Typhoons an Raptors
Jacko,
Per some quick googling, the RAF perferred the US made J-79 engine for the F4 but had to convert to the Spey for commonality with the FAA F-4's. The Spey allowed better acceleration, climb, and range but made for a much slower airspeeds.
A very good discussion of the history of the F4 in UK service.
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co...m/history.html
Per some quick googling, the RAF perferred the US made J-79 engine for the F4 but had to convert to the Spey for commonality with the FAA F-4's. The Spey allowed better acceleration, climb, and range but made for a much slower airspeeds.
The British Phantoms could be distinguished from their American cousins by their wider and shorter engine exhausts. Beginning in 1975, RAF Phantoms were fitted with a distinctive rectangular antenna for a Marconi ARI 18228 RWR, attached to the top of the vertical tailplane.
The changes ordered by the British government led to a considerable increase in the cost of the aircraft, and worse, although the Spey was more powerful than the J79 and had greater fuel economy, the British would probably have been better off to have stayed with the J79. The match between an engine and an airframe can be surprisingly tricky, and the Spey-powered Phantom turned out to be a textbook example of the troubles that can arise when trying to mate an engine to an aircraft that wasn't designed for it from the outset.
The British Phantoms required substantial airframe modifications, with the rear fuselage width increased to accommodate the Speys, and 20% larger intake ducts to provide the greater airflow required by the Rolls-Royce engines. Even then, the Speys were temperature-redlined to Mach 1.9, due to cost-reduction measures imposed on Rolls-Royce that dictated use of cheaper metals. Between the airframe changes, which undermined the Phantom's "area ruling", and the limitations of the engines, the British Phantoms were sometimes described, most likely by a certain famously caustic senior British aviation writer, as the "most powerful, most expensive, and slowest Phantoms in the world."
However, although the 1960s were the great age of British weapons procurement fiascos, the selection of the Spey was by no means a case of excessive nationalism at work, and the problems seem to have been sometimes exaggerated. Since British carriers were smaller than American carriers, FAA Phantoms had to have more power to get off the decks, both in terms of drive for the BLC system and greater thrust. In fact, the Spey-powered F-4s had superior acceleration and rate of climb to J79-powered F-4s, outpacing US Navy Phantoms during their stint on the USS SARATOGA until their American cousins could catch up and then fly past them.
The British Phantoms also had better low-level performance, an absolute benefit for RAF strike pilots who normally flew above the treetops, and enjoyed a 10% greater radius of action. Ground-attack pilots particularly enjoyed knowing that they could take on adversary fighters at level or superior odds. The fact that the Phantom could carry four AAMs on the fuselage recesses without interfering with carriage of attack munitions was a significant advantage.
As a strong plus, from 1979 on the British Phantoms carried the UK-built "Sky Flash" AAM in preference to the American-made Sparrow. Fit of the Sky Flash to the Phantom was simple, because the missile was based on the Sparrow airframe, with British-built seeker. The Sky Flash was much superior to US-built Sparrows of the time, spurring the Americans to catch up with improved Sparrow variants of their own.
The RAF's initial misgivings about the type gradually grew into admiration and affection, one RAF pilot concluding: "All in all, the Phantom was an excellent aircraft." It was retired with regrets. A number of "Yanks", such as the C-47 Dakota and the P-51 Mustang, have served with distinction wearing RAF roundels, just as the British Canberra and Harrier have served with distinction wearing the red-white-and-blue in return. The Phantom was one of the significant American eagles in British colors, proving capable enough to overcome the nationalism that sometimes puts the two nations at odds.
The changes ordered by the British government led to a considerable increase in the cost of the aircraft, and worse, although the Spey was more powerful than the J79 and had greater fuel economy, the British would probably have been better off to have stayed with the J79. The match between an engine and an airframe can be surprisingly tricky, and the Spey-powered Phantom turned out to be a textbook example of the troubles that can arise when trying to mate an engine to an aircraft that wasn't designed for it from the outset.
