MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 May 2010 04:50

One problem with the AESA radars that are not yet in operation (ES-05A and Zhuk-AE) and being demonstrated during the MRCA trials is that the IAF will have to go with the MTBF rates that they will state without any operational data being available during the evaluation..and even performance figures that will be appropriately scaled up for the Zhuk-AE since its antenna is not the full-size one..what if it falls short of expectations in its final form ? Who is responsible and what do we do then ?

Its even worse with the Typhoon since even they don't know what AESA they'll eventually get..they were supposed to make a decision a month or so ago but absolutely no news on that front. for the MRCA they'd have at least offered one particular one and my guess is that it’s the radar that the Euro-radar consortium was working on and not the Selex solution that UK is now funding on the side. Reason being that when the original bids were submitted in 2008, the CAESAR had at least been test flown.

We know from past experience that quoted performance and MTBF figures don't necessarily match actual figures and that is a risk with 3 of the MRCA candidates. This is true for both western as well as Russian equipment. Any issue crops up or the prototype unit malfunctions during the evaluation and the OEM will simply state that its because its still not a fully-operational radar and that it won't happen with the final unit..I just hope that they include water-tight clauses that will penalise the OEM for any performance that falls short of the original claims. Not doing so lets them get away scot-free with their equipment not meeting original marketing claims.

sunnyv
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Feb 2010 15:38
Location: INDIA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby sunnyv » 07 May 2010 08:32

Dont know how this is related to MRCA and might appear as Offtopic.
But will help us gaze the price fluctation that can occur during last phases of Deal .

First- US
News pouring out that Pentagon has finally agreed to buy 124 F18E after Boeing gave 10% Discount

Second- Brazil
News is Fighter to be selected by next week , and Jobim would recommend a final choice to Lula.
Prices have been doing rounds since Yesterday on Brazilian defence Blogs and forum
Prices quoted are - $ 5.73 billion for Rafale -which includes technology transfer, the price of jet, and weapons maintenance.
while the price of Boeing, with no technology transfer is U.S. $ 5.40 billion.

All for 36 Jets -calculating brings it to 159mill per piece with weapons and spares for 2030 time.

Readers would remember earlier coated price was from
Dassault- 10 bill after discount of 2 billion . 6.2 for fighters and rest for spares for three decades
Boeing- 7 bill under FMS deal with spares for 2 decades
SAAB - 6.5 bill with 4.2 For jets alone.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 07 May 2010 12:03

shiv wrote:
Brahmananda wrote:the US arms industry keepsing churning out new weapons and JAGM is very advanced version of the brimstone with a trimode seeker and can be used against various target like tanks, bunkers, buildings, boats etc. matter of fact even the simple Aim-9x block 2 a2a IR missile now has A2G ability. question is will India go for platforms like SV or SH that offer such abilties and flexbility of weapons like SDB, JDAM-ER, LJDAM, SLAM-ER (can hit moving land and maritime targets), CBU-105 SFW WCMD, Latest paveways, multitrole side winders etc. Depends on what type of weapons were tested during trails on various platforms.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ssion.html



What are SV, SDB, LJDAM, SLAM-ER, CBU 105, SFW and WCMD?

What ancillary equipment is needed to illuminate/mark/track the targets that these munitions are aimed at in terms of AWACS, UAVs, data sharing or fighter based avionics? I would have thought that the ability of anyone to use PGMs is dependent on the latter list and the less we have the less effective the munition is likely to be.


SV= supr viper
SH= super hornet
SDB= small dia bomb (GPS guided) (can hit moving, hardened and stationary targets) range upto 60 Nm or 100km
JDAM= joint direct attack munition (gps )
JDAM-ER= extended range also 60NM or 100km
LJDAM= laser joint direct attack munition (laser/gps)
SLAM-ER= Subsonic land attack missile (naval, land and moving targets)
JSOW=Joint Standoff Weapon glide bomb with 100km+ range can be deployed against ground as well as naval targets
CBU-105 SFW(WCMD)= sensorn fused cluster munition with wind corrected munition dispenser can kill upto 40 tanks spread over hundreds of acres
Paveway 1/2/3/4: most of them laser guided bombs paveway 4 is both gps and laser guided

gps guided bombs can be deployed using SAR or synthetic aperature radars onboard both SV and SH. Laser guided munitions can be deployed using targeting pods including illumination. however illumination can be provided by laser designators by ground forces as well.
Last edited by Brahmananda on 07 May 2010 17:19, edited 1 time in total.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 07 May 2010 14:02

sunnyv wrote:Dont know how this is related to MRCA and might appear as Offtopic.
But will help us gaze the price fluctation that can occur during last phases of Deal .

First- US
News pouring out that Pentagon has finally agreed to buy 124 F18E after Boeing gave 10% Discount

Second- Brazil
News is Fighter to be selected by next week , and Jobim would recommend a final choice to Lula.
Prices have been doing rounds since Yesterday on Brazilian defence Blogs and forum
Prices quoted are - $ 5.73 billion for Rafale -which includes technology transfer, the price of jet, and weapons maintenance.
while the price of Boeing, with no technology transfer is U.S. $ 5.40 billion.

All for 36 Jets -calculating brings it to 159mill per piece with weapons and spares for 2030 time.

Readers would remember earlier coated price was from
Dassault- 10 bill after discount of 2 billion . 6.2 for fighters and rest for spares for three decades
Boeing- 7 bill under FMS deal with spares for 2 decades
SAAB - 6.5 bill with 4.2 For jets alone.

