Royal Navy to Buy F18F
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hong kong
Age: 49
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And before I get nailed by the realists;
Lightning, Buc, TSR, Hunter, Concorde et al.
Can you apply a fiscal value to national pride?
Sorry for the rant.
Best,
SSS
Lightning, Buc, TSR, Hunter, Concorde et al.
Can you apply a fiscal value to national pride?
Sorry for the rant.
Best,
SSS
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost to the F-16? You better have a closer look at history, the F-16 only just won the USAF fly off but did not even get off the drawing board for the Navy, turning it into a carrier capable aircraft was considered way to hard. The basic configuration might be 30 years old (have another look at it's history, it's more like 40) but it has been redesigned, has new engines and avionics and is proven to work. And the best thing about it is it's not French! 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I first saw the Eurofighter mockup model in the Missile museum at RAF Newton and that was 1982, and we are only now building up it's numbers and capability ie Air to ground to that of the F18 A/E which it has from the start.
Makes way for a small batch of Growlers!(que..you live in the north east, there aren't any small growlers jokes)
Makes way for a small batch of Growlers!(que..you live in the north east, there aren't any small growlers jokes)
Guest
Posts: n/a
what F-35 is capable of
Also let's remember what the F22 was capable of at the same period in it's development .. on paper, great. Now in service, when reallity kicks in, not a lot.
The SuperHornet is not a legacy platform, it's widely accepted to be a 4.5 generation aircraft and it's proven, it's available, oh and compared to the F35 it's cheap.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SuperHornet is not a legacy platform, it's widely accepted to be a 4.5 generation aircraft and it's proven, it's available, oh and compared to the F35 it's cheap
I believe that when F-35 production ramps up we'll be surprised at how reasonable the flyaway cost is for what you get. You want legacy then fine, it will cost less because Boeing are being pushed out of the fighter market by Lockheed for what will be the THE future long-term western strike platform. Hell I bet they even subsidise the cost from their airliner sales just to make it attractive.
AOA won't win a war of the future so why buy into it now?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Money spent is money gone. Money that would be spent is money that can be saved from future spending.
If you had just serviced your second car for Mrs R, new exhaust, new tyres etc etc you would hardly get rid of it simply to save running costs and replace it with a new one would you?
Once again posting with trepidation, as a guest... but -
If we want a new ground attack aircraft, why don't we just bloody well make one, while we've at least the shade of the ability to do it? It strikes me that Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft which could have been done without outside involvement, to the net benefit of the project in terms of reduced wrangling over the specification. Keeping it in house means that it doesn't have make a huge dent in the balance of payments, provides lots of employment, and, what d'you know, other people (well, Saudi) might buy them, to overall positive fiscal effect.
Oh, and don't dither over the spec, keep changing the spec, change the spec when you don't understand what the full consequences will be, or sign up to some ridiculous deal whereby government money covers every possible mistake the manufacturers make. Then you might get something with decent clarity of purpose, in a timely manner, within a respectable distance of the original quote.
And you might actually be able to take some schoolkids to RAF Little Wrinklybum and show them one, and those of them which wish to be engineers on such highly diverting projects would have an ice cube's chance in hell of actually becoming such.
Is there anything wrong with this picture? Serious question.
If we want a new ground attack aircraft, why don't we just bloody well make one, while we've at least the shade of the ability to do it? It strikes me that Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft which could have been done without outside involvement, to the net benefit of the project in terms of reduced wrangling over the specification. Keeping it in house means that it doesn't have make a huge dent in the balance of payments, provides lots of employment, and, what d'you know, other people (well, Saudi) might buy them, to overall positive fiscal effect.
Oh, and don't dither over the spec, keep changing the spec, change the spec when you don't understand what the full consequences will be, or sign up to some ridiculous deal whereby government money covers every possible mistake the manufacturers make. Then you might get something with decent clarity of purpose, in a timely manner, within a respectable distance of the original quote.
And you might actually be able to take some schoolkids to RAF Little Wrinklybum and show them one, and those of them which wish to be engineers on such highly diverting projects would have an ice cube's chance in hell of actually becoming such.
Is there anything wrong with this picture? Serious question.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil,
Welcome - always good to get an external view.
Yes, a few things.
Well, the MoD/RAF is notorious for changing specs and off-take numbers, as well as for writing rubbish contracts and stuffing themselves. So this is a pretty major problem.
See above. And what threat environment do you want this new jet to work in? Unless reasonably benign at ML, then it starts to get rather pricey VERY quickly - we're not talking about zero-timed Hunters with Litening pods, I'm guessing.
Extremely unlikely to provide "overall positive fiscal effect" (which I assume means a profit). The only way you can demonstrate that most aircraft exports make a profit is to write off large portions of the R&D and then show that you've made a profit on the incremental sales. I'd be interested to see the costs for Al Yamamah (sp?) to see if we actually made any cash on the Saudi Tornado deals if you were to include the cost of the Tornado R&D.
Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and I'd love to be proved wrong, but....
S41
Welcome - always good to get an external view.
Is there anything wrong with this picture? Serious question.
Oh, and don't dither over the spec, keep changing the spec, change the spec when you don't understand what the full consequences will be, or sign up to some ridiculous deal whereby government money covers every possible mistake the manufacturers make. Then you might get something with decent clarity of purpose, in a timely manner, within a respectable distance of the original quote.
If we want a new ground attack aircraft, why don't we just bloody well make one
other people (well, Saudi) might buy them, to overall positive fiscal effect.
Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.
Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and I'd love to be proved wrong, but....
S41
GK
LM has been claiming a couple of sets of numbers.
One is a $49.5 million unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) that does include the engine. A few snags, though. You are not going to get the airplane for the URFC because there are always non-recurring costs in there for "ancillary equipment" (things like weapon pylons/adapters). It's priced in 2002 dollars, and you don't have any of those. It's also not the price today, but an average if you build 2,200 jets between now and 2037. And from a UK viewpoint, it's also worth remembering that the F-35B and F-35C are and always have been much more expensive than the F-35A.
And indeed, this chart that they use all the time omits the engine.
So I suggest you take your talk of slander and go back to f16.net.
LM has been claiming a couple of sets of numbers.
One is a $49.5 million unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) that does include the engine. A few snags, though. You are not going to get the airplane for the URFC because there are always non-recurring costs in there for "ancillary equipment" (things like weapon pylons/adapters). It's priced in 2002 dollars, and you don't have any of those. It's also not the price today, but an average if you build 2,200 jets between now and 2037. And from a UK viewpoint, it's also worth remembering that the F-35B and F-35C are and always have been much more expensive than the F-35A.
And indeed, this chart that they use all the time omits the engine.
So I suggest you take your talk of slander and go back to f16.net.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you notice ORAC's post?
The one where he cites
You see that? include the costs of procuring airframes; engines;
If LM is citing "unit flyaway cost", then it HAS to include the cost of the engine!
Where can WE see "this chart that they use all the time" that "omits the engine."? You conveniently "forgot" to provide a link.
And since I have never been on f16.net, I laugh at you.
Try to belittle me because I call you on your BS?
The one where he cites
Definition of Unit Fly-away Cost Used by DOD:
The standard definition of aircraft unit fly-away cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity.
Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.
The standard definition of aircraft unit fly-away cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments; engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity.
Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.
If LM is citing "unit flyaway cost", then it HAS to include the cost of the engine!
Where can WE see "this chart that they use all the time" that "omits the engine."? You conveniently "forgot" to provide a link.
And since I have never been on f16.net, I laugh at you.
Try to belittle me because I call you on your BS?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane Queensland
Age: 65
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/A-18 ?
I'm new to the forum but have read with interest the views of many regarding the possible purchase of the F/A-18 Silent Hornet by the UK. Although this will be decided above our pay grade, a small thought to ponder. Passive stealth is a perishable quality, with the improvements in electronic detection stealth technologies become less effective. The Russians are currently experimenting with wing leading edge 'anti stealth ' radars built into their next generation fighter to counter the F-35 and F-22 reduced RCS stealth capabilities. Without its stealth capability the F-35 becomes an aircraft that lacks payload, range and speed, all qualities needed in a good fighter if it is to survive in a hostile environment.
An aircraft supported by a modern EW platform will stand as good a chance as any of 'getting through' to it's target so, maybe a package that includes F/A-18 SH and E/A-18 G's might not be such a bad purchase in these financially stressful times. We will have to wait and see what our lords and masters decide!
An aircraft supported by a modern EW platform will stand as good a chance as any of 'getting through' to it's target so, maybe a package that includes F/A-18 SH and E/A-18 G's might not be such a bad purchase in these financially stressful times. We will have to wait and see what our lords and masters decide!
Anyone?
Is there something strange about the link? Was that very large chart invisible? Or is GK suggesting that I fabricated it? If so, I hope he will come out and say as much directly.
I logged out and could still see it, so if anyone can help GK it would be useful.
Meanwhile, here is some more discussion:
Lockheed: F-35 Can Compete On Cost | AVIATION WEEK
Yes, as I noted above, there is a cost that can be presented as $60 million, although it is based on URFC (which nobody much ever used until now), and won't apply until at least 2018-2019 delivery dates, and is the A-model that the RN is not going to get, and depends on all the international partners sticking to their delivery dates, even though IOC and testing have slipped.
Is there something strange about the link? Was that very large chart invisible? Or is GK suggesting that I fabricated it? If so, I hope he will come out and say as much directly.
I logged out and could still see it, so if anyone can help GK it would be useful.
