Does anyone actually know, not Peter Luff, Minister of State for Defence Equipment
The honest answer is we don’t know. The Americans are not reducing the total numbers of JSF but changing the profile of those purchases. Other partner nations are indicating they are going to reduce their actual off take. This is likely to have implications for JSF prices particularly in the early stages which is when this country intends to procure its (fighters).
Something else we don’t know is the cost and operational implications of the switch to CATOBAR beyond an estimate of just shy of a billion pounds.
Or
How we are going to turn a conventional carrier into the flexible Carrier Enabled Power Projection
Construction is going well and the training and cooperation agreements with the US and French navies seem to be equally on track but project CVF/JCA still has a great deal of risk and uncertainty that has still to be resolved.
Why buy something if you have no idea how much it is going to cost makes no sense at all good to to cancel F35 and buy F18 Super Hornets for the carriers.
Well, flyaway cost was quoted as 135M by wiki, excluding weapons and electronics, so with all those added in, I’d give ~300M USD as a ballpark figure.
ok. i can see weapons being an additional cost. thats standard for any fighter and usually isn’t included in the costs. but where the heck did you get electronics as being extra? you don’t need sniper pods or such for the F-35!
‘you don’t need sniper pods or such for the F-35!’
What does it use for targeting and recce, is it all internal?
….. solomon. Flyaway costs are for the avionics, airframe and engine only. Bare bones plane in other words. You need more to make it combat worthy. Where the heck did you get the idea it was an “ëxtra”?
“F-35A weapons system unit cost is US$183.5M (FY 2011)[6]”
From wiki
So that gets it to about 310 million. A conventional “legacy” plane cost only half that much.
all the avionics are already included in the airplane. they’re carried internally. you’re being biased in your cost estimation. believe me, i’ve been all over this debate. the figure that you’re quoting is waaaaaay high. the F-35B is supposedly the most expensive model and it has a cost of 135 mil and its not in high rate production rate. that puts it on par with the cost of a Rafale and cheaper than a Typhoon.
because its stealthy, you don’t get a bare bones plane with the F-35. another one of the differences that needs to be taken into account when looking at the actual cost of the airplane.
you can’t do an apple to apple comparison.
All systems internal on f35 and come with the a/c. Eo-das will do the targeting a built in sniper pod is basically incorporated in the system. We could argue from now to we buy them the price. We will now more in about 6-8 weeks.
“What does it use for targeting and recce, is it all internal?”
The EOTS does it all and includes the laser to acquire the targets. Laser that is produced for the F35 program by the UK, somewhere near Edinburgh if i’m not mistaken. No targeting pods for the F35 indeed. And each plane comes will full targeting capability, unlike current planes who need pods to be made available for the missions.
“Why buy something if you have no idea how much it is going to cost makes no sense at all good to to cancel F35 and buy F18 Super Hornets for the carriers.”
Frankly, at the equivalent stage of testing and development of Typhoon, the price of Typhoon was as unknown as the F35′s price is now.
If not even less clear, indeed.
Chances are, indeed, that once production is ongoing, the price of the F35 will be a lot more stable and well known than the cost of Typhoon that remains controversial to this day.
‘somewhere near Edinburgh if i’m not mistaken’
SELEX by chance?
‘The EOTS does it all’
I wonder to what quality the recce pics/video will be?
There is no standard price for a combat jet – everything is negotiable and depends on the package such as spares, training, simulators, special national equipment (such as radios and possibly EW equipment). UK F-35Cs will be modified to carry British systems such as ASRAAM, Meteor and SPEAR which may demand additional expenditure. You also have to factor in the R&D costs and how much the various contributing governments will try to get back as a commercial export/sales levy on top of the basic price.
Then you have to take into account the future exchange rate between dollar and pound, euro, etc. My guess is that a package per aircraft in say 2018-2020 at 2012 prices won’t be less than $160m per airframe and could easily push $200-$225m when you factor in both rising development costs and the necessary support package. That is $4.8-$5.4 bn for 24 aircraft to equip a carrier, or as much as the carrier itself.
Of course if this rise continues unabated we will reach a point where it may become too politically and financially contentious to continue with the F-35. Since the F-18 is scheduled to end production in 2014 a decision point is arriving rapidly.
Rafale is probably not the answer since a UK purchase or lease will kill the Typhoon export market stone dead. Perhaps we should be asking the USN to provide the air group for the Prince of Wales and simply concentrate on supplying the ship. Now that really would be a joint NATO effort. The bottom line in every sense is the economic one: it is questionable that the UK can run a big carrier programme on the existing or planned defence budget unless something else goes.