There's just no way that France will sell their Rafale with full ToT, maintenance etc. for $5.73 billion. The last discounted price, $6.2 billion - just for the planes alone, created quite a stirr in wich french gov. and Dassault had trouble agreeing on who would pay the discount. The price might, just might, be for the planes alone but hardly for the entire deal stretching into 2030. The plane has even been criticized in France for draining the AF budget.

Shatack
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 15 Apr 2010 22:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shatack » 07 May 2010 16:02

Henrik wrote:There's just no way that France will sell their Rafale with full ToT, maintenance etc. for $5.73 billion. The last discounted price, $6.2 billion - just for the planes alone, created quite a stirr in wich french gov. and Dassault had trouble agreeing on who would pay the discount. The price might, just might, be for the planes alone but hardly for the entire deal stretching into 2030. The plane has even been criticized in France for draining the AF budget.


Nope, 36 rafales fly away "alonne" is 2.8 billions, 77 millions per fighter is a good price, france gets them for 60m.. no discount! dreamer

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 07 May 2010 16:46

Shatack wrote:
Henrik wrote:There's just no way that France will sell their Rafale with full ToT, maintenance etc. for $5.73 billion. The last discounted price, $6.2 billion - just for the planes alone, created quite a stirr in wich french gov. and Dassault had trouble agreeing on who would pay the discount. The price might, just might, be for the planes alone but hardly for the entire deal stretching into 2030. The plane has even been criticized in France for draining the AF budget.


Nope, 36 rafales fly away "alonne" is 2.8 billions, 77 millions per fighter is a good price, france gets them for 60m.. no discount! dreamer

I think you're mixing € and $..
In the french Senate budget for year 2009 the "fly-away" cost for one Rafale C is $82.3 million (http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-1 ... tml#toc236).. x 36 = ~$3 billion. That does not include ToT, support and maintenance to 2030. I really don't see France nearly cutting the price by half when there was a lot of discussion about $6.2 billion in France and Brazil, where def. min. Jobim criticized France for not living up to it's promises..

Forgive the Google translation;
The minister, however, emphasizes that the final proposal submitted by the French company does not match what had been stated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"The final proposal does not match the French statement [that would decrease by 10% the price of the game]. In the comparison we conclude that the total price was reduced by only 1.8% and the 10% promised during the negotiations were restricted to only part of the airplane, "said Jobin, who, along with the reports, some suggest a Lula parameters for the negotiations.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/04/07/rela ... -o-brasil/

IF it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it!

Danell
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 Sep 2009 15:14

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Danell » 07 May 2010 18:50

sunnyv wrote:Dont know how this is related to MRCA and might appear as Offtopic.
But will help us gaze the price fluctation that can occur during last phases of Deal .

First- US
News pouring out that Pentagon has finally agreed to buy 124 F18E after Boeing gave 10% Discount

Second- Brazil
News is Fighter to be selected by next week , and Jobim would recommend a final choice to Lula.
Prices have been doing rounds since Yesterday on Brazilian defence Blogs and forum
Prices quoted are - $ 5.73 billion for Rafale -which includes technology transfer, the price of jet, and weapons maintenance.
while the price of Boeing, with no technology transfer is U.S. $ 5.40 billion.

All for 36 Jets -calculating brings it to 159mill per piece with weapons and spares for 2030 time.

Readers would remember earlier coated price was from
Dassault- 10 bill after discount of 2 billion . 6.2 for fighters and rest for spares for three decades
Boeing- 7 bill under FMS deal with spares for 2 decades
SAAB - 6.5 bill with 4.2 For jets alone.


Small correction:
$ 5.73 billion which includes technology transfer, the price of the jet, weapons and maintenance.
"armas e manutenção"
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/05/05/quan ... -os-cacas/

The reduced price was confirmed wednesday by Nelson Jobim (brazilian mindef) :
[...] Jobim also revealed that prices fell "significantly" in the final round of adjustment avalaible . The estimated value could reach about 6 billions, funded until 2029 if using the same model adopted in the purchase of four Scorpene submarines and a nuclear hull

http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje ... 7635,0.php

prabir
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 27 Aug 2008 03:22

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby prabir » 07 May 2010 19:44

Going with US Aircraft / one that is compliant only with GPS has a major disadvantage -

If our war is against US interests, they can disable GPS signals.

We are buying these for our defence and not for training.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 07 May 2010 19:49

why not have gps recievers capable of getting signals from GLONASS and IRNS on US aircraft and weapons, then they wont be able to disable it right? when we can have our own operational datalink on SV, why not have our own gps recivers that rely on regional as well as Russki sattelites.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 07 May 2010 20:05

X-post

Food for Thought: Optimising Defence Spending

it is perhaps time India reviewed its major acquisition plans to bring them in line with the current economic realities. While the latest defence budget has no doubt catered for a sizeable capital component, it may be prudent to reduce costs by switching to more affordable programmes. If, for example, SAAB can offer a ‘cheap’ JAS-39 Gripen to Bulgaria then it can do so to India as well.

Similarly, if second-hand F-16s are going abegging in Europe and if Pakistan can get these at reduced costs because it is a Non-NATO Ally entitled to their purchase under the Excess Defence Article (EDA) scheme from the United States, why should India even consider these as possible candidates in the MMRCA competition. It is also worth noting that Boeing is closing the FA-18 E/F Super Hornet production line by 2014 which means that only an Indian order for 126 fighters would keep it open. In such circumstances, India’s bargaining power should automatically improve and it may become possible to prevail upon the prospective supplier to open manufacturing facilities in India rather that simply insisting on the offset provisions.