The British Phantoms required substantial airframe modifications, with the rear fuselage width increased to accommodate the Speys, and 20% larger intake ducts to provide the greater airflow required by the Rolls-Royce engines. Even then, the Speys were temperature-redlined to Mach 1.9, due to cost-reduction measures imposed on Rolls-Royce that dictated use of cheaper metals. Between the airframe changes, which undermined the Phantom's "area ruling", and the limitations of the engines, the British Phantoms were sometimes described, most likely by a certain famously caustic senior British aviation writer, as the "most powerful, most expensive, and slowest Phantoms in the world."
However, although the 1960s were the great age of British weapons procurement fiascos, the selection of the Spey was by no means a case of excessive nationalism at work, and the problems seem to have been sometimes exaggerated. Since British carriers were smaller than American carriers, FAA Phantoms had to have more power to get off the decks, both in terms of drive for the BLC system and greater thrust. In fact, the Spey-powered F-4s had superior acceleration and rate of climb to J79-powered F-4s, outpacing US Navy Phantoms during their stint on the USS SARATOGA until their American cousins could catch up and then fly past them.
The British Phantoms also had better low-level performance, an absolute benefit for RAF strike pilots who normally flew above the treetops, and enjoyed a 10% greater radius of action. Ground-attack pilots particularly enjoyed knowing that they could take on adversary fighters at level or superior odds. The fact that the Phantom could carry four AAMs on the fuselage recesses without interfering with carriage of attack munitions was a significant advantage.
As a strong plus, from 1979 on the British Phantoms carried the UK-built "Sky Flash" AAM in preference to the American-made Sparrow. Fit of the Sky Flash to the Phantom was simple, because the missile was based on the Sparrow airframe, with British-built seeker. The Sky Flash was much superior to US-built Sparrows of the time, spurring the Americans to catch up with improved Sparrow variants of their own.
The RAF's initial misgivings about the type gradually grew into admiration and affection, one RAF pilot concluding: "All in all, the Phantom was an excellent aircraft." It was retired with regrets. A number of "Yanks", such as the C-47 Dakota and the P-51 Mustang, have served with distinction wearing RAF roundels, just as the British Canberra and Harrier have served with distinction wearing the red-white-and-blue in return. The Phantom was one of the significant American eagles in British colors, proving capable enough to overcome the nationalism that sometimes puts the two nations at odds.
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co...m/history.html
Last edited by SASless; 25th May 2006 at 18:56.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by SASless
RonO,
The Marines have embraced the V-22 Osprey and the Harrier...thus they have been known to go with bad choices of gear.
The Marines have embraced the V-22 Osprey and the Harrier...thus they have been known to go with bad choices of gear.
Likewise, why is the V-22 'bad?' It has no track record for operational service so how can you make a judgement call on its merits? (Mind you, I am not bringing up the political issues regarding the a/c, nor any of its long gestation issues.)
Please return to your regularly scheduled programming..........
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Made aside in a long post that USMC doesn't buy fragile kit. Decided 2 mins later it's dumb continuing a religous argument so deleted entire thing. SAS squeezed into the 2 min window with his thought.
Re-harrier, didn't think fragility was the issue, more the demands on the driver.
Re-harrier, didn't think fragility was the issue, more the demands on the driver.
Last edited by RonO; 25th May 2006 at 21:35.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brickhistory might want to refresh his screen regarding the Harrier's "stirling" history.
The stirling service of the Harrier? What, in bombing the end of its own runway? In failing to provide true air cover and support for the ground troops in the Falklands due to its woeful range? It is inept as a fighter, and as a bomber, except when it crashes, as many of them have.
The US Marines have lost 1/3 of the Harriers they started with, and in Desert storm, Harriers had a loss rate 3 times higher than real fighters.
An LA Times article details this awful tale at http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/farfrom1.html
"Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents."
Other than that, SASless, is off base.....
The stirling service of the Harrier? What, in bombing the end of its own runway? In failing to provide true air cover and support for the ground troops in the Falklands due to its woeful range? It is inept as a fighter, and as a bomber, except when it crashes, as many of them have.