@topman
i was curious myself a while back
if you chuck “f35 eots” into youtube there are a few videos
welcome to think defence jim
I’d read that the distributed EO system on the F-35 did not provide anything like the magnification or resolution of an aimiable, limited FoV system like Sniper. Does the F-35 have the equivalent of a Sniper/Litening pod built in as well as its distributed EO?
Fatman,
EW systems will not differ from those planned. it could mess up the stealth characteristics of the airplane. spares and such i’ll give you but you’re still operating in legacy procurement mode.
Chris. i’ve read the exact opposite. as a matter of fact our armed forces are trying to get that system installed on other aircraft and if we could afford it, it would be on the F-22.
as a matter of fact it wouldn’t surprise me to see a push by the MoD to perhaps even try and install it on the Typhoon.
‘EW systems will not differ from those planned.’
Aren’t the IAF getting a very different from everyone else?
‘as a matter of fact it wouldn’t surprise me to see a push by the MoD to perhaps even try and install it on the Typhoon.’
A version of etos you mean?
Solomon
Don’t count on it. The The UK will be using JSF with pylons to carry hot launch systems like SPEAR as well as Storm Shadow. Images are already around of ASRAAM being mounted on wing pylons – so what do you think will also eventually be found in these pylons? The full stealth mode will be for limited operational use only – despite all the Lockheed blurb about its customers using identical aircraft it is already clear that certain ones will be adapting them for national requirements. Israel for one is determined to get its own EW aboard and of course not all EW equipment is meant for pure jamming. The JSF is too small to carry every possible system it needs internally although I am sure it will start off that way – as the stealth advantage evaporates there will be a move towards additional systems.
Israel will not be able to get the source codes to the airplane so it will be carrying pods externally. to be quite honest there is no room for separate EW systems. external pods…if a customer wants them is up to that customer. the customer is increasing the cost of the weapon SYSTEM…not Lockheed martin.
yes a version of etos.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LockheedMartinVideos may help a bit. The weapons integration is done as a package by lm for the first block no one else. And just because its a nice current pic http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-f-35-bulks-up-with-external-weapons-load-368548/
As for price lrip is currently running about 150m dollars at the minute and the Italians say there’s will be cheaper than typhoon. I think only time will tell and it will be very dependant on which year we buy them in.
but lets be honest about Israel. they made a commotion about wanting to install their own systems as a backdoor attempt to get production slots and to try and formulate a path for them to get upgrade opportunities.
i’m a supporter of that country but after the incidents with them selling gear to China, i wouldn’t have gone for the deal either. the US agreed and did not bow to their wishes.
‘yes a version of etos’
No I don’t think so, such a system isn’t really possible with typhoon.
sorry i meant eots. and why not? once the upgrade to AESA is done, room should be available for its integration. i’m not talking in the near term…more likely toward the middle of its service life…around 2025-2030.
as a matter of fact my mythical upgrades for the typhoon would include fitting it with the F-22′s engines…some of the F-35′s avionics to include the EOTS, and to add some stealth pods along with the removal of the canards to make it stealthier.
@solomon: removing canards on the Typhoon really is mythical. It’s an unstable design in pitch, at least in subsonic flight, and the canards provide a lot of the pitch control for that. Can’t just pull them off
most modern fighter planes are unstable in flight. thats nothing new. remember i’m also talking about the 2025-2030 time period. improvements in flight control especially in the form of fly by wire should make it doable.
but i noticed no comment on the bigger F-22 engines!
Is it important that we have a price right now? We’ll have the price before some joker signs the purchase contract. But what’s the latest date by which we need to make a choice?
Fatman mentioned the costs of integrating our choice weapon systems. But isn’t weapon integration done by block upgrade during aircraft production, so paying for things like Meteor, Brimstone and Stormshadow early should open up the export market for sales to later non-US F35 customers, right? Or have I got that wrong.
Two F35 engines, Solomon. For commonality.
understood Brian, but can you imagine what F-22 engines could do for the Typhoon? it would be the P-51 story in reverse! i bet the Typhoon would push 2.75 plus…with ease. it doesn”t have to carry around the added bulk of being stealthy so you’d get tremendous umph with them in the Typhoon. why that hasn’t been recommended as part of an upgrade path is really beyond me. heck it might even push beyond mach 3 if they tweak it right. i guess what i’m saying is that the Typhoon has alot of potential but it just doesn’t seem to be exploited like it should.
