MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 10 Feb 2011 18:58

SriSri wrote:I'm just jealous no one offered me a flight.. :-(

Doddel · Post by **Doddel** » 10 Feb 2011 19:28

I made a follow up from my one of my last post on unit price and maintenance cost to compare the mmrca contenders.

Unit cost:
Rafale: ~US$84.48 million
EF: ~US$83.16 million
F-16IN: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F: US$58 million
Gripen NG(IN): US$48 million
MiG-35: US$38.5 million

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRC ... g_aircraft

Maintenance cost per flight hour

Rafale: 19 000 USD
EF: 15 000 USD
F-16IN: 5 000 USD
F/A-18E/F: 18 000 USD (have seen figures of ~£85000 but that seems insane)
Gripen NG(IN): 2 500-5000 USD (3000 USD ackording to Swedish Air Force)
MiG-35: 18 000 USD

source: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1697813
source: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=160

I guess that all these figures aren't exact and they can vary a bit. If someone can find better figures please do.

The cost for 5000 hours + Unit price. (Divided by gripens price in brackets)

Rafale: 19 000 * 5000 + ~US$84.48 mil = 180 000 000 (2.86)
EF: 15 000 * 5000 + ~US$83.16 mil = 158 000 000 (2.5)
F-16IN: 5 000 * 5000 + US$50 mil = 75 000 000 (1.2)
F/A-18E/F: 18 000 * 5000 + US$58 mil = 148 000 000 (2.35)
Gripen NG(IN): 3 000 * 5000 + US$48 mil = 63 000 000 (1.0)
MiG-35: 18 000 * 5000 + US$38.5 mil = 128 500 000 (2.04)

For 10 000 hours it will be (Divided by gripens price in brackets) [Divided by Rafale]

Rafale: 274 500 000 USD (3.5) [1.0]
EF: 233 000 000 USD (3.0) [0.85]
F-16IN: 100 000 000 USD (1.3) [0.36]
F/A-18E/F: 238 000 000 USD (3.05) [0.87]
Gripen NG(IN): 78 000 000 USD (1.0) [0.28]
MiG-35: 218 500 000 USD (2.

[0.80]

So the Lifetime cost difference (upgrades and weapons excluded) of all the aircrafts are very big with Rafale the most expensive. Gripen and F-16IN are by far the cheapest. Rafale, EF, F-18, and Mig-35 really have to be top of the line in performance to be worth it.

Gripen will outnumber those aircraft by a factor of ~2.0-2.9 (5000 hours) and ~2.8-3.5 (10 000h) for the same amount of money depending on the expected lifetime. If IAF chooses Gripen they will always have the possibility to order more and thus catch up the smaller payload and weight of the heavier ones. IAF will have the possibility to send 2 or 3 more aircrafts for the same mission. Quantity often beats quality. If IAF thinks that 126 Gripen is enough the can use the extra money to fully develop Tejas or buy more Pak-FA. Or the money can be spent on research or the army.
The exact quality of the airplane is of course also important but that is hard to quantify (and no one knows exactly how good they are) so I leave those factors out. One factor that is measurable is payload and nr of hardpoints.

10 000 hour:
If this is translated to maximum payload for a strike group of the same price (divided by rafales price):

Rafale: 9,500 kg / 1.0 = 9,500 kg (1.00)
EF: 7,500 kg / 0.85 = 8,824 kg (0.93)
F-16IN: 7,800 kg / 0.36 = 21,667 kg (2.28)
F/A-18E/F: 8,050 kg / 0.87 = 9,253 kg (0.97)
Gripen NG(IN): 7,200 kg / 0.28 = 25,714 kg (2.70)
MiG-35: 7,000 kg / 0.80 = 8,750 kg (0.92)

