Type selection of Denmark's new fighter aircraft - Report

[bumtish]

I am inaugurating this thread for discussions on the evaluation report from the Danish type selection.

Webpage in English: http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/new-figh ... ghter.aspx

It has an executive summary in English (http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Docume ... mmary5.pdf ), and a detailed Report in Danish (http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Docume ... 160509.pdf ).

Here is some of the content that should help start up the discussion and commentary.

Figure 3.4 Grading the candidate mission effectiveness in relation to mission type and level of mission intensity

[hornetfinn]

This should give us some more light on comparative qualities of F-35, SH, EF Typhoon and F-16 MLU in different missions. It seems like F-35 is way above the rest in Air Interdiction and S/DEAD missions. Interesting that F-16 betters EF Typhoon in Strike, Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR) missions. Typhoon seems to be quite a bit better than SH and F-16 in Defensive Counter Air missions.

Figur 3.3 shows survivability rating:

[bumtish]

The mission scenarios these evaluations were based on is from the RFI/RBI. They were leaked to the Danish blog http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8356 a couple of weeks ago

The leaked information appear in English, while the blog post itself is in Danish. I have picked an example: Air Interdiction

Air Interdiction-scenariet:

Air Order Of Battle:

– Six SU-30MK. Four aircraft are expected to be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on “ready state 15” at the Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.

– Six MiG-29 SMT. All aircraft can be expected on “ready state 30” at Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, Gardenia jammer pod.



Missile Order Of Battle:

Radio-frequency seeking SAMs:

– Unknown number of SA-8. The SA-8s are expected to be widely distributed and are unlocated throughout the adversary territory.

– Three SA-10. Accurate locations are unknown.

– Four SA-11. Accurate locations are unknown.

– Unknown number of SA-15. The SA-15s are expected to be widely distributed and are unlocated throughout the adversary territory.

Infrared seeking SAMs:

– Unknown number of SA-14,

– Unknown number of SA-18,

– Unknown number of SA-24.

The Infrared seeking SAMs are expected to be widely distributed and are unlocated throughout the adversary territory.

Air Interdiction Scenario

[hornetfinn]

Calculated the estimated costs for each aircraft in US dollars.

Procurement cost per aircraft:
F-35: 84 million
Typhoon: 127 million
Super Hornet: 125 million

Sustainment costs per aircraft:
F-35: 136 million
Typhoon: 165 million
Super Hornet: 108 million

Total costs per aircrat:
F-35: 221 million
EF Typhoon: 291 million
Super Hornet: 233 million

Given the evaluated performance and survivability figures, it sure seems like F-35 is extremely good value for money. I really wonder what makes Typhoon so expensive to operate in comparison to competitors?

[hornetfinn]

Great info again bumtish! Pretty tough scenarios as far as I can tell.

[Dragon029]

I just tried out a new experimental Microsoft program called Document Translator on the full 104-page report.

The end result has some glitches, but is still mostly readable:

typevalg-af-danmarks-kommende-kampfly-reduceret-vers-20160509-english-translation.pdf

Translated with Microsoft Document Translator

(5.42 MiB) Downloaded 2527 times

[magitsu]

Page 10 pic puts 28 F-35 and 38 F-18E maintenance costs at roughly equal (6,7% more to F-18).
So I think it means maintenance for one F-35 is 25% more.

But then again, I could see it not being able to capture how much more it costs to operate 38 instead of 28. There are costs not directly related to any one jet in particular.

[Dragon029]

The operating cost for the F-35 is cited as 24.9 billion krone for 28 jets, the Super Hornet is cited at 26.8 billion krone for 38 jets.

That equates to a lifelong operating cost of 889.3 million krone ($136 million USD) per F-35 and 705.3 million krone ($108 million USD) per Super Hornet (pretty much like you said, 25.9% more than the Super Hornet).

Interestingly however, the report states that the Super Hornets being offered (as well as the Eurofighter) have 6000 hour lifespans (ie a SLEP or life-extending mods aren't included) and that this is why more fighters would be ordered under the acquisition plans for those two (34 and 36 vs 28). Those amounts therefore equate to an average of $17,000 USD per flight hour for the F-35A and $18,000 USD per flight hour for the Super Hornet.