It is evident that the costs of modern defence equipment of Western origin are skyrocketing. Unless India can quickly build and expand its defence manufacturing base it cannot hope to meet the future needs of its defence forces even with a sizeable annual increase in the defence budget. This would in turn depend upon the continued steady growth of the Indian economy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 07 May 2010 20:17

Brahmananda wrote:SV= supr viper
SH= super hornet
SDB= small dia bomb (GPS guided) (can hit moving, hardened and stationary targets) range upto 60 Nm or 100km
JDAM= joint direct attack munition (gps )
JDAM-ER= extended range also 60NM or 100km
LJDAM= laser joint direct attack munition (laser/gps)
SLAM-ER= Subsonic land attack missile (naval, land and moving targets)
JSOW=Joint Standoff Weapon glide bomb with 100km+ range can be deployed against ground as well as naval targets
CBU-105 SFW(WCMD)= sensorn fused cluster munition with wind corrected munition dispenser can kill upto 40 tanks spread over hundreds of acres
Paveway 1/2/3/4: most of them laser guided bombs paveway 4 is both gps and laser guided

gps guided bombs can be deployed using SAR or synthetic aperature radars onboard both SV and SH. Laser guided munitions can be deployed using targeting pods including illumination. however illumination can be provided by laser designators by ground forces as well.


Thank you. I have several points to make. I have nothing against these munitions - although I do not bother learning the acronyms These are all good for the US. Whether the y will be good for India is debatable

1) SDB is a specific design for internal carriage on F-35 or F-22 because internal storage space is restricted. There is not need for SDB if that restriction is absent

2) The word "Joint" in JDAM or LJDAM has a specific meaning. I believe it is because they are upgrades to dumb munitions that are jointly used by the US navy and Air Force. These are specific upgrades applied to American built bombs in the US inventory. How much of that we with MRCA get remains to be seen

3) There are many methods to guide PGMs. SAR pods on the mother aircraft is only one of them. If you have a seamlessly networked system where targets are marked or illuminated by any one of a number of monitors - maybe a UAV, or an AWACS or another aircraft or ground forces your PGM has a much greater chance of being used against a wider variety of targets. So getting the munition and the SAR pod alone is good, but not good enough. How much of the former are we going to get with MRCA

So while all these fancy acronyms are undoubtedly great - they are IMO likely to be far faaar more effective for use by the US than some importers like India. At this point in time I am not sure that India is going to find much use for any of these acronyms even if they are the "best in the world" and "state of the art"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 07 May 2010 20:18

Brahmananda wrote:why not have gps recievers capable of getting signals from GLONASS and IRNS on US aircraft and weapons, then they wont be able to disable it right? when we can have our own operational datalink on SV, why not have our own gps recivers that rely on regional as well as Russki sattelites.


Why not have our own satellites?

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 07 May 2010 20:33

Danell wrote:
sunnyv wrote:Dont know how this is related to MRCA and might appear as Offtopic.
But will help us gaze the price fluctation that can occur during last phases of Deal .

First- US
News pouring out that Pentagon has finally agreed to buy 124 F18E after Boeing gave 10% Discount

Second- Brazil
News is Fighter to be selected by next week , and Jobim would recommend a final choice to Lula.
Prices have been doing rounds since Yesterday on Brazilian defence Blogs and forum
Prices quoted are - $ 5.73 billion for Rafale -which includes technology transfer, the price of jet, and weapons maintenance.
while the price of Boeing, with no technology transfer is U.S. $ 5.40 billion.

All for 36 Jets -calculating brings it to 159mill per piece with weapons and spares for 2030 time.

Readers would remember earlier coated price was from
Dassault- 10 bill after discount of 2 billion . 6.2 for fighters and rest for spares for three decades
Boeing- 7 bill under FMS deal with spares for 2 decades
SAAB - 6.5 bill with 4.2 For jets alone.


Small correction:
$ 5.73 billion which includes technology transfer, the price of the jet, weapons and maintenance.
"armas e manutenção"
http://www.aereo.jor.br/2010/05/05/quan ... -os-cacas/

The reduced price was confirmed wednesday by Nelson Jobim (brazilian mindef) :
[...] Jobim also revealed that prices fell "significantly" in the final round of adjustment avalaible . The estimated value could reach about 6 billions, funded until 2029 if using the same model adopted in the purchase of four Scorpene submarines and a nuclear hull

http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje ... 7635,0.php

Like I said, I will admit I'm wrong when it's a done deal, which it isn't. When and if it is a done deal, I'm not sure what the french taxpayers will say. It's just a fact that a heavy, two engined plane all indigenously made can't be cheaper to make or operate than a one engined plane.. it's just physically and economically impossible. Unless of course you sell without any profit.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 May 2010 21:59

sunnyv wrote:Dont know how this is related to MRCA and might appear as Offtopic.
But will help us gaze the price fluctation that can occur during last phases of Deal .

First- US
News pouring out that Pentagon has finally agreed to buy 124 F18E after Boeing gave 10% Discount


It’s not a discount as such. The only way they were going to do that is by going in for a Multi-year Purchase where the USN agrees to buy a large batch over a certain number of years, instead of an Annual agreement where the USN would buy a certain number in one year and then again next year it would re-negotiate for another batch. That way, through a multi-year purchase, Boeing and its suppliers are able to apply cost reduction measures because they have a larger fixed order in hand and it is spread out over some years so that any cost reduction initiatives can take affect by the time they are implemented. There was a good article that someone posted on BRF just a few days back that dealt with this issue.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4359
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 May 2010 22:16

shiv wrote:Why not have our own satellites?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based global navigation satellite system that provides reliable location and time information in all weather and at all times and anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites.
The space segment is composed of 24 to 32 satellites in medium Earth orbit and also includes the boosters required to launch them into orbit.

