India opens bids in $10.4-bn combat plane tender.

[p2prada]

They both include the total costs of the whole program: R&D, aircrafts, weapons, spares, maintenance..... => total costs of ownership... But we should know, that the EF unit costs have risen by 75% vs. budget. The reasons: delays and reductions in quantity by some airforces due to military budget cuts (for ex. Germany from 177 to 140)
Of course we never will know which plane is less expensive to operate in the case of India, because we do not know the impact of other elements like ToT or economic and political benefits for India.

That 75% figure does not include inflation. Since 2007 even the Indian deal is being pushed up by 50% to cover for inflation.

 

[arundo]

Lucky for us we aren't involved in development costs. IAF's main interest is to get an aircraft that will be cheaper to build and maintain for over 40 years. However we will have to pay costs for ToT and industrial technology and get back half that value back through offsets. So, HAL's interested in getting hold of this technology which can be also be used in some form or the other in AMCA. But we won't be expected to pay 37Billion Pounds for the same number of aircraft. This applies to both France and the Consortium.

Anyway, the current program costs for 180 Rafale seems to be 40Billion Euros. If Rafale is chosen we will end up paying half this amount for 200 aircraft.

EF is much more expensive than the 37Billion mentioned in the Auditing report. AFAIK, the 37Billion is for UK(37%) alone and does not include a similar amount for Germany(33%) and Italy+Spain(30%), more or less. That would push the entire EF program over 100Billion. Assuming this cost of 100Billion is for 600 EFs we can say the unit cost is 166million(program). It is lesser though. Assuming 40Billion for 180 Rafale we can say each Rafale costs 222million. Add any currency to these figures, Dollars, Euros, it does not matter. So, overall the EF is a cheaper program. However this does not mean Rafale is more expensive in fly away costs.

It's funny how other countries struggle to build state of the art stuff over decades and we buy the technology, when it is mature, in just a few years by paying half the amount. Even then we have critics who scream and shout over being ripped off when we are actually benefiting from the business.

Well, the 43,567 billion € (including inflation since the program started) is calculated for the total project from development until phase-out on a basis of the totality of 286 aircrafts the Armée de l'Air plans to order. Needless to say, that the unit cost of 152 million will increase, if the number is reduced by the Airforce again (firm order 180 so far). Initially 320 Rafale were in the budget, there already was a cut of 34 units (~ 10%) already. The cost include a 19,6% VAT.
Le Rafale trop cher ? Bienvenue au café du commerce !

I do not know the budget of the total EF program.
In the UK the unit price will be almost 250 million €
German sources referred to program costs of significantly more than 25 billion € for 180 aircrafts like 5 years ago and it is not excluded that additional money was or still has to be invested. Since, the number was reduced by more than 20% to 140, unit costs will increase.
Der Preis der Eurofighter

Of course there will be a part of the development costs included in the Indian package, but if EF gets the order of 126 aircrafts (and even more later) the overall unit costs will decrease of course.
Finally, the price of Austria's 15 Tranche 1 EF (kind of almost "nude" discount version including 6 used from Germany) was like 1,59 billion € or 106 billion € per unit back in 2007.

 

[Cola]

What I have been trying to say here is, that there is neither evidence that EF fits better to what IAF needs, nor that it is a superior aircraft.

I don't think you know IAF requirements or planned order of battle, so your assertion about EF not fitting IAF is dubious.

The sources I named and the evaluation results of 5 airforces can hardly be qualified as biased.

Planes are tested in numerous categories (flight, avionics, etc...) and then the results are weighted, producing final decision and recommendation given by AF.
Dutch evaluation f.e. never took place beyond paper sheet (won by mock-up F35) and I'm looking forward to see the results of investigation initiated by Swiss Ministry of Justice. Not so sure about Armasuisse's brass, though...

EF delivers top performance and Rafale too.

There isn't a room for two on top, but only one...and it's currently not the Rafale.
Rafale does offer better performance than other non-shortlisted competitors, though.

 

[p2prada]

Well, the 43,567 billion € (including inflation since the program started) is calculated for the total project from development until phase-out on a basis of the totality of 286 aircrafts the Armée de l'Air plans to order. Needless to say, that the unit cost of 152 million will increase, if the number is reduced by the Airforce again (firm order 180 so far). Initially 320 Rafale were in the budget, there already was a cut of 34 units (~ 10%) already. The cost include a 19,6% VAT.