Thus, for the same amount of money Gripen can deliver a lot more payload with F-16 trailing not too far behind. In the same way also the number of hardpoint is increasing and the flexibility in weapon types and tactics. Also for the more expensive planes it will be extra hard to fight wvr and bvr because there will be targets everywhere and just a small amount of missiles. With more aircrafts it isn't nesesary to overload every single one of them with weapons. The same amount of weapons can be divided between 2 or 3 aircrafts to accomplish the same mission as 1 more expensive aircraft, and thus the cheaper will have less degraded agility, range, speed and RCS. To accomplish the same mission with the more expensive types they must be loaded to absolut maximum. More aircrafts also means better flexibility and better resistance to losses. To beat such a big difference in numbers EF, F-18, Mig-35 and Rafale has to be much better than Gripen and F-16. They must outclass ~3 gripens to be worth the price.

cheers
Doddel

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Feb 2011 19:40

once again we head into lalchix zone...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 19:43

more a/c however mean more ground and aircrew...quite costly in that, more parking areas, more housing, more logistics for spare parts, more radars/engines/IRST/LDP/EW to keep in shape constantly...its not a clean cut deal.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 10 Feb 2011 19:47

shukla wrote:AERO INDIA: Uncertainty over MMRCA time-frame
Flightglobal

A Boeing official sparked debate among the competitors at the show by predicting that three twin-engine aircraft will make the shortlist. Lockheed Martin and Saab were both quick to promote the through-life cost benefits of a single-engine design.

Cheeky..

I predict there would be at least one one-engined plane in that shortllist to try and lower the price of the two-engined planes. Does that make sense?

Doddel · Post by **Doddel** » 10 Feb 2011 19:53

Singha wrote:more a/c however mean more ground and aircrew...quite costly in that, more parking areas, more housing, more logistics for spare parts, more radars/engines/IRST/LDP/EW to keep in shape constantly...its not a clean cut deal.

Thats a good point. But I think all these costs are already included in the maintenance cost. At least spare parts/radars/IRST etc. is. I also think that the ground crew maintenence work is included in the cost.

Sure more pilots is needed.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 10 Feb 2011 20:04

Henrik wrote: I predict there would be at least one one-engined plane in that shortllist to try and lower the price of the two-engined planes. Does that make sense?

My money is on atleast one single engined plane and one American in the final shortlist

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 10 Feb 2011 20:22

SriSri wrote:PS: I'm just jealous no one offered me a flight.. :-(

Man, I guess it is never really enough...

Here I am blaming my stars for never having the opportunity to attend an AeroIndia...I have never seen the LCA live, not to mention the LCH, the Saras, the IJTs, the Rustoms, the Rambas....

I tell myself that everything in life is temporary and life itself is temporary... We are all just organisms sticking to a piece of rock spinning around at breathtaking speeds, pretending to have a purpose...

In the meantime, my materialistic instinct wakes up and tells me that someone will post a really high resolution picture of LCA flying in formation, then I remind myself... Don't ask...it is all maya... we will all die anyway!

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 10 Feb 2011 21:12

India to award $11 bn fighter jet deal.

India will pick up by next one month the vendor for its biggest-ever military fighter deal for purchasing 126 Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft at a cost of $11 billion, the contract of which is expected to be finalised by September.

Addressing a press conference here, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said all the problems related to the offsets proposals have been sorted out and if the bid losers "don't put spokes in the wheel," the deal would be finalised in the given timeframe.

"We hope to start the contract negotiations in the next two to four weeks and the deal may be signed by September," he said.

The IAF had submitted its field evaluation trial report on July 30 last year and the Defence Ministry has been going through it to determine the aircraft meeting IAF's requirement.

Six aircraft including Russian MiG-35, American F-16 and F/A-18, Swedish Gripen, European Eurofighter and French Rafale are in the race for the multi-billion dollar contract.

Naik said "unless dissatisfied vendors put spokes", which may involve getting clearances from the Central Vigilance Commission or legal proceedings, the deal would be finalised by September -- in the next fiscal.

The IAF is planning to induct these aircraft to augment its number and replace the Russian-origin MiG series aircraft, which are on their way out of the service.