Meanwhile, here is some more discussion:
Lockheed: F-35 Can Compete On Cost | AVIATION WEEK
Yes, as I noted above, there is a cost that can be presented as $60 million, although it is based on URFC (which nobody much ever used until now), and won't apply until at least 2018-2019 delivery dates, and is the A-model that the RN is not going to get, and depends on all the international partners sticking to their delivery dates, even though IOC and testing have slipped.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been keeping schtoom about this one for a week or so just in case - not wanting to blow my own trumpet but I am distantly related to a VVIP ( no names no clues or I get a black Omega tail ) and we had a very interesting natter at a little family shindig. Said VVIP has a big input into the upcoming pain.
I voiced the side of the end user of kit - bloody industry etc and VVIP voiced the point of MOD/RAF keep buggering about with the spec.
We agreed on this, make no mistake - said VVIP is damn clever and well aware of various things and while there is going to be pain, oodles of, the gubmint is trying to walk the line between getting us out of debt and keeping us a viable nation with the needs of everybody, mil included.
Don't believe all you read in the mail or torygraph....
I wish I could say more but I can't - just keep faith with each other and STOP THE BLOODY INFIGHTING.
I also would like f-18g over a dave we might never see. All of you fretting that we wouldn't have the best shiny toy - we've managed it ever since we began haven't we?
I voiced the side of the end user of kit - bloody industry etc and VVIP voiced the point of MOD/RAF keep buggering about with the spec.
We agreed on this, make no mistake - said VVIP is damn clever and well aware of various things and while there is going to be pain, oodles of, the gubmint is trying to walk the line between getting us out of debt and keeping us a viable nation with the needs of everybody, mil included.
Don't believe all you read in the mail or torygraph....
I wish I could say more but I can't - just keep faith with each other and STOP THE BLOODY INFIGHTING.
I also would like f-18g over a dave we might never see. All of you fretting that we wouldn't have the best shiny toy - we've managed it ever since we began haven't we?
LO - No chart visible....
LO,
I can't access your chart on my system either - but I can see that you have posted something, and I don't doubt your integrity!!!
I can't access your chart on my system either - but I can see that you have posted something, and I don't doubt your integrity!!!
Well, the MoD/RAF is notorious for changing specs and off-take numbers, as well as for writing rubbish contracts and stuffing themselves. So this is a pretty major problem.
And what threat environment do you want this new jet to work in? Unless reasonably benign at ML, then it starts to get rather pricey VERY quickly - we're not talking about zero-timed Hunters with Litening pods, I'm guessing.
Extremely unlikely to provide "overall positive fiscal effect" (which I assume means a profit)
Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.
No?
P
Thanks, Biggus - let's try this.
Lockheed Martin Chart
Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.
CS - We're not to believe the Mail or the Torygraph... but the story that started all this was in the Times.
Lockheed Martin Chart
Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.
CS - We're not to believe the Mail or the Torygraph... but the story that started all this was in the Times.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I have to download and install someone's downloader program (that I know nothing about... either program or company) in order to download that file to see your chart... very nice.
You can't just put up a link to where you found it.
Perhaps you are referring to one of the charts here?
F-35 JSF Program: When is ?Affordability? Not?
And yes, URF... not the same designation.
And with the clear labeling of the differences I don't see anything to support any accusation of deception and underhandedness.
Of course, Airpower Australia is the same group that insists that Australia should have bought the more-expensive F-22... which is not even available for export (and which blindly refuses to even acknowledge that fact).
So, baseless accusations of deception and skullduggery are only to be expected from them... too bad you believe them.
You can't just put up a link to where you found it.
Perhaps you are referring to one of the charts here?
F-35 JSF Program: When is ?Affordability? Not?
And yes, URF... not the same designation.
And with the clear labeling of the differences I don't see anything to support any accusation of deception and underhandedness.
Of course, Airpower Australia is the same group that insists that Australia should have bought the more-expensive F-22... which is not even available for export (and which blindly refuses to even acknowledge that fact).
So, baseless accusations of deception and skullduggery are only to be expected from them... too bad you believe them.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 17th Aug 2010 at 01:53.
As a Canadian I was distressed when the government announced we were committing to the F35. The one huge advantage to the CF18E/F is there is cost certainty. Nobody knows what the final unit costs for the F35 will be but if the cost do not increase from the latest upward revison, (now at least 1.5 times the cost of a F18E) it will be the first modern military aircraft program that manged that feat from this (early) point in its development.
Finally how good is good enough. Who is the realisitic enemy that cannot not be defeated by a generation 4.5 fighter now or even 20 yrs from now ?
In the last 40 years the kill ratio for Western Airforces is in the order of 100 to zero.
Finally how good is good enough. Who is the realisitic enemy that cannot not be defeated by a generation 4.5 fighter now or even 20 yrs from now ?
In the last 40 years the kill ratio for Western Airforces is in the order of 100 to zero.