I don't think it is possible to include jets which have not been ordered. Assuming even if this is true then both jets cost more or less the same. Neither jet is as cheap as Russian and American equivalents and this explains their inability to receive export orders at similar time lines as the other competitors.

In India the LCA program costs are calculated for jets on order, ie, 40. Future orders are not considered in unit costs when making cost assessments.

In the US, LM has been trying to show F-35s costs at full 3000+ production cycle instead of actual unit costs that countries are expected to pay. So, they have come under pressure for that and heads rolled.

Finally, the price of Austria's 15 Tranche 1 EF (kind of almost "nude" discount version including 6 used from Germany) was like 1,59 billion € or 106 billion € per unit back in 2007.

The Austrian orders are too small and hence the bigger price. Swiss Rafales came at 150million Euros apiece in 2011. The Saudi Typhoons came at around 75million Euros each in 2007. Numbers matter.

The article says Rafale production is 11/year and not 8 as I mentioned earlier. Expandable to 22/year, but highly unlikely without foreign orders.

 

[arundo]

I don't think you know IAF requirements or planned order of battle, so your assertion about EF not fitting IAF is dubious

do you, does Vandadium? Nobody knows exactly, even not Indian posters.

Planes are tested in numerous categories (flight, avionics, etc...) and then the results are weighted, producing final decision and recommendation given by AF.
Dutch evaluation f.e. never took place beyond paper sheet (won by mock-up F35) and I'm looking forward to see the results of investigation initiated by Swiss Ministry of Justice. Not so sure about Armasuisse's brass, though..

Investigation initiated by Swiss Ministry of Justice ... ? I just know that there is an investigation initiated to find out how the documents could be published. Is there a new investigation and what's exactly the subject? Pls give us a reference! Even if the best rated aircraft had won in CH, it would not be the EF. So what it is about for EF? As long as nothing is proven, you will have to accept that Rafale performed far better, even if that pill is an extremely bitter one. Needless to say, that the decision-makers have not taken into account the Armasuisse Report

There isn't a room for two on top, but only one...and it's currently not the Rafale.
Rafale does offer better performance than other non-shortlisted competitors, though.

both are on top of the competition, IAF seems to prefer Rafale... I guess that bribes changed hands...

Ok, we have another lobbyist here not willing to admit that EF performed worse than Rafale in AF evaluations. If EF doesn't perform better, it is of course because evaluators are corrupt or incapable.. if it does, everything is ok of course. If you are so well informed, I guess you won't have any problem telling us which is your legitimization to make such allegations. It is simply facts vs. speculations from far away.
Since you appear to be heavily biased and cannot provide any proof, evidence or other serious reference, I think that it has no sense to lose my time debating with you.

 

[p2prada]

In Singapore, the EF-2000 was the only aircraft which won air combat scenarios involving 3 F-16s against 1 EF. Rafale and F-15E lost to the 3 F-16s(Block 52s) in both WVR and BVR. The EF beat all 3 aircraft in both scenarios. I guess only the EF managed to go supersonic within Singapore's air space which is quite small. The EF also beat 2 F-15Es over UK in a friendly unofficial "battle." All this with current config while the F-15Es are the latest with AESA and whatnot.

Like I said, just because Rafale has more tech points does not mean it will always beat the EF in air to air battles.

 

[arundo]

In Singapore, the EF-2000 was the only aircraft which won air combat scenarios involving 3 F-16s against 1 EF. Rafale and F-15E lost to the 3 F-16s(Block 52s) in both WVR and BVR. The EF beat all 3 aircraft in both scenarios. I guess only the EF managed to go supersonic within Singapore's air space which is quite small. The EF also beat 2 F-15Es over UK in a friendly unofficial "battle." All this with current config while the F-15Es are the latest with AESA and whatnot.

Like I said, just because Rafale has more tech points does not mean it will always beat the EF in air to air battles.

That's an interesting point, but we are not only talking a2a as this is a mrca tender, alright?
Furthermore, there were 2 battles dogfight and bvr at Dubai (ATLC 2009) between EF and Rafale and the Rafale won both aggregate 7-1 (as well in Solenzara, Corsica in 2007 if I am right).
The EF won in Singapore, the Rafale in Dubai and the Swiss concluded the Rafale was better in a2a in their conditions.
So each of the aircrafts will have its strenghts, but saying the Typhoon is on top and the Rafale will always be second is not serious.