The US Marines have lost 1/3 of the Harriers they started with, and in Desert storm, Harriers had a loss rate 3 times higher than real fighters.
An LA Times article details this awful tale at http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/farfrom1.html
"Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents."
Other than that, SASless, is off base.....
What's not right with the V-22 Osprey....ask a Marine!
This link takes you to a paper written about shortcomings of the V-22 Osprey.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1993/SJC.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1993/SJC.htm
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
In failing to provide true air cover and support for the ground troops in the Falklands due to its woeful range?
(I was lead to believe the USMC regard for the AV-8 was that it was close at hand when needed, not 200 miles off-shore. When grunts on the ground needed it, it was there. Like super artillery. In essence, as it was explained to me, the USN and USAF are more interested in minimising aircraft loss rates, the USMC being more interested in minimising marine loss rates.)
The Harrier (and its wet jet sibling) was really only a clever Hunter with shorter legs. But it certainly had a role in CAS during the cold war in RAFG and the sqns were very proficient with the GR1 and later with the GR3.
The Shar was needed for the Malvinas as the closest that the F4s could get was ASI. It did as well as it could; the GR3 also acquitted itself pretty well. But the carriers were extremely vulnerable to SuE/Exocet attack and had to be kept well away which limited time over the target areas.
In GW1, the RAF's GR5 couldn't even drop bombs. It did nothing. But the USMC got stuck in with its AV8Bs; this exposed the vulnerability of the Harrier to ManPAD systems.
CVA01 plus P1154 would have been something entirely different; the current GR7 is a development of the AV8B as the UK had given up on Harrier development, to its eternal shame. It is a short range bomber without even a radar system and offers little in the way of credible air defence to the fleet when embarked.....
So please, no wars for the RN FW element until the F-35 is in service.
The Shar was needed for the Malvinas as the closest that the F4s could get was ASI. It did as well as it could; the GR3 also acquitted itself pretty well. But the carriers were extremely vulnerable to SuE/Exocet attack and had to be kept well away which limited time over the target areas.
In GW1, the RAF's GR5 couldn't even drop bombs. It did nothing. But the USMC got stuck in with its AV8Bs; this exposed the vulnerability of the Harrier to ManPAD systems.
CVA01 plus P1154 would have been something entirely different; the current GR7 is a development of the AV8B as the UK had given up on Harrier development, to its eternal shame. It is a short range bomber without even a radar system and offers little in the way of credible air defence to the fleet when embarked.....
So please, no wars for the RN FW element until the F-35 is in service.
Last edited by BEagle; 26th May 2006 at 08:46.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
"And I can't think of any other US supplied platform (with the exception of the C-17, where the terms of the lease would complicate mattters) which we could not modify if required, and for which we do not enjoy the level of operational sovereignty we require."
I'm not sure this is completely true... AWACS radar upgrade? ASTOR MTI/SAR radar codes...? C-130J avionics/glass cockpit? DIRCMS suites? The Nimrod MRA4's mission system is even built by Boeing...
There's a whole load of US stuff that if we want to make major changes we're going to have to go to the OEM or invalidate the warranty.
Chinook Mk3
being a case in point... - You can mod it yourself, but at your own risk....
Plus thanks to lean and just-in-time delivery could not the US just have us over a barrel by restricting say, key C-17 spares, if we ever went to war and they disagreed?
"Sorry, UK, we'd love to help you out, but there's been a fire in the factory producing the spare widgits you need - current batch all destroyed, I'm afraid....."
"What's that - you're NOT going to invade Hawaii? Wow, its your lucky day - we've just found a box under the table...."
The key for JSF is what will the Israelis do (at the moment they are honking a bit about ingretating their kit) but I can't see that they will not be allowed to integrate Derby, Python and all their specific EW black-boxes that go in the latest F-16s...
"And I can't think of any other US supplied platform (with the exception of the C-17, where the terms of the lease would complicate mattters) which we could not modify if required, and for which we do not enjoy the level of operational sovereignty we require."