Complementing the IAF team involved in the evaluation trials, Naik said the process was a "complicated" one as each aircraft had to be tested for 600 different parameters by the IAF.

Under the procurement process, the Defence Ministry negotiates with the company offering the lowest price for the equipment required by respective services.

Asked about the procurement of new cluster bombs from American firm Textron, he said that would be first put on the Jaguar deep penetration fighters by the IAF.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 10 Feb 2011 23:57

Doddel wrote:I made a follow up from my one of my last post on unit price and maintenance cost to compare the mmrca contenders.

Unit cost:
Rafale: ~US$84.48 million
EF: ~US$83.16 million
F-16IN: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F: US$58 million
Gripen NG(IN): US$48 million
MiG-35: US$38.5 million

.......

For 10 000 hours it will be (Divided by gripens price in brackets) [Divided by Rafale]

Rafale: 274 500 000 USD (3.5) [1.0]
EF: 233 000 000 USD (3.0) [0.85]
F-16IN: 100 000 000 USD (1.3) [0.36]
F/A-18E/F: 238 000 000 USD (3.05) [0.87]
Gripen NG(IN): 78 000 000 USD (1.0) [0.28]
MiG-35: 218 500 000 USD (2. [0.80]

Good job doddel.

So, in case IAF didn't went for single engine, EF is the cheapest option

I wish people at mod too consider your criteria.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Feb 2011 00:17

Vipul wrote:India to award $11 bn fighter jet deal.

......Naik said "unless dissatisfied vendors put spokes", which may involve getting clearances from the Central Vigilance Commission or legal proceedings, the deal would be finalised by September -- in the next fiscal.

I thought you were supposed to put spokes in wheels. Perhaps he meant to say "put a spanner in the spoke". I know people say this all the time but it's a bit like saying "things falling in between the cracks" when they mean "between the boards".

Anyway, he's the Chief so he can say it any way he wants.

GaganD · Post by **GaganD** » 11 Feb 2011 02:26

My first post guys. I have been visiting Baharat Rakshak since 2005 and is a big fan of the website. I finally decided to make a post

It seems both Rafale and EF are competing head-to-head to take the contract and we don't know which will emerge as the winner. In terms of capability, I don't know which one suits India's needs more, however, from strategic and political view point, does it make sense for India to partner-up with one country (France for Rafale) or four countries (for EF)? To me it makes sense to partner with one country. This way you're not relying or running after four different partners for parts, spares, technology, etc after the contract is signed.

Even thou I'm leaning towards Rafale, one particular thing that bothers me about Rafale is that Dassault hasn't able to sell a single aircraft outside France. Not sure if it speaks about the capability of the aircraft? Perhaps someone knowledgeable can shed some light into why Dassault hasn't been able to secure a contract?

******

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 11 Feb 2011 03:13

Interesting development regarding Eurofighter's future in India:

Germany Will 'Contribute to an Arms Race,' Charges Opposition

Selling fighter jets to India would violate weapons-export guidelines, say members of the German opposition, who are criticizing a trip by Defense Minister Guttenberg to India this week. New Delhi has dangled a fat contract for a fleet of jets, but critics say Berlin should not export weapons to a crisis zone.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2011 04:30

Those guys never said the same when German nuclear technology was stolen and exported to PAksitan! BTW right after 1965 war these rascals sold F86 Sabres to TSP claiming they were scrap planes. This was done to avoid the US embargo on arms sales to both sides fter 1965 war.

Its a wonder India never made them pay for the mischeif they did and the proliferation to TSP.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 11 Feb 2011 05:12

Saab wants to turn India into a manufacturing base
Livemint

Yours is one of six firms shortlisted by India for the purchase of medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). What do you expect from this year’s Aero India show?

