Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

SpudmanWP wrote:

120 Rafales would cost more than 120 F-35s AND be less effective.

I don't think so ...Plenty of work for BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. The Rafale is mature fighter so there is not much surprises in terms of final cost . F-35 on the other hand ????

F-16.net Sponsor

Well after the MR4 scandal wouldnt put it past the UK Gov to waste a lot more money by getting nothing from the F-35 program investment - and then throwing even more away by getting the totally obsolete Rafael........lets prey it never happens

Mature does not mean cheaper.

btw, the F-35 has a more mature AESA and IRST than what is on the Rafale. Actually, the Rafale no longer has an IRST.

Several things will drive the cost (especially lifetime) of F-35Cs lower than that of the Rafale:

1. The carrier Rafale is more expensive than the baseline Rafale (about 90-95 million Euro which is ~$125 mil USD)
2. Lifetime parts are MUCH cheaper for the F-35 than for the Rafale due to economy of scale benefits that the F-35 enjoys.
3. Post IOC updates are cheaper due to an already funded Post-SDD update cycle.
4. UAI allows new weapons to be used without the cost of updating the Block software.
5. Increased survival rate with the F-35 leads to less replacement costs.
6. Reduced need for supporting assets (IFR, jammers, escorts, etc)

muir wrote:

You are aware the Sea Gripen exist only on paper right? SAAB has absolutely no experience whatsoever of carrier ops. Sure, it´s a bit beefed up for short runway landings but that's not nearly the same stress as a cat and trap. That said, if you had to turn a land based fighter into a ship based one you'd probably be best of going with the Gripen but it'll cost bucketloads of cash in an austere budget environment. And that's before things start to go wrong and the schedule slips.. Never gonna happen.

Please excuse this late response, I just sorta tooled back over here today and noticed your post.

Yes, I'm aware that Sea Gripen doesn't yet exist, but as I said, it won't cost all that much to develop, given they're going ahead with NG. SAAB doesn't have carrier experience, but they don't have to. They're going to develop the version, not operate it off of Sweden's vast fleet of aircraft carriers. This is not an insurmountable problem. After all, among the other nations that have no experience whatsoever of (CTOL) carrier ops is a country called...Great Britain. It's been so long, they're going to have to learn from scratch, but they'll do it.

The thing that makes the concept viable, is that due to Sweden's needs, they've already got most of what they need. They have the needed visibility on approach, the ability to fly a constant angle of attack on approach, the required speeds. Because of the maintenance environment in which the Swedish AF operates, they've already got that in place. Not that much has to be done to the mains, but a new nose gear will be required. Most importantly, I believe they already have the keel in place that they'll need.

Regarding the bucketloads of cash needed, given where the plane already will be...not that much. Besides, like I said, Sweden may well kick in part of the cost so that they can offer it elsewhere. Things can go wrong and there can be slippage, Sweden seems to have much less problems in that arena than the rest of us do.

Again, just a "blue sky" proposal for the UK for the situation they've put themselves in. Frankly, like I said before, UK's best course, cost and effectiveness-wise would be to go back to the F-35B, but that's not going to happen--to embarrassing and doesn't give them the excuses they need to postpone and reduce their carrier ops for the future.

The only way MoD would acquire Rafale is if France purchased the extra CVF as an offset. That isn't going to happen as DCN building a carrier is cheaper than buying one without catapults from BAE with their huge cost overruns. At a cost of $1.2 billion to put in EM catapults, QE won't be anything more than a helo carrier.

duplex wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

120 Rafales would cost more than 120 F-35s AND be less effective.

I don't think so ...Plenty of work for BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. The Rafale is mature fighter so there is not much surprises in terms of final cost . F-35 on the other hand ????

No, plenty of work for Thales and Snecma

bjr1028 wrote:

duplex wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

120 Rafales would cost more than 120 F-35s AND be less effective.

I don't think so ...Plenty of work for BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. The Rafale is mature fighter so there is not much surprises in terms of final cost . F-35 on the other hand ????

No, plenty of work for Thales and Snecma

It would definitely depend on when one is talking about actually procuring the aircraft lots.

If ordered prior to FY17, it's most likely that Rafale (any variant) would be cheaper (significantly cheaper at least in the next 2-3 years) to procure than an F-35A.

If one's talking about comparing an F-35C model procurement vs Rafale-M however, there would be no evidence to suggest that the F-35C @ $200m per unit weapon system currently for a block II (requiring retrofit costs once block III is finally mature) would be more affordable, especially under future austere budget environments and under any substantially reduced FRP orders to come.

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on Feb 24, 2012 - 01:54 PM; edited 1 time in total

There are cheaper alternatives for the RN than the F-35C, but I doubt the costs of integrating/developing something else for British use will offer sufficient savings (if any) to justify the loss in capability. The only good reason for the RN to go with something else, would be delay/cancellation of the F-35C, in which case the SH would be the quickest/cheapest to adapt. As for cost issues (and I've said this before), if the money isn't there for the F-35C, then it's probably not there for anything else either.

flighthawk wrote:

Well after the MR4 scandal wouldnt put it past the UK Gov to waste a lot more money by getting nothing from the F-35 program investment - and then throwing even more away by getting the totally obsolete Rafael........lets prey it never happens

It will not happen dude its just a thought.. Brits have wasted 3.5 billion pounds on NIMROD and cancelled it and their latest nuclear sub Astute class was 2 billion pounds over budget and 2 years late ,their QE carriers are already billions over budget so they would not throw another 2 billion pounds already invested in F-35 out of the window and go for the Rafale ,highly unlikely. On the other hand, I disagree with most of the posters here as I still regard the Rafale the best solution for the RN in terms of cost and efficiency because there are too many imponderables to make an accurate prediction about F-35's future such as when it will be ready and how much it will cost.

geogen wrote:

It would definitely depend on when one is talking about actually procuring the aircraft lots.

If ordered prior to FY17, it's most likely that Rafale (any variant) would be cheaper (significantly cheaper at least in the next 2-3 years) to procure than an F-35A.

If one's talking about comparing an F-35C model procurement vs Rafale-M however, there would be no evidence to suggest that the F-35C @ $200m per unit weapon system currently for a block II (requiring retrofit costs once block III is finally mature) would be more affordable, especially under future austere budget environments and under any substantially reduced FRP orders to come.

The RN wouldn't be filling the deck of its carrier(s) with LRIP aircraft. They'd be FRP aircraft, and considerably less than $200m/unit.

wrightwing wrote:

geogen wrote:

It would definitely depend on when one is talking about actually procuring the aircraft lots.

If ordered prior to FY17, it's most likely that Rafale (any variant) would be cheaper (significantly cheaper at least in the next 2-3 years) to procure than an F-35A.

If one's talking about comparing an F-35C model procurement vs Rafale-M however, there would be no evidence to suggest that the F-35C @ $200m per unit weapon system currently for a block II (requiring retrofit costs once block III is finally mature) would be more affordable, especially under future austere budget environments and under any substantially reduced FRP orders to come.

The RN wouldn't be filling the deck of its carrier(s) with LRIP aircraft. They'd be FRP aircraft, and considerably less than $200m/unit.

To 'fill the deck' on schedule, you'd have to start buying operationally intended units in FY15 at the latest to have a couple IOC squadrons by the time your carrier is ready for it's first deployment. So compare FY14 and FY15 costs to get a better picture. IOC carrier wing units don't just pop out of a carrier's elevator at a snap of a finger.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... .8-bn.html

Wake up call for the Royal Navy !!

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Rafale or Super Hornet for the Royal Navy ?