I'm not sure this is completely true... AWACS radar upgrade? ASTOR MTI/SAR radar codes...? C-130J avionics/glass cockpit? DIRCMS suites? The Nimrod MRA4's mission system is even built by Boeing...
There's a whole load of US stuff that if we want to make major changes we're going to have to go to the OEM or invalidate the warranty.
Chinook Mk3
being a case in point... - You can mod it yourself, but at your own risk....Plus thanks to lean and just-in-time delivery could not the US just have us over a barrel by restricting say, key C-17 spares, if we ever went to war and they disagreed?
"Sorry, UK, we'd love to help you out, but there's been a fire in the factory producing the spare widgits you need - current batch all destroyed, I'm afraid....."
"What's that - you're NOT going to invade Hawaii? Wow, its your lucky day - we've just found a box under the table...."
The key for JSF is what will the Israelis do (at the moment they are honking a bit about ingretating their kit) but I can't see that they will not be allowed to integrate Derby, Python and all their specific EW black-boxes that go in the latest F-16s...
Lord F,
Because the JSF is a software driven aeroplane, to a greater extent than anything we've ever seen before, you need tech tansfer and software codes to to anything.
And while most of the platforms you have mentioned have sensors or systems we can't touch, the platforms themselves could be upgraded and modded if required - and without the manufacturer's permission. Thus we could enhance the defensive aids on E-3D (or add a new datalink, or install defensive AIM-9s, or whatever).
As to the Chinook 3, weren't the mods designed and incorporated by the manufacturer?
Because the JSF is a software driven aeroplane, to a greater extent than anything we've ever seen before, you need tech tansfer and software codes to to anything.
And while most of the platforms you have mentioned have sensors or systems we can't touch, the platforms themselves could be upgraded and modded if required - and without the manufacturer's permission. Thus we could enhance the defensive aids on E-3D (or add a new datalink, or install defensive AIM-9s, or whatever).
As to the Chinook 3, weren't the mods designed and incorporated by the manufacturer?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Latest reports are that the recent F-22 incident where the canopy would not open and the pilot had to be cut out was caused by..... a software problem. 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest reports are that the recent F-22 incident where the canopy would not open and the pilot had to be cut out was caused by..... a software problem.
True Jacko - JSF will be software-driven (along with everything else) but to use a slightly OT example - I would argue I have 'operational sovereignty' of my PC.
Windows XP is installed on it, and though Microsoft don't let my see the source codes I can tweak it, modify it, shut down bits I don't like, install software that they'd rather I didn't and so on to my heart's content.
In short, because the interface is so good, there's really no need to go poking about in the source codes for anything. Should anything really go wrong I can always uninstall + reinstall it as a last resort.
Therefore, if you have the knowledge to poke about in the source codes of XP, you're probably almost qualified to write an OS from scratch...
For JSF, this middleware interface will be the key, no only for us, but also for convincing the rest of the global market (Israel etc) who may want in the future to add non-US weapons.... (The UAE for example made a huge fuss over F-16 codes - but they are still buying Black Shaheen/Storm Shadow). Since the US dominate the guided weapon market anyhow, are they going to let a few lost sales of AIM-9Xs to Israel trump the potential sale of 'replacement F16' JSFs to that country?
Or perhaps we should demand Lock Mart use Linux????
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Or perhaps we should demand Lock Mart use Linux????
The key factors in L-3 Display System's choice of LynuxWorks' RTOS...were its adherence to open standards [and] its Linux compatibility.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nick and SAS,
I'd counter that to the USMC, the Harrier is a good airplane. I don't dispute that they gave a bunch back in inadvertant recycling, but the Corps certainly seems to like having them around. So, to use the AV-8 as an example of a 'flawed' piece of equipment did not add to SASless's arguement.
And to the V-22, I don't have an opinion on it, yet, regarding its OPERATIONAL success/failure history because it doesn't have one. Just because its development history has been tedious does not make it a turkey.
It may very well be said bird, but its too early to say yet, IMO. Very few a/c development projects, particularly when as challenging as the whole vertical to horizontal flight thing is, have gone off without much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Again, whether the USMC really wanted the a/c is another, political, matter that the congressmen from TX decided.