Are these superexpenisve satellites? Considering we are now rich and spending 26,000 crore for 10 aircrafts, then why not spend some money on such a useful capability?

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 07 May 2010 22:26

Thank you. I have several points to make. I have nothing against these munitions - although I do not bother learning the acronyms These are all good for the US. Whether the y will be good for India is debatable

1) SDB is a specific design for internal carriage on F-35 or F-22 because internal storage space is restricted. There is not need for SDB if that restriction is absent

2) The word "Joint" in JDAM or LJDAM has a specific meaning. I believe it is because they are upgrades to dumb munitions that are jointly used by the US navy and Air Force. These are specific upgrades applied to American built bombs in the US inventory. How much of that we with MRCA get remains to be seen

3) There are many methods to guide PGMs. SAR pods on the mother aircraft is only one of them. If you have a seamlessly networked system where targets are marked or illuminated by any one of a number of monitors - maybe a UAV, or an AWACS or another aircraft or ground forces your PGM has a much greater chance of being used against a wider variety of targets. So getting the munition and the SAR pod alone is good, but not good enough. How much of the former are we going to get with MRCA

So while all these fancy acronyms are undoubtedly great - they are IMO likely to be far faaar more effective for use by the US than some importers like India. At this point in time I am not sure that India is going to find much use for any of these acronyms even if they are the "best in the world" and "state of the art"


nice points, firstly SDB is deployed on the SH, F-16 and F-15 as well as f-22 and in the near future f-35. a single SDB launcher can carry upto 4 SDBs allowing aircraft like the f-16/18 to carry more than 16 of them, nice little weapon, lots of targets per sortie, the price per unit is low as well. secondly weapons like JDAM are already operational in many other airforces, weapons like LJDAM have been ordered by Germany and Australia is getting the JDAM-ER. so we should be able to get it if needed. The use and effectiveness of PGMS is well known even during our own Kargil episode.

Offcourse there are other ways to illuminate ground targets and SH still remains the network centric aircraft in the competition with ability to network with UAVS, ground forces, naval forces, awacs etc. now if we have UAVS, ground forces etc that do have laser designators there is no reason why these weapons cant be deployed against a wide variety of targets. By the way the SAR mapping are modes on the apg-79 and apg-80, they dont need pods, they do need pods for laser targeting.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... 79aesa.pdf

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... 055757.pdf

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rtnw ... atflir.pdf

these PGMs provide the EF, SH, SV, even NG with incredible ground pounding ability, imo a must when you fight against both Pak and China the same time, they can mobilise lots of ground targets and we need very good amounts of PGMs. some of the weapons like Paveways are already in our inventory, we are ordering the cbu-105 sfw about 500 of them its the ultimate tank killing bomb, 40 targets with a single bomb, dont think IAF would have ordered them if they didnt find their abilities useful. so i am sure even if we buy NG or EF or Rafale we'll end up having a lot of such weapons on them. besides these weapons are much cheaper than EU counterparts and in many cases have no counterparts.

we are working on the IRNS but with 7 sats i think its too small a network i think we need around 36 in orbit to have complete home made gps system.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 07 May 2010 22:31

Brahmananda wrote:these PGMs provide the EF, SH, SV, even NG with incredible ground pounding ability, imo a must when you fight against both Pak and China the same time, they can mobilise lots of ground targets and we need very good amounts of PGMs. some of the weapons like Paveways are already in our inventory, we are ordering the cbu-105 sfw about 500 of them its the ultimate tank killing bomb, 40 targets with a single bomb, dont think IAF would have ordered them if they didnt find their abilities useful. so i am sure even if we buy NG or EF or Rafale we'll end up having a lot of such weapons on them. besides these weapons are much cheaper than EU counterparts and in many cases have no counterparts.



Aaah! I see now! What amazing ground pounding ability - better than the type that won the Vietnam war! So the IAF has it all planned out then? Just like Discovery and NatGeo channels?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4359
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 May 2010 22:53

Original cost of JDAM = 40,000$
Current cost of JDAM for US = 18,000$
at this rate 1000 of them will be at 1 crore 80 lakhs DOLLARS Only

Cost of SDB by 2011 is thought to be 90,000$ each.

At this rate 1000 of them will cost 9 crore DOLLARS only

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 May 2010 23:05

Keep in mind that export sales are different and that the price of the SHornet mentioned here does not include all the support contracts, maintenance and training of aircrew and technicians, etc. since the USN is a huge SHornet operator already and has all the infrastructure and training in place. Nevertheless, quite a low figure, one must say.

US Navy proceeding with Boeing F/A-18 deal

* Pentagon leaders said satisfied by 10 pct price cut

* Multiyear deal ensures St Louis production through 2013

* Gives Navy options if Lockheed's F-35 delayed further

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy plans to proceed with a multiyear deal to buy 124 Boeing Co F/A-18 fighter jets after securing a 10 percent price cut that satisfied top Pentagon leaders, sources familiar with the decision said on Thursday.

The Navy is due to send documents to Congress in the coming days explaining the multiyear agreement, which is expected to cost about $5.3 billion in total, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

That amounts to a per-plane price in the low $40 million range for each fighter, excluding government furnished equipment, said one source. Including that equipment, the price per plane will be about $50 million, well below the $57 million price listed on a Navy website about the twin-engine fighter.


Boeing and its backers in Congress have been pushing for another multiyear contract because it gives the company a more stable funding source and shores up jobs in local economies.

This agreement would secure the St. Louis production line of the fighter -- which Boeing is also aggressively marketing overseas -- through fiscal 2013. The U.S. government's fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

The deal also gives the Navy a fallback option if more problems arise with the next-generation F-35 fighter being built by Lockheed Martin Corp to replace older model F/A-18s and other fighter jets.