@solomon: no amount of “fly by wire” will compensate for missing control surfaces. If you want to remove the canards, you are talking about a new design.
The F119 has nearly double the thrust of the Ej200. This means double the mass flow…which means intakes of double the size, and since the engines are going to be wider, complete fuselage redesign and range cut by nearly half since specific sfc is probably comparable between the EJ200 and the F119
The Typhoon is primarily made of carbon fiber. It doesn’t take being heated to 400 C very well at M2.7. It’s also designed for supersonic flow at M1.8.
You are talking nonsense. Please read something on aircraft design, Supersonic Fighter Development by Roy Braybrook is a good book, without heavy engineering
uh removing the canards is not a design change and how can you say that no amount of soft ware will solve issues with it? is simply becomes a delta winged airplane.
yes the F119 has double the thrust but that doesn’t necessarily translate into double the intake size. the inlet on the F-16 hasn’t noticeably increased even though engine thrust has. as far as design limits of the airframe? not sure but it appears from the outside that the limiting factor is engine performance, not the composition of the airframe.
i might be talking nonsense in your eyes but in actuality…and let me say it slow so you’ll listen. i’m talking about these updates during the 2025-2030 timeframe.
don’t get snippy cause you were wrong;)
@Solomon…Israel will notbe able to get the source codes…..
Israel pushed hard to be able integrate its systems on F35′s it acquires. The US resisted this but offered a plug and play option which would allow access to the aircraft databus to run nation specific avionics in a stand alone mode. This specifically related to Israele EW. If this capability eventuates all our governments should demand it to atleastchip away at Lockheed’s strangle hold on the future.
On the matter of F-35 cost atleast admire a polly who gives an honest answer once in a while. No one knows what an F35 will cost at the end of LRIP.
Aussie that would be a mistake. if everyone follows Israel’s example then we’ll all have the stealth equivalent of Rafale’s with very poor upgrade paths because everyone will be going there own way.
the US military will be fine because of the projected size of the F-35 fleet but others will be in a hurt locker.
@ Fatman – Allot of those F35 picks showing under wing pylons were based on F35B projections. The internal bombays were to small for weapons such as Meteor and it was one of the key reasons for switching to F35C. God only knows how long it will take to get the JCA integrated with all our weapons such as Meteor and Brimestone but atleast unlike EF it will come with a number of weapon systems already tested and integrated and a very strong development path. I think we should also remember that F35 is a joint US UK development aircraft. Yes we are very much the junior partner but we will be building 15% of the aircraft. A little less than half of our share of EF but with potentially 6 times more aircraft being developed this is a fantastically important aircraft for British industry and I just can’t see how we can not purchase it. It’s also the only 5th generation fighter option in town as anything that comes after will likely be 6th genration and may be some decades off.
Now the sensible option has been taken to replace not only Harrier but Tornado with the F35C I would like to see us stretch out our procurment and take advanatge of cheaper airframes further down the production run.
Ahh Solomon is back, always right about everything… even his reading of the tea leaves as to the future of aeronautical engineering developments…. bless him
“i might be talking nonsense in your eyes but in actuality…and let me say it slow so you’ll listen. i’m talking about these updates during the 2025-2030 timeframe.
don’t get snippy cause you were wrong;)”
Perhaps he was getting snippy because he is right ? Please explain what aerodynamic, or electronic improvements you fore-see for your stated timeframe that will allow you to simple remove major control surfaces that are an integral element of the aircraft design ?
Let me say it slow, so you understand – learn to admit that there is a slight possibility you could actually be wrong about something !
@Chris Werb
EOTS is a conventional targeting pod like SNIPER (I think the guts are SNIPER actually) but carried in an LO housing with a more limited aperture. EODAS is a distributed aperature system made up of multiple cameras around the airplane; it is not used for air to ground targeting though may be useful for situational awareness and cueing EOTS onto target.
@Solomon
Removing the canards from Typhoon leaves you with only the rudder and flaperons as control surfaces. The only pitch authority you have comes from slowly moving LEF and TEF. At the same time you’ve also massively changed the CP and CG of the aircraft. Removing the canards isn’t going to reduce signature much anyway unless the UK invents some sort of super-RAM paint – in which case painting the canards is a better idea.
@TD
Of course we know how much F-35 costs; we’ve already purchased three of them. Working out a price for an indeterminate number of UK aircraft at an indeterminate time in the programme, alongside a fluid production ramp up with Israeli, Japanese and maybe Korean aircraft in the slots before us all add up to quite some uncertainty. Should this be a problem if the price is within a 5-10% bracket?