I'd counter that to the USMC, the Harrier is a good airplane. I don't dispute that they gave a bunch back in inadvertant recycling, but the Corps certainly seems to like having them around. So, to use the AV-8 as an example of a 'flawed' piece of equipment did not add to SASless's arguement.
And to the V-22, I don't have an opinion on it, yet, regarding its OPERATIONAL success/failure history because it doesn't have one. Just because its development history has been tedious does not make it a turkey.
It may very well be said bird, but its too early to say yet, IMO. Very few a/c development projects, particularly when as challenging as the whole vertical to horizontal flight thing is, have gone off without much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Again, whether the USMC really wanted the a/c is another, political, matter that the congressmen from TX decided.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plural of software code is software code. No s.
Anyone that's been in the biz for more than 30 seconds will tell you 2 different teams can't be updating same software. If Gates let you dick around with XP, next day's MS fix or upgrade would screw you royally. That's not even going near any qualification issues.
Fact is JSF is just pushing trend of more integration. Means ability to modify will be mostly limited to OEM or whatever he allows via plug-ins or i/faces. No reason to suppose those can't and aren't being worked out with Lockheed but they won't result in a charter to do whatever they want.
To be clear and so hopefully some jackass doesn't put words into my mouth, I'm saying put aside all jingoism & money & it's still not practical for RAF or Bae to be able to dick with JSF systems anymore than they'll be able to dick with Astors's radar. Exception will in ways formally agreed up front. Benefit is more capability, better quality.
Anyone that's been in the biz for more than 30 seconds will tell you 2 different teams can't be updating same software. If Gates let you dick around with XP, next day's MS fix or upgrade would screw you royally. That's not even going near any qualification issues.
Fact is JSF is just pushing trend of more integration. Means ability to modify will be mostly limited to OEM or whatever he allows via plug-ins or i/faces. No reason to suppose those can't and aren't being worked out with Lockheed but they won't result in a charter to do whatever they want.
To be clear and so hopefully some jackass doesn't put words into my mouth, I'm saying put aside all jingoism & money & it's still not practical for RAF or Bae to be able to dick with JSF systems anymore than they'll be able to dick with Astors's radar. Exception will in ways formally agreed up front. Benefit is more capability, better quality.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read this. Sounds like a deal has been reached. I guess we just now have to wait for the UK order to be placed later this year.
Bush, Blair Resolve Dispute over Joint Strike Fighter
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
The United States and Britain announced agreement May 26 to end a long-running dispute over technology that had threatened plans to cooperate in developing a new-generation Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
A statement by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair on the final day of their two-day summit appeared to put to rest a row over British access to codes used in U.S. avionics systems aboard the F-35 fighters.
Britain, angered by U.S. reluctance to share the codes, had been preparing to pull out of the project and the planned purchase of 150 aircraft at $104 million apiece.
Bush and Blair said they agreed that Britain “will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.”
U.S. officials said the move would allow the British to make their own adaptations to the JSF without having to call in U.S. technicians.
”Both governments agree to protect sensitive technologies found within the Joint Strike Fighter program,” Bush and Blair wrote. “Together, we are working out the details, while remaining committed to these principles.”
The statement did not mention another dispute over the U.S. cost-cutting move to cancel a $2.4 billion contract for the British firm Rolls-Royce and the U.S. giant General Electric to develop a backup engine.
The JSF has been billed as the United States’ biggest fighter program. The Pentagon has planned to buy 2,400 of the stealthy multi-role fighters and international sales could account for another 2,000 to 3,500 aircraft.
Bush, Blair Resolve Dispute over Joint Strike Fighter
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
The United States and Britain announced agreement May 26 to end a long-running dispute over technology that had threatened plans to cooperate in developing a new-generation Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
A statement by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair on the final day of their two-day summit appeared to put to rest a row over British access to codes used in U.S. avionics systems aboard the F-35 fighters.
Britain, angered by U.S. reluctance to share the codes, had been preparing to pull out of the project and the planned purchase of 150 aircraft at $104 million apiece.