 

[Cola]

There is no point and is a sheer waste of time to discuss with people that are neither technically nor operationally competent in combat aircraft design and operations. People than can only trawl the internet and google around to vomit bureaucratic bits and pieces that suit whatever agenda they may pursue.

Indeed.
It's just when they become too vocal, corrections are in order, I think.

Ok, we have another lobbyist here not willing to admit that EF performed worse than Rafale in AF evaluations. If EF doesn't perform better, it is of course because evaluators are corrupt or incapable..

Arundo, what you need to understand is that EF performs better, indeed.
It's not a lobbying thing. It's a reality thing.
However, now I'm not sure if you know what performance is, so if you don't then ask and don't make assertions, out of the blue.

 

[p2prada]

That's an interesting point, but we are not only talking a2a as this is a mrca tender, alright?
Furthermore, there were 2 battles dogfight and bvr at Dubai (ATLC 2009) between EF and Rafale and the Rafale won both aggregate 7-1 (as well in Solenzara, Corsica in 2007 if I am right).
The EF won in Singapore, the Rafale in Dubai and the Swiss concluded the Rafale was better in a2a in their conditions.
So each of the aircrafts will have its strenghts, but saying the Typhoon is on top and the Rafale will always be second is not serious.

The 3v1 RoE in Singapore was the same for all 3 competitors.

The Rafale-Typhoon matchup depends on the RoE. It is the same with EF, MKI, F-15 and Rafale exercises. RoE can be different every time. One aircraft can trump the other if the RoE allows that advantage. RoE can curb speed, altitude and other aspects like AoA of the aircraft, the amount of time required for lock on, distance for a successful lock on etc. Then there are others rules like speed of the target, altitude etc which are in control of the rival pilot and not your own. For eg: In CI 2004 the USAF F-15s were not allowed to fire BVR from beyond 32Km.

The Brit air chief said EF whacked MKIs. The MKIs have whacked F-15s and viceversa on different days. The Rafale is said to have whacked MKI in Garud 2010. All in all, every aircraft can be said to have whacked the other, but we don't know the RoE for any of these exercises. Growlers and F-16s have whacked F-22s, it does not mean the F-22 is bad. So, exercises don't really give a proper picture if we are relying on open source info. For eg: In Garud 2010, MKIs lost to Rafales. But at the same time the MKIs were learning new tactics using the swing role concept while this concept wasn't new to the French.

The Singapore air force trains with F-16s in India as well as the US. Their fighters lost to EF. However the Pakistanis made some tall claims sometime back. They said they secretly sent PAF pilots on Turkish F-16s against Brit Typhoons and whacked them Brits in all WVR scenarios. There is no way to prove this claim.

Ever since the 2004 debacle, we have only been getting lesser and lesser information about all these air exercises. We have one Colonel saying MKIs svck and we have one of our top news editors, who was witness to Red Flag, saying MKIs had a 21:1 kill record against F-15s in 2008. So, there is too much uncertainty in the open source regarding all these air exercises.

 

[vanadium]

Lucky for us we aren't involved in development costs. IAF's main interest is to get an aircraft that will be cheaper to build and maintain for over 40 years. However we will have to pay costs for ToT and industrial technology and get back half that value back through offsets. So, HAL's interested in getting hold of this technology which can be also be used in some form or the other in AMCA. But we won't be expected to pay 37Billion Pounds for the same number of aircraft. This applies to both France and the Consortium.

Anyway, the current program costs for 180 Rafale seems to be 40Billion Euros. If Rafale is chosen we will end up paying half this amount for 200 aircraft.

EF is much more expensive than the 37Billion mentioned in the Auditing report. AFAIK, the 37Billion is for UK(37%) alone and does not include a similar amount for Germany(33%) and Italy+Spain(30%), more or less. That would push the entire EF program over 100Billion. Assuming this cost of 100Billion is for 600 EFs we can say the unit cost is 166million(program). It is lesser though. Assuming 40Billion for 180 Rafale we can say each Rafale costs 222million. Add any currency to these figures, Dollars, Euros, it does not matter. So, overall the EF is a cheaper program. However this does not mean Rafale is more expensive in fly away costs.

It's funny how other countries struggle to build state of the art stuff over decades and we buy the technology, when it is mature, in just a few years by paying half the amount. Even then we have critics who scream and shout over being ripped off when we are actually benefiting from the business.