Buying F-18 because we know the price sounds crazy, and you still have all the risk and cost of CATOBAR conversion of the carriers. And when you assess cost-effectiveness rather than just cost….
Pulling the Canards (primary pitch control surface) off the Typhoon? I’m sure that wont cause any issues….
Theoretically you could redesign the rear of the wings to accommodate the necessary control surfaces, but that’s going to be a lot of arse ache for not a huge amount of gain.
And if you want to put F119 engines in a Typhoon then you’re talking about an extension of the engine bay by over 1 metre, or thought of another way, a 25% increase. In addition, the fuselage would have to be widened to accommodate an increase in engine size from about 30ish inches to about just over 50 inches. That’s roughly a 66% increase in engine diameter, per engine.
Frankly, you’d be better off just building a new jet.
“In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.[15][16]”
solomon, looks like my estimates were only off by USD$6M. Translation: All your fanboy cheerleading on the F-35 can’t beat a proper cost estimation.
As for your snub of the Israeli IAI, I’d advise you to look at Israel’s history before implying incompetence on their part. They’re arguably the most experienced fighting force on the planet and that is including comparison to the US. Their stuff is close and in some cases superior to American stuff and a far sight more practical. They know what they’re doing. You don’t.
Frankly, I see a lot of what you’re doing as being brainwashed into thinking “F-35 = everything good”, and trying to convert everything you can into a F-35 copy regardless of how insane the idea is. Yanking off a major control surface is one of the most terrible ideas you can ever do to a plane, even the MANTA project for the F-22 went nowhere.
The Typhoon is designed for something else, don’t try to change it into an F-35 copy, you’ll get a “neither here nor there” plane.
Solomon, what was offered is just a plug and play setup. It would give the capacity to hook something extra into the databus without effecting the rest of the avionics. Lockheed is probably hoping that Israel forgets, bet you they don’t.
The F-35 is probably the most integrated aircraft ever considered. The problems with that is:
1. The US will know everything you want to do; and
2. currently the only way you will be able to change anything is pay Lockheed!
If you want an example of that just look at the C-130J. The RAAF has operated the ‘H’for 30 years. It got a systems and structural upgrade at 20 years and it is still running. Just compare that with the digitial ‘J’ with repeated software and hardware upgrades and the darn this is just 10 years old!
The J may be cheaper to maintain mechanically (largely because of the engines) but the electronics constantly cost $’s and you have fight your way through a users group to get anything changed…and that is precisely what is coming with the F-35.
@Aussie
Don’t forget the part where they’re packing everything including the kitchen sink into such a small airframe that there really isn’t much room left for modifications. Or some large weapons for that matter. They’re trying to go 3x AMRAAMs per weapons bay, but the bay looks a bit too small, might be trouble for the future.
Hi Johnno,
“you have fight your way through a users group to get anything changed…and that is precisely what is coming with the F-35″ as the Norwegians (and Australians!) know, trying to get JSM onboard (before the 4th iteration of code line, whenever that will be, as the 1st one seems to be taking ages)
- so LM gets the plane deal by promising to promote the indigenous missile world-wide (for total fleet of 3.500, at that point)
- and when the deal is in the bag, that promoting is shoved by half a decade into the distant future
‘sorry i meant eots. and why not?’
Not really req’d. As I understand eots is a sniper pod built into the a/c itself. Since Typhoon is swing role it’s not always required, so it’s a weight penalty, you’re carrying it around all the time when you don’t need to. When you do need something like that just stick a LIII pod on.
As to the rest about new engines to get to mach 3 and canard removal. I can only echo the others here.
you’re all without imagination….large engines have been fitted into small airplanes before
question ole’ boy….and i don’t mean to offend but what exactly are you going to do if some type of upgrade beyond Tranche 3 isn’t planned for the Typhoon? you’re going to have one squadron of F-35′s and what are basically obsolete Typhoons in the 2025-2030 time period. also notice the development cycle of airplanes now. the follow on to the F-35 isn’t in development yet. i haven’t even heard of a study. so even if new build Typhoons are available they’ll still be technological dinosaurs and thats not even considering the fact that they still lack features that some consider essential today.
Hi Sol,
F-16V definitely is not a dinosaur;and calling the airframe middle aged would be a compliment.
- why would the Typhoon (being a competent and largish airframe) become one?