Bush and Blair said they agreed that Britain “will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.”
U.S. officials said the move would allow the British to make their own adaptations to the JSF without having to call in U.S. technicians.
”Both governments agree to protect sensitive technologies found within the Joint Strike Fighter program,” Bush and Blair wrote. “Together, we are working out the details, while remaining committed to these principles.”
The statement did not mention another dispute over the U.S. cost-cutting move to cancel a $2.4 billion contract for the British firm Rolls-Royce and the U.S. giant General Electric to develop a backup engine.
The JSF has been billed as the United States’ biggest fighter program. The Pentagon has planned to buy 2,400 of the stealthy multi-role fighters and international sales could account for another 2,000 to 3,500 aircraft.
104 Million USD translates to 56.2 Million UKP at today's rate.
What does the Typhoon sell for now?
What does the Typhoon sell for now?
Britain, angered by U.S. reluctance to share the codes, had been preparing to pull out of the project and the planned purchase of 150 aircraft at $104 million apiece.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon is about £75M/US$131M apiece, including development costs incurred since the early/mid 80s, right now. About the same as the off the shelf price of a '22: not strictly comparable, I know, so **** off you pedants out there.
Confucious,
I'm puzzled why you should want to make up a new price for Typhoon. There are more than enough out there, after all.
The unit programme cost (including R&D) is £82.5 m or £84.78 (Total UK programme cost (there are two credible figures) divided by 232).
The current unit production cost, excluding R&D, has to be less than the price paid by Austria (€62 m).
The cost of Tranche 1 for the UK was £2.5 Bn, covering 55 jets (it's actually 53 aircraft, two having slipped to Tranche 2 to allow for Austria's Tranche 1 Block 5A jets) giving a unit cost of either £45.45m or £47.17m. The NAO 2004 MPR gave a UPC of £49.1m.
The cost of Tranche 2 was £9.56 Bn for all partners, which gives a Unit Production Cost of £40.5-billion. Alternatively, known UK T2 contracts to RR and BAE (some of which had an element of R&D) totalled £5.05 Bn, giving a maximum UK UPC of £56.14 or £55.49m (T2 changed from 89 to 91 jets).
The 2005 MPR gives a UPC of £64.8 m - which is clearly about £20 m above the actual price, above the German/Italian/Spanish and even Austrian prices and clearly distorted by some odd piece of accounting (RAB, perhaps?) or by the inclusion of what should be counted under R&D or through life support costs.
Anyone listening to RonO's optimistic repetition of Lockmart's price targets might be surprised by the JSF unit price of $104m. We should not be surprised at all.
The costs for the JSF system development phase alone have increased by a staggering $13 Bn (from $28 billion to $41 billion) and if you thought that this was not going to be reflected in further price rises, you were deluded. If US politicians and taxpayers know that they are paying $110 m per JSF they were never going to stand for export customers like the UK paying just $83 m (Lockmart's $59 m plus our unit R&D spend of $24 m) per jet. I don't even think that would be legal!
JSF funding and related financing was explored in depth in a recent issue of Defence Analysis, using cost data produced by the UK National Audit Office and used in House of Commons answers, plus JSF price and inflation data from the US Government Accountability Office, and from a “raft of US reports”.
These figures make it clear that while the International Partners' SDD costs have to remain constant and capped there is no such price cap for the production phase, and that the “UPC has risen annually”, and that “the price has continued to increase over the past five years”, threatening fleet sizes, and that the price has already inflated by 36% in real terms.
As early as 2002 the GAO were using a $67 m UPC (excluding R&D), while Lockmart and the DoD were holding to $50 m. There has been a 72% cost rise since 2002, so that the figure for 2006 will be in the order of $86.2-million for the A-model.
The starting price for the UK F-35B is already higher than that, with JSF procurement (exclusive of the SDD phase and long-term support) quoted at £10-billion for 150 aircraft. That was a £66.67-million UPC in 2002, with an adjusted UPC growth to £75.75 m in 2003, £90.15 m in 2004 and £104.6 m in 2005.