The Pentagon this year restructured the $300 billion Lockheed program, pushing back by two years the date at which the Navy will be able to start operating the new planes.

"It does keep leverage on Lockheed," said one congressional aide who is closely tracking the Navy's talks with Boeing.

Shares of Boeing, trading at $69.30 just before news of the Pentagon's satisfaction with the deal, briefly rose to $69.85 before giving up those gains.

DEAL TO COVER FOUR YEARS, OPTION FOR FIFTH

Officials at the Navy and Boeing declined to comment on the Pentagon's decision to proceed with the multiyear agreement.

Boeing has said its latest proposal would result in 10 percent cost savings from the previous multiyear deal. It also vowed to continue delivering both the fighter and electronic attack models of the F/A-18 to the Navy on time and on budget.

Boeing spokesman Philip Carder said the company would continue to provide information to the Navy and Pentagon as it weighed a multiyear contract.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was disappointed with Boeing's initial offer, telling lawmakers it fell short of the 10 percent savings needed to justify a multiyear agreement.

But Boeing later increased the cost savings in its offer, paving the way for a deal with the Navy, the sources said.


The agreement will run for four years -- from fiscal 2010 through 2013 -- but includes an option for a fifth year, according to the sources following the discussions.

It will also allow some variation in the number of jets to be bought each year to give the Navy more budgeting flexibility, but firmly caps the total number at 124.

The Navy said on Monday it had asked Congress for more time to work out a multiyear agreement with Boeing, saying that it was still working through issues with top Pentagon leaders.

Defense companies like multiyear contracts because they provide a more stable basis for mapping out company investments and earnings in future years. A four- or five-year deal allows companies to buy materials in bulk and invest more heavily in facilities, allowing them to pass savings on to the Pentagon.

From the Pentagon's viewpoint, such fixed-price deals make sense because they can insulate the government against cost overruns, as long as the contracts are structured properly.

But one former defense official said multiyear agreements sometimes include too many clauses that allow companies to pass unexpected costs -- such as spikes in commodity prices or higher labor costs -- back to the government. An earlier F/A-18 multiyear deal delivered actual cost savings far below the 10 percent rate that was promised, said the official.


Defense analyst Loren Thompson said the multiyear deal posed a possible threat to the aircraft-carrier variant of Lockheed's F-35 fighter, because it is due to be produced in smaller numbers than the Air Force and Marine Corps variants.

"The F/A-18 is potentially a threat to the carrier version of the F-35 because it's a potential alternative," he said.


The last bolded part is something that we in India have to be careful about- price escalations mid-way through the contract due to clauses that OEM's slip into the contract.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 07 May 2010 23:12

Kartik wrote:Keep in mind that export sales are different and that the price of the SHornet mentioned here does not include all the support contracts, maintenance and training of aircrew and technicians, etc. since the USN is a huge SHornet operator already and has all the infrastructure and training in place. Nevertheless, quite a low figure, one must say.


Is it a co-incidence that India too is looking to buy 124 MRCA aircraft? Or is it that the squadron strengths of USN and IAF are similar?

If this is the flyaway cost of each aircraft, then there is a very good chance that the IAF budget of $10-11 billion can get it 124 SHs along with spares & maintenance. As Boeing already has additional orders, the 124 more orders from IAF can potentially lower the per unit cost too. So boeing's offer to IAF could be around the same price range. There is no way that Rafale or EF can beat this price.

Disclaimer: I am opposed to F/A-18 & F-16 for political reasons only irrespective of its technical merits :D .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 May 2010 00:14

I thought I had heard this, but seeing this for the first time in print:

Food for Thought: Optimising Defence Spending

The US Air Force is now looking for a multi-year contract to buy the Boeing FA-18 E/F Super Hornet to bridge the fighter gap

rahul_h
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 31 Aug 2009 13:26

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rahul_h » 08 May 2010 00:44

Do we really need MRCA??

SU-30MKI = 280 (already ordered) + 70 MKI or SU-35 more can be ordered or to keep running HAL MKI production line by 2020

LCA = 40 (already ordered) MK2 100 potential order & 49 on option + order can be easily taken to 200 by 2020

MIG29 = 70 upgraded to 4.5 generation level by 2013

MIRAGE 2000 = 50 upgraded to version 2000-9 level highest in its class by 2013

( Also dont forget about the 45 MIG-29k of the 2 fierce Battle groups of Navy....)

On the other hand 126 MRCA contract will be signed in 2012, deliveries starting in 2014 and will last till 2024..... knowing very well the fact that PAKFA will be ready for induction in IAF by 2018..........mass production by 2020 approx......

SO, by this...
350 MKI + 200 LCA + 120 MIG29&MIRAGE = 670 Total

Total squadrons = 38 squadrons (16 for MKI and 20 for others as stated by IAF as MKI is a heavy fighter & dont have trainers)
Sanctioned squadron strength = 39.5 squadrons (We will fall short of just 1.5 squadrons but that can be easily sort out...)

We can use 12 Billion $ in LCA/AMCA/UCAV Technology and Kaveri/Cryogenic Rocket Technology and AESA/STEALTH/MISSILES, common guys we have a lot of Important Indigenous work to do which will benefit us in long run we cant afford to spend such a huge amount on outdated 20 year old technology............. 12 Billion $$$ can do miracles in our own country our stealth AMCA and hope modern Stealth UCAV will be ready by 2020 if that money is utilized in these projects... :) :eek: :)

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 08 May 2010 01:05

Super-Er Hornets?