Pricing information on fighters is a difficult area, requires a minimum of definition to compare like with like, and the matter is further confused by journalists quoting and comparing figures without having a clue of what they are talking about. Companies are quite coy in revealing prices and what those prices include and exclude, and at which economical conditions they refer. When JSF flyaway price was first quoted in year 2000 at $28m (sic!), if you read the small print it was related to year 1994, so you had to add inflation. This is an area, or a minefield, where there is plenty of scope for confusion or even manipulation by unscrupulous practitioners.

Research and development costs are sunk costs and are paid by the taxpayers. In the export arena and in India therefore the whole question is more or less of academical value. Some folks go on and on on cost escalations, delays and so on to throw a bit of mud on a given programme, but really the whole thing has little impact on the export price. The taxpayer generally tries to recover some of the R&D costs on export, by charging a royalty fee. But it is small beer. You have to sell thousands to get your money back.

The R&D costs of joint-venture projects are inherently higher. The Financial Times has estimated some time ago a 30% cost penalty vis-a-vis a single partner project. This is due to duplication of flight test centers and final assembly lines, sub-optimal work sharing so that each partner benefits from the new technologies and these are shared among participants. Additional layers of bureaucracy and project management are also to be taken into account. On the other hand, there are the benefits of sharing R&D costs that few single nations want or can carry, of sharing technologies and of starting life with a sizable production run. The trend for joint ventures (JV) in military planes is upward rather than downward, so the ultimate benefits accruing to the members must be positive rather than negative. Unless there is a sado-masochistic drive in the participants! The trend is also moving outside Europe: JSF, PAK-FA are the first major projects coming to mind. Even the French are tentatively moving there with the NeuroN UCAV demo. I am sure the 6th Gen Fighter will be a JV. Can you see the Swedes going alone?

Coming back to India and to Rafale and Typhoon and their flyaway price. The legend and myth propagated by dubious practitioners has been that the French jet is much cheaper than Typhoon. Since I joined this forum in May or June I argued instead that the two were more or less in the same range. A few months ago I posted a figure given by a Dassault top executive in the Canadian Parliament (Nov / Dec 2010) that suggested Rafale might be even more expensive at €71m flyaway. My feel still is that they are quite close. I understand that if they were not close a winner would have been nominated straight away.

For the other elements of cost in the total price I made some quick comments a few days ago and would not enter this area, as too complicated. Only insiders know the true figures and would be a waste of energy trying to guess. Anyhow it is only matter of hours now...

 

[arundo]

I don't think it is possible to include jets which have not been ordered. Assuming even if this is true then both jets cost more or less the same. Neither jet is as cheap as Russian and American equivalents and this explains their inability to receive export orders at similar time lines as the other competitors.

In India the LCA program costs are calculated for jets on order, ie, 40. Future orders are not considered in unit costs when making cost assessments.

In the US, LM has been trying to show F-35s costs at full 3000+ production cycle instead of actual unit costs that countries are expected to pay. So, they have come under pressure for that and heads rolled.


The Austrian orders are too small and hence the bigger price. Swiss Rafales came at 150million Euros apiece in 2011. The Saudi Typhoons came at around 75million Euros each in 2007. Numbers matter.

The article says Rafale production is 11/year and not 8 as I mentioned earlier. Expandable to 22/year, but highly unlikely without foreign orders.

I understand, but both calculations include jets to be produced and delivered in the future...
Of course numbers matter and the Austrian case was just to give you one more figure. The Saudi price appears surprisingly low to me. Could it be that other deals (oil-promote-rights, oil shippings, oil prices..?) may have been included? As India is getting to order ~50 jets more, your country should get even a better price... of course no, it depends on so many things and every deal has to be seen separately.

 

[sukhish]

full ack!
It really seems that EF has made more efforts to get the contract, apart from the greater possibilities of co-operation and ToT the 4 countries can offer. And It seems to confirm the rumors in France, that Dassault is not trying everything to sell Rafale and therefore there are tensions with the French government. They have a full order bank until 2030 and are more and more focusing on the more profitable civil air crafts (more than 2/3 of turnover and even much more in net income) In the UAE officials said that Dassault people were quite arrogant during the negotiations while French officials have tried everything. Some people say that communication is not really working between Dassault, SNECMA, Thales and Safran..
What ever is the reason, the Rafale consortium should have offered better terms to India and even dropped its trousers (if necessary).

thats exactly the thing I said at the begning, this contract will go to whoever really wants. also this particular contract will have much bigger domino effect than any other from other countries. the reason being, india strategic needs are very demanding and if the this prudct is good for india , it will be good for other countries. In future I see EU fighter typhoon selling to lot more countries besides india.