It seems as though the latter figure is what we're going to be charged (in addition to the $2 Bn SDD funding we've already committed).
Thus the Typhoon costs about £45-49 m today, and the JSF costs £56 m.
And the vast bulk of Typhoon spending has a positive impact on our balance of payments, and is recycled through the UK exchequer, while the JSF eats foreign currency reserves.
And this was supposed to be a cheap F-16 replacement.....
I'm puzzled why you should want to make up a new price for Typhoon. There are more than enough out there, after all.
The unit programme cost (including R&D) is £82.5 m or £84.78 (Total UK programme cost (there are two credible figures) divided by 232).
The current unit production cost, excluding R&D, has to be less than the price paid by Austria (€62 m).
The cost of Tranche 1 for the UK was £2.5 Bn, covering 55 jets (it's actually 53 aircraft, two having slipped to Tranche 2 to allow for Austria's Tranche 1 Block 5A jets) giving a unit cost of either £45.45m or £47.17m. The NAO 2004 MPR gave a UPC of £49.1m.
The cost of Tranche 2 was £9.56 Bn for all partners, which gives a Unit Production Cost of £40.5-billion. Alternatively, known UK T2 contracts to RR and BAE (some of which had an element of R&D) totalled £5.05 Bn, giving a maximum UK UPC of £56.14 or £55.49m (T2 changed from 89 to 91 jets).
The 2005 MPR gives a UPC of £64.8 m - which is clearly about £20 m above the actual price, above the German/Italian/Spanish and even Austrian prices and clearly distorted by some odd piece of accounting (RAB, perhaps?) or by the inclusion of what should be counted under R&D or through life support costs.
Anyone listening to RonO's optimistic repetition of Lockmart's price targets might be surprised by the JSF unit price of $104m. We should not be surprised at all.
The costs for the JSF system development phase alone have increased by a staggering $13 Bn (from $28 billion to $41 billion) and if you thought that this was not going to be reflected in further price rises, you were deluded. If US politicians and taxpayers know that they are paying $110 m per JSF they were never going to stand for export customers like the UK paying just $83 m (Lockmart's $59 m plus our unit R&D spend of $24 m) per jet. I don't even think that would be legal!
JSF funding and related financing was explored in depth in a recent issue of Defence Analysis, using cost data produced by the UK National Audit Office and used in House of Commons answers, plus JSF price and inflation data from the US Government Accountability Office, and from a “raft of US reports”.
These figures make it clear that while the International Partners' SDD costs have to remain constant and capped there is no such price cap for the production phase, and that the “UPC has risen annually”, and that “the price has continued to increase over the past five years”, threatening fleet sizes, and that the price has already inflated by 36% in real terms.
As early as 2002 the GAO were using a $67 m UPC (excluding R&D), while Lockmart and the DoD were holding to $50 m. There has been a 72% cost rise since 2002, so that the figure for 2006 will be in the order of $86.2-million for the A-model.
The starting price for the UK F-35B is already higher than that, with JSF procurement (exclusive of the SDD phase and long-term support) quoted at £10-billion for 150 aircraft. That was a £66.67-million UPC in 2002, with an adjusted UPC growth to £75.75 m in 2003, £90.15 m in 2004 and £104.6 m in 2005.
It seems as though the latter figure is what we're going to be charged (in addition to the $2 Bn SDD funding we've already committed).
Thus the Typhoon costs about £45-49 m today, and the JSF costs £56 m.
And the vast bulk of Typhoon spending has a positive impact on our balance of payments, and is recycled through the UK exchequer, while the JSF eats foreign currency reserves.
And this was supposed to be a cheap F-16 replacement.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Confucious,
I'm puzzled why you should want to make up a new price for Typhoon. There are more than enough out there, after all.
The unit programme cost (including R&D) is £82.5 m or £84.78 (Total UK programme cost (there are two credible figures) divided by 232).
The current unit production cost, excluding R&D, has to be less than the price paid by Austria (€62 m).