It’s different this year. It has emerged as a larger platform to display our capabilities and also (an opportunity to) look for commercial interactions. Usually, there were only aircraft at such shows but this time we also have subsystems on display. We have, for the first time, brought missile systems, the RBS-170 next generation one. It is an air defence missile system which we have offered to India. We are going to display this primarily for all the three armed forces. In communication systems we are going to display the capabilities of the Carabus which is an anti-foliage radar and head-up display for the helicopters. On the civil aviation side we have brought civil aircraft, Saab 2000 and 340 to the show for the first time.

What kind of offset opportunities will Saab’s deals throw up? (Under the offset policy, defence contractors such as Saab that win deals from India will have to source components or systems worth a certain proportion of the deal from Indian companies.)

The defence procurement policy of 2011 gives us an opportunity to work in dual aerospace domains. We can leverage both civil and military areas as far as offsets are concerned. We are into both spaces and that will help us go a long way in fulfilling our offset contracts. On the MMRCA front, we are offering complete technology transfer, which means we will share the latest technology on Gripen NG. It will be complete, with system and subsystems, including source codes. So it will be an Indian Gripen that is inducted into the Indian Air Force (should India choose the aircraft). And on the political front we are (from) a neutral country (Sweden), non-aligned like India and we don’t have any bars, and that is why we are ready to share complete technology with India.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 11 Feb 2011 05:14

Video Presentation - Boeing reveals advanced Super Hornet options
Aero-India

Link - http://bcove.me/ur3cnqqd

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 05:18

Also one should note there is a high concentration of AQ terrorists in Germany, who may be funding these opposition.

OTOH, if Germany does not wants to sell then Rafale shall it be competing with SH.

There could be some indirect indications to create awareness of EF2K in certain sections... like how many deshis are ignorant about Kaveri developments.

Whatever EADS, must know that price war has begun after aeroindia. It does not matter to India, if they can't sell. We have lot of technology suppliers, including home grown.

bring on the aversions towards India, and lets leap forward to thrash this TSP enabled world.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 11 Feb 2011 05:20

Dogfight over $10b fighter deal

Officials of the European contenders mocked Lockheed Martin's apparently recent bid to let the F-35 Fifth Generation fighter among the contending Fourth Generation fighters, saying that it was a sign of the F-16IN losing altitude in the contest. The world’s largest military equipment maker, they alleged, has sought to confuse Indian decision-makers by putting out talk of the F-35. Worse, they alleged, the Fifth Generation tag is a marketing gimmick, because “Lockheed Martin has put out a self-serving definition of what constitutes a Fifth Generation jet,” EADS officials said.

“If you are saying stealth is a defining 5G characteristic, then the greater the capabilities of the electronic scanning (AESA) radar, the other must-have, the more questionable stealth becomes”, the officials said. “Also, designing a fighter for stealth means compromising on agility and lethality. Stealth is a survivability concern. You can sneak in on an enemy, but you will still need to have a good punch to take out the enemy. Also, stealth works so long as you are not detected, but once detected, stealthy aircraft lack agility to escape. Stealth and survivability can be ensured in more than one way. The Eurofighter relies on agility, the F-22 relies on agility to survive. So, is India prepared to sacrifice weapons carriage, supercruise, agility for stealth”.

Asked about concerns over America's willingness to transfer technology, Mr. Prins said, "The IAF's request for proposal stipulated technology transfer in five categories in four phases. Our proposal is fully compliant. There's no requirement for 100 per cent technology transfer in the RFP. The final proposal was submitted by the US government. So, there should be no problem on the ToT front". "Other contenders have US technology in their fighters. In offering ToT, they will have to go through the same US government requirements as we do", he added.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Feb 2011 05:44

Yeah. The issues about ToT were resolved long back. ALL vendors had been compliant with the RFP. I suspect the issue now is who is offering what beyond what is in the RFP.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 11 Feb 2011 08:16

sourab_c wrote:Interesting development regarding Eurofighter's future in India:

Germany Will 'Contribute to an Arms Race,' Charges Opposition

Selling fighter jets to India would violate weapons-export guidelines, say members of the German opposition, who are criticizing a trip by Defense Minister Guttenberg to India this week. New Delhi has dangled a fat contract for a fleet of jets, but critics say Berlin should not export weapons to a crisis zone.

Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 08:27

shukla wrote:Dogfight over $10b fighter deal

dogfight translation into punjabi kutte khani

nits · Post by **nits** » 11 Feb 2011 09:40

IAF chief’s googly on wrapping the MMRCA deals

Electrifying aerospace vendors at Aero India 2011 in Bangalore, Indian Air Force chief, Air Chief Marshall PV Naik, announced today that New Delhi would decide within two weeks about which medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) it would buy, and actually sign the US $10 billion contract by September.

Executives from these companies say they are baffled by Naik’s announcement. Asked in late-2010 to rework their offset bids, and with no date yet given for resubmission, the MoD does not have a key element needed to decide a winner.

“Is the MoD going to decide the contract winner without examining the offset bids?” asks a bemused executive, from one of the competing aircraft manufacturers.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 11 Feb 2011 10:32

SriSri wrote:
Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone

It most probably does. However, India is not a warzone or a "crisis zone" as the Germans like to call it. It reflects just how narrow their scope is towards the world. It seems the Germans are still stuck in the past. I never fully understood their foreign policy anyways. They are foolish enough to stand their "fictional" moral high ground and willing to compromise a real business deal with such statements. At least the French and the Americans know how to pick sides when there is money involved.

I am willing to bet that if the German opposition does come into power, it will seriously compromise the Eurofighter program in India if selected. I hope GOI realizes that.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 11 Feb 2011 11:30

sourab_c wrote:Interesting development regarding Eurofighter's future in India:

Germany Will 'Contribute to an Arms Race,' Charges Opposition

Selling fighter jets to India would violate weapons-export guidelines, say members of the German opposition, who are criticizing a trip by Defense Minister Guttenberg to India this week. New Delhi has dangled a fat contract for a fleet of jets, but critics say Berlin should not export weapons to a crisis zone.

India's long-simmering border conflict with neighboring Pakistan has made Guttenberg's two-day trip something of a controversy. Both countries have nuclear arsenals, and German Green Party chief Claudia Roth told SPIEGEL ONLINE that a sale of military gear to any crisis region was "an open departure from the principles of German weapons-export policy."

Die Grunen (German Green party) is same as Indian communist parties.. they got to cry every now and then to keep there relevance, to get there name poping up in news so that people don't forget them.

Its not a big deal. They don't have any say in foreign policy neither will they ever have.

sourab_c wrote:
SriSri wrote:Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone
It most probably does. However, India is not a warzone or a "crisis zone" as the Germans like to call it. It reflects just how narrow their scope is towards the world. It seems the Germans are still stuck in the past. I never fully understood their foreign policy anyways. They are foolish enough to stand their "fictional" moral high ground and willing to compromise a real business deal with such statements. At least the French and the Americans know how to pick sides when there is money involved.

I am willing to bet that if the German opposition does come into power, it will seriously compromise the Eurofighter program in India if selected. I hope GOI realizes that.

I don't think its wise to consider opinion of a party with just 10% voter-base, as the opnion of all Germans.

Germans have moved from past thats why there defense minister is here to talk!

Rest assurred Green Party will never make it to the controlling chairs.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 Feb 2011 11:31

sourab_c wrote:
SriSri wrote:
Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone
It most probably does. However, India is not a warzone or a "crisis zone"

But if there was a war, would Sweden embargo India?

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 11 Feb 2011 11:40

GeorgeWelch wrote:
SriSri wrote: Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone
But if there was a war, would Sweden embargo India?

Only if they don't love SAAB

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 11 Feb 2011 12:26

GeorgeWelch wrote:
SriSri wrote:
Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone

But if there was a war, would Sweden embargo India?

If Pakistan or China attacked India? No, Sweden wouldn't because all countries have the right to defend themselves. But if India were to conduct an illegal sneak-attack on Thailand for no obvious reason, probably and so would probably the rest of the world too.

