Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

According to the BBC, the NAO says that the RAF's Typhoon fighter jets have each cost 75% more than predicted. They estimate that each individual aircraft is 55 million pound sterling more expensive than they should be. If my math is correct that comes out to a cost of just over 200 million dollars a plane using today's exchange rate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12614995

F-16.net Sponsor

I've always said we should have bought F-15's, apparently according to many over on PPRUNE it was the RAFs first choice too but industry and politics got in the way and we had to have a European product with a heavy UK workshare.

The program has been a bit of a fiasco to say the least and I hope we never try this stupid sht again.

That's probably a Program unit cost, taking into consideration UK's share of R&D. Considering they are buying fewer than the expected number of jets, it's not surprising the cost per unit will increase too. It's raw math. Same thing applies to the F-22. If the F-35 program stopped at 200 airframes, think about the average Program Unit cost.

To procure a tranche IIIA+ aircraft today would be more expensive than a notional International block Super Hornet, or block 60+ F-16 sure, but still less expensive than an LRIP F-35C unit procurement (as would a Rafale-M e.g.).

Spin the figures as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact it has been a colossal screw up and extremely expensive way of getting a 4th gen fighter which is of little to no use in the A-G role till 2018.

As a UK tax payer i'm hacked off but then we always did know there was some very fishy goings on with the Typhoon as before now the powers that be wouldn't let anyone see the figures, now we know why.

Hmm, I do detect a bit of negative spin in this report..... this is the cost to the UK for developing and puchasing 160 aircraft not the actual overall unit cost. It is still a massive cock up though!

The question should be.... what is the percentage of development costs contributed by the UK in proportion to it's order?

I suspect that this is massively scewed ie. 40% of development costs for 29% of total (currently ordered) production.

That is the probably the true example of the MoD procurement cock-up, agreeing to take a dispropotionate share of development costs.

Andy

Development costs should be equal to development workshare meaning 33% of the total development cost has been paid by the British. This number still looks like total programme costs including R&D, production of the aircraft and procurement of the related equipment required to operate the aircraft and possibly even R1/2 upgrades and the austere AG package.

Btw here is the original report from NAO. I suggest anyone interested to read it as it explains a lot of things which are left out in the usual press releases.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011 ... oject.aspx

Everyone should read the NAO report, then do a few calculations. Look at the production cost/number of planes and compare it to F-35 LRIP.

shingen wrote:

Everyone should read the NAO report, then do a few calculations. Look at the production cost/number of planes and compare it to F-35 LRIP.

Why don't you post the math you have done, if you have done it?

I don't have an exact figure for the F-35. I've seen 183 million for LRIP 2 and 123 million for LRIP 3. I calculate around 140 million for the Typhoon from the NAO report's production cost figure (no development or upgrade costs). I think the argument that is made by a certain faction on these types of boards that the Typhoon is somehow this great bargain and tremendous compromise between cost and capability is fallacious. The cost is above the F-35 despite the foolishness of building the B version of that aircraft and near the F-22 which is far beyond the Typhoon in capability.

Last edited by USMilFan on Mar 06, 2011 - 02:39 AM; edited 1 time in total

The report in the Register (see link below) shows that the cost per unit of the Typhoon comes in around $234mm, including development costs. The report cites $350mm as the effective unit cost, but the author allocates program costs to only 107 units in lieu of the expected number, which is 160 units. This report also highlights scheduling problems with the Typhoon that compound its effective lifecycle cost. For example, are tranche 1 planes actually scheduled for retirement by 2019? Wow, Typhoon life is extremely short indeed! Shocked

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

The figure for Typhoon development and acquisition is around 220-240 million per while for the F-22 it's around 350.

So why do we see this moronic argument that Typhoon is a better plane for the money than F-22 and F-35? The idiots who believe that won't post in this thread but they'll keep attacking the F-35 in that forum.

