varying degree of maintenance checks and testing and capability that comes from having stealth, keeping your jet monitored so that its lifetime signature is tracked and kept at the optimum/desired levels all adds costs..But these tradeoffs have been made and the designers have made the choice to pursue the added capability even at the expense of an increased cost because you make up for all that in mission effectiveness.

[Rien]

F-35 costs are -at best - disputable. And disputed.

With a spate of export victories and falling cost estimations by the Pentagon, that dispute is certainly tipping in one direction.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... F-Purchase

Orders have been cut and the cost estimates of the Pentagon are not credible. The Pentagon's cost nos are based on orders of over 3500 JSF fighters. These are unattainable numbers.

http://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/201 ... -brochure/

The reality is only 3 148 orders. That's it, and these orders will be subject to cancellations as people become aware of how expensive the JSF actually is.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... zqyay.html

24 billion for 58 fighters. That's over 400 million per plane! 200 million is just for the plane itself, and 200 million to keep them running. Where's the fuel and the weapons? As a comparison, the Su-30 MKI comes in 65 million with everything. You can 6 of those plus 10 million for fuel, Nirbhay, Astra and Brahmos. That's the comparison that has to be made.

And that's being way too generous to the JSF. Neither LM nor the US or Oz governments have ever done upfront honesty on how expensive weapons are.

[Viv S]

With a spate of export victories and falling cost estimations by the Pentagon, that dispute is certainly tipping in one direction.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... F-Purchase

Orders have been cut and the cost estimates of the Pentagon are not credible.

Additional orders placed by non-consortium members - Israel, Japan, South Korea. By decade end, Singapore, Belgium, Spain, Finland and Poland will be on board as well.

The Pentagon's cost nos are based on orders of over 3500 JSF fighters. These are not numbers that are attainable even in fantasy land.

You mentioned a figure of 3,448 aircraft in one of your previous posts but you've yet to post the reference/source I requested. Current estimates put the F-35 production run at about 3,100 aircraft IIRC (2500 US orders plus 600 exports). 3,500 is doable over the long term - lots of F-16s operating today. By FRP in 2019 the production rate will be at 120/yr, which is more than 10 times the Rafale's production rate.

Also worth noting -

Rafale: 320 -> 286 -> 225 -> 180 (?) *an Indian order will be nothing short of a bailout for the program*
Eurofighter: 620 -> 570 *only because of Saudi & Omani orders*
FGFA: 300 -> 214 -> 144

Edit:

http://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/201 ... -brochure/

The reality is only 3 148 orders. That's it, and these orders will be subject to cancellations as people become aware of how expensive the JSF actually is.

Your link does not mention the original 'projected order' of 3448 aircraft anywhere. 3148 is a more than decent production run. All customers are aware of what the aircraft costs to acquire. Current projections don't put the operating cost as being insurmountably high.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... zqyay.html

24 billion for 58 fighters. That's over 400 million per plane! 200 million is just for the plane itself, and 200 million to keep them running. Where's the fuel and the weapons? As a comparison, the Su-30 MKI comes in 65 million with everything. You can 6 of those plus 10 million for fuel, Nirbhay, Astra and Brahmos. That's the comparison that has to be made.

$400 million is the LIFECYCLE cost. It includes fuel and weapons for the next 35 years. The $12 billion acquisition cost too includes not just the aircraft, training and weapons but also base refurbishment costs.

The Rafale's operating cost isn't going to be so much lower either -

Acquisition Cost: $160 million+ ($20bn/126)
Operating Cost: $160 million ($20K x 8000hrs)
Weapons Cost: $40-50 million (Meteor: $4M/unit, MICA: $2.7M/unit, AASM: $250K+)
_________________________

Lifecycle Cost: $360 million+
_________________________

^
Does not include upgrade cost (ref: Mirage upgrade saga).

And that's being way too generous to the JSF. Neither LM nor the US or Oz governments have ever done upfront honesty on how expensive weapons are.

The F-35 is arguably the most transparent military program run anywhere in the world. Its testing schedule, production schedule, exact progress & timelines are all public. As is the contract negotiated with LM (though not P&W), USAF budget, Congress appropriations bills, long lead costs, retrofit costs and so on. The auditing of operating costs is done independently by the CAPE office. Same for the testing & ops evaluation is by the DOT&E office. And all reports are released to the public. And there's the Government Accountability Office (similar to our CAG) that completely independent of the DoD does its own study on cost and development and publishes the results.

There's no definitive number out yet because predicting costs over 55 years is easier said than done.