This policy shouldn't be read to much into, it's not a law in Sweden and is continuously changed.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 11 Feb 2011 13:03

@Henrik, I hope what you say is true. But I do remember some hooplah among Swedish opposition parties during the Kargil conflict in '99 regarding sale of Bofors ammo and spares.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 11 Feb 2011 13:04

SriSri wrote:Doesn't the Swedish foreign policy mandate the same --> No exports to a warzone

First, Sweden believes in the right for self-defence. Second, Sweden does not view India as a "warzone".

Well define warzone?

What I'm trying to say is, since the policy is not a law, it can easily be "bended".

Here's how it works in Sweden:

There are two agencies in Sweden that deal with export of weapons and technology. It's the "Agancy for support for weapons-export", basically an agency to boost export of weapons and support Swedish weapons manufacturers in doing so. The other agency is called "ISP", directly translated as "Inspection for strategic products". The ISP is the controlling agency that makes sure the exports doesn't violate any laws. However, Swedish strategic interests comes first, and all the rules are written with exemptions. This means that Sweden can and will export weapons and technology to countries in war eventhough the country were to severly violate human rights if it is necessary to protect Swedish strategic interests, or as it says in the guidelines for ISP "desirable for Swedish security politics".

For instance, Sweden exported weapons to the US for use in the second Iraq war, eventhough Sweden officially were against the war. This were to protect strategic interests, ie selling weapons, to keep access to US technology and to make sure the co-developments of certain weapons with the US continue. This means, that if India choses Gripen it can basically do whatever it wants since the Gripen would be co-developed together with India, and that would be a farily big "strategic interest" to protect.

It's fairly hypocritical but leaves room for manovuer.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 11 Feb 2011 13:08

SriSri wrote:@Henrik, I hope what you say is true. But I do remember some hooplah among Swedish opposition parties during the Kargil conflict in '99 regarding sale of Bofors ammo and spares.

A lot has changed in Swedish foreign policy since then.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Feb 2011 15:53

Had taken part in gripen's top gun contest. I do not know how to fly any flight simulator and I certainly do not know what various knobs in gripen cockpit are for...so no professional level participation for me. That left me with the only option to try for amateur level. Simple questions, got them correct.
As the prize for answering all the amateur level, SAAB mailed a "prize". I was fervently hoping for a small scale gripen model. Today I recieved the mail from gripentopgun. Here is the list of the fabulous gifts SAAB has to bestow upon gripen fanboys:

a> 3 gripen keyrings.
b> 2 gripen stickers (yes stickers..not even posters)
c> 3 tie clips.

Cheap bas***ds. I used to root for gripen before but now I will start a dharna in front of MOD office if Gripen wins. Earlier only the jingoistic feelings were at work but now SAAB has made it personal.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 17:59

. now vote for Rafale/EF?

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 11 Feb 2011 18:09

Eurofighter Seeks India as Industrial Partner for Production, Future Developments

Not entirely MRCA specific but worth a post.. Similar to the statements by the British Defence Minister.. Eurofighter Offers Technology Transfer; U.K. Rejects Naval Eurofighter Variant in Favor of F-35 JSF

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 11 Feb 2011 19:52

anirban_aim wrote:
Henrik wrote: I predict there would be at least one one-engined plane in that shortllist to try and lower the price of the two-engined planes. Does that make sense?
My money is on atleast one single engined plane and one American in the final shortlist

Where is the shortlist then? One yank and One single enginned and there you are back to 4 candidates you were seriously considering. There is no such constraint to include one yank fighter. The blame squarely lies on them for their reluctant stand about EUMA waiver and ToT issues. We can only compare the comparables.

nits wrote:IAF chief’s googly on wrapping the MMRCA deals

“Is the MoD going to decide the contract winner without examining the offset bids?” asks a bemused executive, from one of the competing aircraft manufacturers.

I hope they shortlist beginning first with terms and conditions and whose offsets are of critical tech. Narrow down cannot begin with money it only ends with money

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 11 Feb 2011 19:54

Doddel wrote:I made a follow up from my one of my last post on unit price and maintenance cost to compare the mmrca contenders.