 

[sukhish]

In Singapore, the EF-2000 was the only aircraft which won air combat scenarios involving 3 F-16s against 1 EF. Rafale and F-15E lost to the 3 F-16s(Block 52s) in both WVR and BVR. The EF beat all 3 aircraft in both scenarios. I guess only the EF managed to go supersonic within Singapore's air space which is quite small. The EF also beat 2 F-15Es over UK in a friendly unofficial "battle." All this with current config while the F-15Es are the latest with AESA and whatnot.

Like I said, just because Rafale has more tech points does not mean it will always beat the EF in air to air battles.

sir ji,
EU typhoon is the best available in the market today, look at the manufacturing processes they have used to build this beast.
the engines are just superb, it can fly Mac 2, pretty the speed of brahmos cruise missile. the reposinable AESA in future will make this unbeatable.

 

[vanadium]

I disagree with (b) the Typhoon will not move mud as efficiently as the Rafale. Considering SAR works on the principle of Doppler return from the target I fail to see how a re positionable antenna is better?

The improved performance comes from the new antenna, improved receiver, new waveforms, better processors and software.
The higher FoV allows higher offset angles to area of interest.

 

[p2prada]

When JSF flyaway price was first quoted in year 2000 at $28m (sic!), if you read the small print it was related to year 1994

It gets even better with LMs more recent publicly revealed study. It supposedly costs $65million now. Then Pentagon had to point out the $65million is for an aircraft without the engine and associated parts. Congress was flustered.

The trend for joint ventures (JV) in military planes is upward rather than downward, so the ultimate benefits accruing to the members must be positive rather than negative. Unless there is a sado-masochistic drive in the participants! The trend is also moving outside Europe: JSF, PAK-FA are the first major projects coming to mind. Even the French are tentatively moving there with the NeuroN UCAV demo. I am sure the 6th Gen Fighter will be a JV. Can you see the Swedes going alone?

Only larger economies can afford this. European economies are relatively at their peak, so the countries will have to collaborate as growth cannot sustain such a project. Larger economies like US, Japan and China or going to be large economies like Russia and India can go it alone. China already plans 3 fifth gen aircraft. Russia has plans for a second, but they haven't decided yet. India will also be starting a second 5th gen fighter project soon, depending on what the preliminary study shows. As for 6th gen, all 4 countries have plans for them and US leads the pack. India has already started project definition of a nEURON equivalent program.

The French want to go it alone on their 2050 UCAV, me thinks. It's their choice. The Swedes may join EADS, it is a given, unless they find some small but rich country to fund their own 5th or 6th gen project.

Personally I don't think any European country will go for a 5th gen platform beyond buying the F-35.

 

[arundo]

I'm not sure if you know what performance is, so if you don't then ask and don't make assertions, out of the blue.

What a killer argument. Yes, the trouble is just that obviously none of the five airforces did understand what performance is. We just have facts on the table vs. claims from people whose background I do not know. This is becoming a real flame war and I will not participate.

 

[vanadium]

both are on top of the competition, IAF seems to prefer Rafale... I guess that bribes changed hands...
[/QUOTE]

With reference to the bribes: is it the usual empty statement or you have factual evidence?

 

[ace009]

I am not sure how important bribery will be for MMRCA. Considering this is India and it is the global defense industry, some palm wetting will definitely take place, but with so much caution and "openness", I think it would be much less and may not be a significant factor in the final decision.

 

[arundo]

both are on top of the competition, IAF seems to prefer Rafale... I guess that bribes changed hands... With reference to the bribes: is it the usual empty statement or you have factual evidence?

No, but since Cola insinuated that some things were irregular in CH it is not impossible he would do the same in this case.
Why empty statements? Neither they are based on official EF nor on Dassault argumentation guidelines or press releases. I tried to explain my position by facts I didn't invent myself we cannot ignore in a serious discussion and to add some thoughts and speculations regarding what's happening behind the scene. What's the problem.

 

[p2prada]

I am not sure how important bribery will be for MMRCA. Considering this is India and it is the global defense industry, some palm wetting will definitely take place, but with so much caution and "openness", I think it would be much less and may not be a significant factor in the final decision.

There was one incident and Dassault was involved. The guy involved was court martialed I guess.