Boeing and its teammates are getting bolder in talking about improvements to the Super Hornet and Growler - a development which coincides with debate over the cost and schedule of the Joint Strike Fighter.

At this week's Navy League show in Washington DC, Boeing unveiled an early concept mock-up of a big-screen cockpit for the Super Hornet, aimed at export customers. It looks rather like the JSF cockpit, except that Boeing plans to use one-piece screens rather than two fused panels. Also, rather than eliminating the head-up display completely, Boeing would fit the front cockpit with a new, smaller HUD, with an optical system that would not interfere with the big screen.

General Electric, announcing the delivery of the 1000th F414 engine for the Super Hornet/Growler program, reaffirmed this week that it's working on two improved versions of the engine: the enhanced durability engine (EDE), with a new core and lower fuel consumption, and the enhanced performance engine (EPE), which adds a new fan for a 20 per cent thrust boost and "is targeted for potential international customers."

Boeing is also teamed with ITT Defense on the Navy's Next Generation Jammer program. In an interview at Navy League, representatives of the Boeing/ITT team made it clear that thy are focused on delivering improvements to the Growler - and that approaches which push NGJ towards early integration with the F-35 are, in their view, a much higher risk.

Another issue concerns the Hornet's armament. Although Boeing showed a very generic mockup of the future Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) at Navy League, it may not represent the next step beyond the new Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM for the fighter. Boeing has made some quiet approaches to MBDA concerning integration of the ramjet-powered Meteor AAM on the F/A-18E/F - again, with international customers in mind. Meteor is expected to offer better kinematic performance than even the AIM-120D (which is believed to use the same motor as the current C7) and the D is a long way from being exportable.

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 08 May 2010 04:06

Aaah! I see now! What amazing ground pounding ability - better than the type that won the Vietnam war! So the IAF has it all planned out then? Just like Discovery and NatGeo channels?


Vietnam didnt use any pgms whole different ball game now, anyways why dont you suggest some nice weapons that can go along with any of the MRCA. since you seem to be an expert in modern warfare. then you would consider our own testing of laser guided bombs a waste considering no need for air to ground ability coz the enemy is gonna use donkeys for transport and fire breathing dragons to attack us. or would you rather use trusty Russian missiles which have no gurantee of working when needed. r u Shiv aroor btw?

Yes the prices for US made PGMs are lower compared to EU alternatives, we could go for Israeli weapons but not really as useful in terms of roles or targets they can be used against. the prices can be even lower considerng if we order large numbers of pgms we'll end up making many of them in India. Any deal worth over 65 million will need 30% in offsets nice little way of get local work.

Nice to here the SH is getting a nice facelift, Meteor integration good news considering Boeing was one of Meteor programme partners chosen to provide aircraft integration and manufacturing expertise.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 08 May 2010 04:20

putnanja wrote:Is it a co-incidence that India too is looking to buy 124 MRCA aircraft? Or is it that the squadron strengths of USN and IAF are similar?


pure coincidence. The number is based on the expected shortfall. They just found that its too expensive to invest in a SLEP for their legacy Hornets ($26 million per fighter) as compared to a large purchase of brand new SHornets. They weren't sure how many of the legacy Hornets could even get a SLEP and whether or not they would last the 10,000 hours that the SLEP was intended to make them last for.

If this is the flyaway cost of each aircraft, then there is a very good chance that the IAF budget of $10-11 billion can get it 124 SHs along with spares & maintenance. As Boeing already has additional orders, the 124 more orders from IAF can potentially lower the per unit cost too. So boeing's offer to IAF could be around the same price range. There is no way that Rafale or EF can beat this price.


I'm not so sure as yet..the Brazil deal had Boeing giving a figure of nearly $5.6 billion including 36 SHornets, equipment, training, manuals and a few weapons.
Disclaimer: I am opposed to F/A-18 & F-16 for political reasons only irrespective of its technical merits :D .


Most people are opposing them on that basis only. Technically speaking, both the F-16IN and the F/A-18 E/F are fine fighters.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 08 May 2010 06:12

Germany pushes for EF! reiterates TOT as a priority.. & more importantly, playing all the right political cards (hails India's role in - Afghanistan, initiating resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue and counter terrorism)

Speaking on the future scope of defense cooperation between the two countries, Ambassador Matussek said that Germany can offer best multi role aircrafts and is ready to forgo End User Agreement, which is the pre condition for defense deals imposed by many countries including the United States.

"We have number of projects for instance if you talk about multi role aircraft for the future. We have Eurofighter Typhoon, which is the only aircraft having a history of 20-30 years, it is the best you can get in the market," he said.

The envoy said that Germany just don't want to sell the planes but intends to sell the first batch, develop second and third batch here in partnership and technology transfer to the degree that no other competitor will offer. He also said that technology supplied to India would not be shared with Pakistan and China.


http://news.oneindia.in/2010/05/07/indi ... envoy.html

Would if US ever make such a promise???? I doubt it..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 08 May 2010 06:15

Brahmananda wrote: anyways why don't you suggest some nice weapons


Sirjee - has any aircraft been selected yet?

To my knowledge weapons that get attached to pylons are separate purchases for which separate deals are done. While doing a deal for the purchase of an aircraft the buyer needs to ensure that the plane is able to use the weapons that he has, or decide whether he is going to get an entire new class and suite of weapons along with the aircraft.

If the IAF decides on a US fighter (and the government agrees) and if the IAF decides on a new suite of US designed weapons to go with that fighter (and the US agrees) then the question of arming MRCA with American acronym arises. And I can only imagine the EULA (another American acronym) that might come with each weapons system.