The rough translation (with some grammatical improvements) from the report:

The estimated lifetime costs are lowest for the Joint Strike Fighter, næstlavest for Super Hornet and highest for the Eurofighter. This is primarily due to the fact that the Joint Strike Fighter airframe is designed to be able to fly 8000 hours, while the Eurofighter and Super Hornet are both designed to be able to fly 6000 hours. To solve the task therefore requires fewer complex airframes with the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, than when purchasing the Eurofighter or Super Hornet. The calculations in the economy model has thus pointed to a need for respectively 28 Joint Strike Fighter, 34 Eurofighters and 38 Super Hornets to solve the same problem complex. This is due to the result that the Super Hornet is a two-seat aircraft and therefore have a greater need for flying hours to educate and train crews than the Eurofighter and Joint Strike Fighter. In addition, the Eurofighter has a higher maintenance Risk sesomkostninger per flight hour than the Joint Strike Fighter Operation and Super Hornet. Acquisition cost per aircraft is highest for acquiring the Eurofighter.

[vanshilar]

Page 10 pic puts 28 F-35 and 38 F-18E maintenance costs at roughly equal (6,7% more to F-18).
So I think it means maintenance for one F-35 is 25% more.

Keep in mind it's the cost of maintaining each F-35 for 8000 flight hours compared with the cost of maintaining each F-18 for 6000 flight hours. If you decide to use your car for 15 years instead of 10 years, the maintenance costs for that car is going to increase, but the important and relevant metric for you is how much is spent per year on transportation, not how much is spent per car -- you still need some form of transportation (new car, bus, etc.) during those extra 5 years if you decide to use your car for only 10 years to do an apples-to-apples comparison.

[bumtish]

The operating cost for the F-35 is cited as 24.9 billion krone for 28 jets, the Super Hornet is cited at 26.8 billion krone for 38 jets.

That equates to a lifelong operating cost of 889.3 million krone ($136 million USD) per F-35 and 705.3 million krone ($108 million USD) per Super Hornet (pretty much like you said, 25.9% more than the Super Hornet).

Interestingly however, the report states that the Super Hornets being offered (as well as the Eurofighter) have 6000 hour lifespans (ie a SLEP or life-extending mods aren't included) and that this is why more fighters would be ordered under the acquisition plans for those two (34 and 36 vs 28). Those amounts therefore equate to an average of $17,000 USD per flight hour for the F-35A and $18,000 USD per flight hour for the Super Hornet.

They had NLR calculate the effects on costs and number of airframes to be bought if F-35 had only 6000 hrs, and for the case where the Super Hornet and Eurofighter have 8000 hrs each. The results in Table 4.6. In the latter two cases four fewer aircraft have to be bought saving about 2.9-3.3% on the life cycle costs. In the case that F-35 only had 6000 hrs, 5 more a/c would have to be bought and an increase in life cycle costs of 3.6% would have occurred.

[magitsu]

They had NLR calculate the effects on costs and number of airframes to be bought if F-35 had only 6000 hrs, and for the case where the Super Hornet and Eurofighter have 8000 hrs each. The results in Table 4.6. In the latter two cases four fewer aircraft have to be bought saving about 2.9-3.3% on the life cycle costs. In the case that F-35 only had 6000 hrs, 5 more a/c would have to be bought and an increase in life cycle costs of 3.6% would have occurred.

Wow, they were thorough! 150 million dkk ($23m) well spent. Supposedly that was the amount spent in 10 years by Nyt Kampfly Program -office.

But your numbers are millions added/deducted, not percentages ... F-35 to 6000 hrs is 8.5% increase ( 42.2 to 45.8 ). Super Hornet and Typhoon decrease by 5%.

[castlebravo]

They ranked the SHornet equal to the Typhoon in survivability, and better in mission effectiveness. That should stir up some lively "discussion" around the 'net.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

They ranked the SHornet equal to the Typhoon in survivability, and better in mission effectiveness. That should stir up some lively "discussion" around the 'net.

A top shelf electronics suite goes a long way.

[magitsu]

They ranked the SHornet equal to the Typhoon in survivability, and better in mission effectiveness. That should stir up some lively "discussion" around the 'net.

A top shelf electronics suite goes a long way.

Probably means Typhoon should bow out from non-ME competitions. They seem to have no clear advantage. Rafale will win in performance and SH will take the economy class. Gripen might be the most economical, but probably won't rate in performance against any of these.

[optimist]

I was surprised how the typhoon was significantly behind the Shornet in performance. we have also seen the rafale/typhoon eval from another comp, it appears the Shornet would of won that over the rafale. Even leaving the F-35 aside, because it was never in doubt. By just using the Shornet, it may get ugly over on keypub for the canard fans