Solomon, I think you will find the Typhoons will be phased out of service by the early 2030s, leaving the UK with one manned combat type. There is no intention for major structural or mechanical upgrades, although I am sure the electronics and weapons systems will progress a bit further. Have a look at last week’s Anglo-French summit communique if you want to see which direction future development is progressing – not towards manned aircraft. Once the F-35s or whatever leave service the UK on present planning appears to have no further manned fast jets in prospect. So I would forget the fantasies about major re-working of Typhoon. We recently tried that experiment and it was called Nimrod MRA4. The MOD won’t be repeating that financial error anytime soon. Less a failure of imagination, more a case of engineering and fiscal realism. But if you can prove your upgrade ideas will work at an affordable cost I have no doubt the most senior levels of the defence procurement world will soon be on the phone offering you a 6-figure salary and a decent bonus too.
This is a third of a year old piece; the budget proposals may have already changed it?
” The navy currently plans to buy 680 F-35B and F-35C aircraft, for (on average) $100 million each. A UCAS (Unmanned Combat Aerial System) costs less than half that, and provides most of the same capabilities. ”
from http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/09/us-navy-wants-to-replace-f-35s-with-x.html
it’s not really about having no imagination. We can all pull fantasy ideas out of thin air. With enough money anything is possible, but it’s not even slightly practical or realistic.
“UK F-35Cs will be modified to carry British systems such as ASRAAM, Meteor and SPEAR which may demand additional expenditure.”
Some 600 million pounds were to go into “Uk national requirements” which included integration of ASRAAM, Storm Shadow, Paveway IV, Brimstone and (maybe) Meteor.
In 2006, the national requirements expenditure was halved, deferring integration of Brimstone, Meteor and Storm Shadow and changing the profile of use of ASRAAM (from integrating 4 internal, now they will be integrated as 2 internal and 2 on the external wing pylons).
At entry in service, the UK F35 will have AMRAAM, ASRAAM and Paveways including the Paveway IV.
MBDA is considering self-funding Meteor integration to aim to export orders, so the MOD might be lucky there.
Even if it is not, the F35 will come into service at an higher readiness level than Typhoon has reached now after years of service.
“As for price lrip is currently running about 150m dollars at the minute and the Italians say there’s will be cheaper than typhoon.”
It is very likely. The UK contribution to F35 design and development is in the order of 2 billions. The development cost on the unitary jet price will thus be negligible compared to, say, the non-recurring costs that burden the acquisition of a Typhoon. This alone is sufficient to make the F35 effectively cheaper.
Also, cost of the LRIP planes is shrinking and is bound to shrink further. Of course, it would be better if the US acquired the 179 F35s that they are delaying past 2017, but the impact is unlikely to be particularly devastating.
Ultimately, when around 2015 the british order is firmly decided, there will be an unitary cost and a fixed budget given to the RAF and RN, say 5 billions, which is a figure which emerged frequently as of late.
The services will then buy as many F35s as 5 billion pounds can afford. The better exchange rate pound/USD, the more the 5 billions will buy.
As simple as that.
“Solomon, I think you will find the Typhoons will be phased out of service by the early 2030s, leaving the UK with one manned combat type.”
Currently the 2030 OSD date is indicatively around, but i highly doubt it will be respected.
A Typhoon take on the “GR4″ mid-life update of Tornado is very likely, and the EJ200 has a consistent built-in growth margin to accommodate said upgrade without extensive rebuilding needs.
As always happens, the Phoon will live longer than planned at the start. I’d be very surprised if it did not.
@Topman
“SELEX by chance?”
Yes, it’s probably SELEX, or a company working for them anyway.
Not sure it will actually enter service with AMRAAM because by then it will have likely been withdrawn from UK service in favour of Meteor and I can’t see it being retained just for JCA, seems like something that will be ripe for cutting, if not already.
The very simple fact is that we don’t know how much they will cost and when we do, that will impact how many we go for, if indeed we still follow through on a purchase at all.
I wonder if my £5 bet on a Rafale/redundant CVF swapperoo is going to be a winner or a fiver down the drain
RE “withdrawn from UK service in favour of Meteor and I can’t see it being retained just for JCA, seems like something that will be ripe for cutting, if not already.”
- there should enough of margin (2015 to 2020) for Meteor to sort itself out, even fit into the internal bay in the new version
- ASRAAM is an ideal self-defence weapon for a “bomber” with its off-bore launch capabilities
AMRAAM will of course continue to evolve, and the new versions will be also integrated (for other customers). So a good insurance policy, but I doubt the current stock would be usable around 2020 (but would need fresh cash, so what’s the point when the ASRAAM/Meteor pair should be ideal)