USMilFan wrote:

The report in the Register (see link below) shows that the cost per unit of the Typhoon comes in around $234mm, including development costs. The report cites $350mm as the effective unit cost, but the author allocates program costs to only 107 units in lieu of the expected number, which is 160 units. This report also highlights scheduling problems with the Typhoon that compound its effective lifecycle cost. For example, are tranche 1 planes actually scheduled for retirement by 2019? Wow, Typhoon life is extremely short indeed! Shocked

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

The reason why Tranche 1 are being retired by the RAF (and only the RAF) in 2019 is that we can't afford to upgrade them to Tranche 2/3 standard. I highly doubt they will be scrapped, rather sold on to another country as they will still have tonnes of life left in them.

I did a short summary of the key points in the Audit Office report on UKAR (copied below) which show how shockingly the MoD bean counters have cocked things up!

1. All Tranche 1 will be retired by 2019. Reducing the fleet to 107.
2. Strong hints that Typhoon will become the primary ground attack platform, taking over from Tornado GR.4, not F-35.
3. No more Typhoons over the 160 ordered will be purchased.
4. In reality we have only ordered 16 Tranche 3 aircraft of our original commitment. The other 24 are replacements for the Tranche 2 aircraft diverted to Saudi Arabia.
5. This report goes into the required number of fast jets for the RAF... and assumes the pre-SDR figure of 150 F-35's.... they haven't taken account of the now, much reduced order even though they have taken account of the SDR elsewhere in the report.
6. Retiring the Harrier early and reducing Tornado numbers has significantly increased running costs for Typhoon as BAE have increased maintenance/spare prices to pass on the cost of losing the business from Harrier/Tornado.
7. Hints that retiring the Jaguar early may have been the wrong decision leading to a rushed/limited capability on Typhoon.
8. There will be no further ground attack capability above current levels until 2018!!!
9. Oh and shock horror, multi national military programs don't work and should be avoided in the future.
10. Long term plan is for no more than 8 fast jet squadrons post Tornado retirement, RAF wide.

Andy

Hello, boff:

Thanks very much for clarifying with additional info. But I’m still not sure I fully understand your comments. Can you please help me understand?

Is it your view that MoD bean counters messed up the Typhoon program itself, or have they messed up this Audit Office report? Do you think the decision to retire Tranche 1 by 2019 is the most cost-effective and wisest one? Also, I have not heard about hints that Typhoon will become the primary ground attack platform for the RAF instead of the F-35. Is that the best allocation of RAF assets? Finally, what are your general conclusions regarding the Typhoon program? I hope Typhoon ends up living up to the expectations of the 4-member consortium.

Thanks, boff, for taking time to reply to my questions. I’m also grateful to hear the views of any other Brits who wish to share them.

I've conducted a quick calculation on base of the contract values for the different tranches ordered so far. The UKs contribution has been calculated on the base of its work share of 37.5 %, even for the T3A where it's actually 35.7 % as Spain ordered some additional aircraft on an option base.

I don't know whether VAT is included in the prices and other costs such as setting up the infrastructure, R&D, upgrade costs, support arrangements etc. aren't taken into account. This should subsequently come closest to what is known as fly-away cost per aircraft.

Tranche 1:
contracted: September 18 1998
#ac: 148/55 UK
value: 7 bln Euro/2.625 bln Euro UK
Average cost per ac: 47.3 mln Euro

Tranche 2:
contracted: December 14 2004
#ac: 236/89 UK
value: 13 bln Euro/4.875 bln Euro UK
Average cost per ac: 55 mln Euro

Tranche 3A:
contracted: July 31 2009
#ac: 112/40 UK
value: 6.6 bln Euro (9.1 bln - 2.5 bln for T1/2 obsolescence addressing)/2.475 bln Euro UK
average ac cost: 58.9 mln Euro

Total:
Value: 26.6 bln Euro/9.975 bln Euro UK
# ac: 496/184 UK
average ac cost: 53.6 mln Euro

Notes:
1.) 2 T1 examples have been diverted to Austria, with two additional aircraft being delivered as part of T2.
2.) 24 T2 ac diverted to Saudi-Arabia, leaves 67 for the UK (89+2-24)
3.) The UK pays in pound so on time exchange ratios have to be taken into account when calculating the appropriate tranche costs for the UK.
4.) It's not known whether the export deals had an impact on the total costs.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

UK National Audit Office spills the beans on Typhoon costs