Surely, if PGMs are going to be purchased, we will have to have a competition between American acronyms and acronyms from other countries as well. So a question of what American acronyms will be fitted to an Indian MRCA is, in my view a theoretical discussion of little value other than dreaming. Since you asked, I state my views. Please go ahead and wish for any mix of American weapons, but I would be honestly surprised if any of those American acronyms are going to be fitted on Indian fighters anytime soon.

As long as forumites have their heads firmly fixed on their shoulders and do not sink from hope to despair when IAF does not become USAF. I have no issues. Unfortunately too many people imagine an IAF that is equipped like the USAF. It has never been that way and is unlikely to be that way for the foreseeable future. Note that right here on this forum, in the last 24 hours we have had at least one forum member expressing what appears to be dismay that the best India has does not have basic American equipment that any American system would carry. When this is the way Indians think, it is never clear who is imagining what. The gap between Indian reality and American reality is huge and the gap between Indian realty and dreams is as big.

I come down hard on dreams because Indian scientists and engineers have promised dreams and not delivered. Politicians have promised dreams and not acted. Weapons exporting countries have sold dreams and again not delivered. We have to be wary of dreaming. Defence is too serious an issue for anything other than hard nosed reality.

Just my view.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 08 May 2010 06:30

Boeing offer would get mouth watering if they offer us this beast in the future.. The F/A-XX :twisted:

Boeing displays concepts for F/A-18E/F replacement
(X-post from International aerospace discussion)

Image

Boeing has started publicly marketing two concepts for a stealthy, tailless, supercruising strike fighter to replace its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after 2025. Both twin-engine concepts, which feature optionally-piloted cockpits, resemble a modern-day replacement for the ill-fated A-12 Avenger. The carrier-based stealth bomber project was cancelled in 1991 amid cost overruns and technical problems.

But the provisionally 9g-rated airframes also reflect the air-to-air performance once provided by the Grumman F-14, which the Super Hornet finally replaced in 2006, says Dave Thieman, a programme development official in Boeing's advanced global strike systems division. Talk of replacing the F/A-18E/F, which entered service from 1999, may seem premature, but the earliest stages of the navy's acquisition process have already started, Thieman says. "They're going to need [replacement] vehicles beyond 2025," he says.


Boeing officials have focused on the navy's thinking for a Super Hornet replacement that remains at least 15 years away. The company understands that its potential customer wants a replacement with more engine power to supercruise, with the low observable aircraft to carry internal weapons, distributed sensors and have extreme agility. "It's a [Lockheed] F-22 on the carrier," Thieman says.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force has launched an early study called a capabilities based analysis for an F-22 replacement. Like the Super Hornet, the fighter remains in active production, but the air force expects a replacement will be required after 2025. If funding for a replacement programme can be found, there is likely to be pressure to launch a joint technology demonstration, where the air force and navy would co-operate on a next-generation air dominance fighter. In that situation, the air force may require a bigger airframe than a carrier-based fighter to accomplish its mission, Thieman says. However, the two projects could share common engines, systems and weapons, he believes.


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

On a more serious note, Boeing offer could get more tempting if they propose to offer the full spec version of E/A-18G.. not the the dumbed down 'export' version it seems to be marketing. That would also be a good test of our 'US friends'..

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7415
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 08 May 2010 07:29

^^So what happened to the F-35 will be the last manned fighter for the US claim? :roll:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 May 2010 08:02

shukla wrote:Boeing offer would get mouth watering if they offer us this beast in the future.. The F/A-XX :twisted:

...........................


First of all that looks like the original MCA (from about 10 years ago).

Second IF by 2025 India is not a (decent?) power in this field, well ........................................

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4441
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 08 May 2010 08:20

wow! the MRCA thread just appears to be taken over by fanboys posting all and sundry articles from weapons still under development to artist impressions of future fighters which may or not materialize, and of course using jargons to show how infected they are with brochureitis!!

I hope the admins admins clear up the posts not related to MRCA, or we will have more people jerking off to brochures out here :roll:

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Brahmananda » 08 May 2010 12:25

Sirjee - has any aircraft been selected yet?

To my knowledge weapons that get attached to pylons are separate purchases for which separate deals are done. While doing a deal for the purchase of an aircraft the buyer needs to ensure that the plane is able to use the weapons that he has, or decide whether he is going to get an entire new class and suite of weapons along with the aircraft.

If the IAF decides on a US fighter (and the government agrees) and if the IAF decides on a new suite of US designed weapons to go with that fighter (and the US agrees) then the question of arming MRCA with American acronym arises. And I can only imagine the EULA (another American acronym) that might come with each weapons system.

Surely, if PGMs are going to be purchased, we will have to have a competition between American acronyms and acronyms from other countries as well. So a question of what American acronyms will be fitted to an Indian MRCA is, in my view a theoretical discussion of little value other than dreaming. Since you asked, I state my views. Please go ahead and wish for any mix of American weapons, but I would be honestly surprised if any of those American acronyms are going to be fitted on Indian fighters anytime soon.

As long as forumites have their heads firmly fixed on their shoulders and do not sink from hope to despair when IAF does not become USAF. I have no issues. Unfortunately too many people imagine an IAF that is equipped like the USAF. It has never been that way and is unlikely to be that way for the foreseeable future. Note that right here on this forum, in the last 24 hours we have had at least one forum member expressing what appears to be dismay that the best India has does not have basic American equipment that any American system would carry. When this is the way Indians think, it is never clear who is imagining what. The gap between Indian reality and American reality is huge and the gap between Indian realty and dreams is as big.

I come down hard on dreams because Indian scientists and engineers have promised dreams and not delivered. Politicians have promised dreams and not acted. Weapons exporting countries have sold dreams and again not delivered. We have to be wary of dreaming. Defence is too serious an issue for anything other than hard nosed reality.