Unit cost:
Rafale: ~US$84.48 million
EF: ~US$83.16 million
F-16IN: US$50 million
F/A-18E/F: US$58 million
Gripen NG(IN): US$48 million
MiG-35: US$38.5 million

Maintenance cost per flight hour

Rafale: 19 000 USD
EF: 15 000 USD
F-16IN: 5 000 USD
F/A-18E/F: 18 000 USD (have seen figures of ~£85000 but that seems insane)
Gripen NG(IN): 2 500-5000 USD (3000 USD ackording to Swedish Air Force)
MiG-35: 18 000 USD

Hi, besides that this is a purly mathematic comparison, it uses many wrong, or at least debatable figures.

EF for example, the version offered to India (T3), costs over $100 million fly away:

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/ ... igned.html

The F16IN is based on the UAE F16 Block 60 and they paid a total of $8 billion (including $3 billions for R&D) for 80 fighters, which makes it also more expensive:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

From the Brazilian competition it is known that the Gripen NG costs $50 million, the F18SH $55 million (without the proposed options of a higher thrust engine, as well as MAWS and LWR, which needs additional fundings makes it costlier in India).
Regarding the cost per flight hour, you also choose mainly figures from older versions that are not on offer in MMRCA.
Again from Brazil it is known that the Gripen NG (not the older Gripen C/D that the Swedish air force uses) costs around $8000, the F18SH $10000 and the Rafale $12300:

http://translate.google.de/translate?js ... -dos-cacas

And the Russian fighters are well known for high maintenance costs compared to western fighters, which makes this figure for the Mig 35 doubtful as well.

I don't think such a simple mathematic approach is useful, because it don't tell us the real costs of the fighter. The Eurocanards are more costly, but also offers more techs that are on offer on the F18SH only as options, or not at all. Rafale offers commonality and already placed maintenance and logistics, while this is not available for US arms and techs, which adds costs as well. Not to mention that the Europeans offer high ToT and low restrictions, which makes it obviously more worth it to pay some more.
Also important for Rafale and F18SH are that they have operational carrier fighters available, which makes them favourable for INs competition. So higher numbers would be procured if one of these fighters wins, what changes the costs again.

Bottom line is, the real costs of this procurement can not be judged by comparing fly away, or per hour prices only, but involves way more variables!

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 11 Feb 2011 21:49

Sancho wrote:The Eurocanards are more costly, but also offers more techs that are on offer on the F18SH only as options, or not at all.

Such as?

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 11 Feb 2011 22:20

Opps !! That Gripen in AeroIndia 2011 doesn't seem to be Gripen NG (IN). What is the reason SAAB has not sent Gripen NG ? The conclusion that people arrived not seeing the Mig – 35 in AeroIndia 2011 is that Mig has smelled they have lost the race for MCRA. Now what should we conclude that SAAB has smelled the same ?

Rear wheel of Gripen NG(IN) has half fork structure as can be seen in second pic.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 11 Feb 2011 23:25

^^
There's no reason to fly the NG-Demo to India again. After all, remember that it is a Demo and it's nothing you perform airshows with and it's quite risky even bringing it to India.

Btw, I read on Keypubs that the follow-up to the Demo, the NG pre-production, will be ready in March this year.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 11 Feb 2011 23:29

There is only one NG prototype its too expensive for SAAB to bring down to air shows. They did bring it for the MRCA trials after C/D.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 11 Feb 2011 23:51

Henrik wrote: There's no reason to fly the NG-Demo to India again. After all, remember that it is a Demo and it's nothing you perform airshows with and it's quite risky even bringing it to India.

Thatz the point I wanted to make.

Same reason holds good for the Russians for not bringing Mig - 35 to AeroIndia 2011. Already, Indian Navy is flying Mig - 29K.
So, the assumption "Mig - 35 is not in AeroIndia 2011, means that they are out " is wrong