I'm puzzled why you should want to make up a new price for Typhoon. There are more than enough out there, after all.
The unit programme cost (including R&D) is £82.5 m or £84.78 (Total UK programme cost (there are two credible figures) divided by 232).
The current unit production cost, excluding R&D, has to be less than the price paid by Austria (€62 m).
By the way, thank you for the info on the '35 - it wasn't one I was posting about previously, nor had I any intention of doing so. I merely quoted an 'off the shelf' price of a '22 (NOT a '35) - the US has written off r&d as far as (likely-to-be-rare) foreign sales are concerned. Its unit cost incl r&d is more like $350M based on their (reduced) likely production numbers.
Last edited by Confucius; 27th May 2006 at 10:06.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko your pants are on fire,
US only JSF unit program acquisition cost (total US R&D plus total US manufacturing divided by total US order of 2,458 aircraft) = $104m.
Projected US flyaway price, (cost to buy production aircraft off the line) = approx $50m.
JSF partner contracts state they will pay same US flyaway i.e. approx $50m. For example, Norway has been told to expect $45m for its F-35A's.
These numbers can be verified in a number of recently published US official publications. They are not my math. They are not pulled from anorak weekly. These are the costs & prices presented to congress this year.
The US will not be passing on additional R&D to the UK £2 bill contribution. Guaranteed in writing.
There is no US law that says US R&D has to be recovered thru exports. Not usually done. US goverment is not some 7/11 that needs to recover investment or make a profit. EXACTLY same as UK paying more for Typhoons than Austria because UK swallows R&D.
JSF will bring $25 billion plus to the UK. More than enough in taxes to pay for the entire UK JSF fleet.
So to answer Confucious, JSF partners are currently projected to pay appprox $50m per aircraft. Up or down a bit depending on variant. Up to you to guess how much that will drift in the next 5 years or so before deliveries begin. Bound to go up some. But basically half current Typhoon pricing.
Or you can believe wacko jacko's $100m or $150m or $200m (£104.6 m) or whatever other number he's pulling out of his ass.
I'm being pedentic. I'm running the risk of being thought an idiot for arguing with one. But I'm heartly sick of Jacko's lies, distortions and half truths here and in his spotter monthly articles. They prevent any rationale UK debate re-JSF and carriers (probably the not so hidden agenda) which doesn't do the Brit military any favors and by lowest common denominator journalism just confims public notion that any defense money is wasted. You loose..
US only JSF unit program acquisition cost (total US R&D plus total US manufacturing divided by total US order of 2,458 aircraft) = $104m.
Projected US flyaway price, (cost to buy production aircraft off the line) = approx $50m.
JSF partner contracts state they will pay same US flyaway i.e. approx $50m. For example, Norway has been told to expect $45m for its F-35A's.
These numbers can be verified in a number of recently published US official publications. They are not my math. They are not pulled from anorak weekly. These are the costs & prices presented to congress this year.
The US will not be passing on additional R&D to the UK £2 bill contribution. Guaranteed in writing.
There is no US law that says US R&D has to be recovered thru exports. Not usually done. US goverment is not some 7/11 that needs to recover investment or make a profit. EXACTLY same as UK paying more for Typhoons than Austria because UK swallows R&D.
JSF will bring $25 billion plus to the UK. More than enough in taxes to pay for the entire UK JSF fleet.
So to answer Confucious, JSF partners are currently projected to pay appprox $50m per aircraft. Up or down a bit depending on variant. Up to you to guess how much that will drift in the next 5 years or so before deliveries begin. Bound to go up some. But basically half current Typhoon pricing.
Or you can believe wacko jacko's $100m or $150m or $200m (£104.6 m) or whatever other number he's pulling out of his ass.
I'm being pedentic. I'm running the risk of being thought an idiot for arguing with one. But I'm heartly sick of Jacko's lies, distortions and half truths here and in his spotter monthly articles. They prevent any rationale UK debate re-JSF and carriers (probably the not so hidden agenda) which doesn't do the Brit military any favors and by lowest common denominator journalism just confims public notion that any defense money is wasted. You loose..