Just my view.


the aircraft being selected will also depend on the weapons it can deploy and how relevant those weapons are in today's and future battle field. India is building its own gps guided glide bomb and tests on our own home made LGBs are also done. so we seem to be following a similar path in terms of weapons accuracy. we certainly aren't copy everything US, things like brahmos and Shourya are very good examples of Indian way of thinking. In certain areas US realities are also very different considering we are the only Army to have multirole supersonic cruise missiles and an agressive program to have multirole hypersonic missiles. weapons like CBU-105 SFW are being acquired where a single munition can take out 40 tanks. not to mention we already have Israeli and US made LGBs in good numbers as well. IMO guided bombs are very useful because you can deploy many of them and hit accurately often many targets in a single pass with excellent accuracy. now whether to go for Israeli, US or EU or build our PGMs we will be going for them because of their relevance.

Well regardless of what many say about the EULA or EUMA, no one in the public forum has seen the text, our armed forces and govt. as seen it and mad some changes so, as long as the peeople who use these weapons or platforms are happy, it should be none of our concerns.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Samay » 08 May 2010 20:14

There is a fair chance that this contract is going to EADS ,many things are pointing in its favour.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby RoyG » 08 May 2010 20:26

What kinda things?


Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 08 May 2010 20:47

^^ 'tis my friend is an OLD article dated in Dec of 2009!

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Samay » 08 May 2010 22:02

Craig Alpert wrote:^^ 'tis my friend is an OLD article dated in Dec of 2009!

I dont think its too old to be obsolete, the engine is still the same, and we might select it in the comparative trials..
selecting F-414 will practically end the LCA programme since it will require further modifications and hence more time, before mrca/pakfa arrives

EADS is already providing consultancy services for lca development which LM declined ...
you can imagine amrikis are so reliable ,
also the balance of payment method that GoI is using in foreign purchases indicates, that this time it will be europeans who are awarded
they will easily transfer technology if ej-200 (eurofighter) is selected.

Shatack
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 15 Apr 2010 22:06

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Shatack » 08 May 2010 23:14

Henrik wrote:I think you're mixing € and $..
In the french Senate budget for year 2009 the "fly-away" cost for one Rafale C is $82.3 million (http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-1 ... tml#toc236).. x 36 = ~$3 billion. That does not include ToT, support and maintenance to 2030. I really don't see France nearly cutting the price by half when there was a lot of discussion about $6.2 billion in France and Brazil, where def. min. Jobim criticized France for not living up to it's promises..
IF it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it!


you are totally wrong, you bring global program cost to compare fly away fighter sell price, french gov buy rafale 50m€ and without VAt "as for any other countries" its 41.5m€, 65m$ with VAT , they are selling it to brazil 77m$ without VAT..
fly away prices! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... July06.pdf
as about old jobim quotes, don't worry the french will make money with this deal! :wink:

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby khukri » 08 May 2010 23:57

Shatack wrote:
Henrik wrote:I think you're mixing € and $..
In the french Senate budget for year 2009 the "fly-away" cost for one Rafale C is $82.3 million (http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-1 ... tml#toc236).. x 36 = ~$3 billion. That does not include ToT, support and maintenance to 2030. I really don't see France nearly cutting the price by half when there was a lot of discussion about $6.2 billion in France and Brazil, where def. min. Jobim criticized France for not living up to it's promises..
IF it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it!


you are totally wrong, you bring global program cost to compare fly away fighter sell price, french gov buy rafale 50m€ and without VAt "as for any other countries" its 41.5m€, 65m$ with VAT , they are selling it to brazil 77m$ without VAT..
fly away prices! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... July06.pdf
as about old jobim quotes, don't worry the french will make money with this deal! :wink:


I think you misunderstand the entire concept of VAT. VAT is almost never charged on exports (remember the ability to recover VAT at the airport on all your shopping when leaving a European country?), so the statement that for "other countries" the price is $65m with VAT would appear to be wrong - that would appear to be the domestic price for the country's own air force / navy, although if you have a source that says VAT is charged - I would be surprised but accept I might be wrong.

Henrik
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 10 Apr 2010 15:55
Location: Southern Sweden

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Henrik » 09 May 2010 01:16

Shatack wrote:
Henrik wrote:I think you're mixing € and $..
In the french Senate budget for year 2009 the "fly-away" cost for one Rafale C is $82.3 million (http://www.senat.fr/rap/a08-102-5/a08-1 ... tml#toc236).. x 36 = ~$3 billion. That does not include ToT, support and maintenance to 2030. I really don't see France nearly cutting the price by half when there was a lot of discussion about $6.2 billion in France and Brazil, where def. min. Jobim criticized France for not living up to it's promises..
IF it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it!


you are totally wrong, you bring global program cost to compare fly away fighter sell price, french gov buy rafale 50m€ and without VAt "as for any other countries" its 41.5m€, 65m$ with VAT , they are selling it to brazil 77m$ without VAT..
fly away prices! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... July06.pdf
as about old jobim quotes, don't worry the french will make money with this deal! :wink:

It's still like your're giving away the ToT for free if you only charge the actual cost to manufacture the plane + a small profit. And that's where "program cost" comes into picture, because that's what the French taxpayers payed.. And since we know that the Rafale is freaking expensive to keep it the air, which can't be blamed on bad fuel economy alone, it just doesn't add up. I you want to make a profit that is, and not giving away spare parts for free. No, I believe it if/when it's official. As a comparison I know that the SwAF pays < $30 million / plane for Gripen C in flyaway costs incl. VAT.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests