The basic argument that Rafale was simply cheaper than Typhoon is interesting but without sounding too churlish, this is rather surprising, but reflective of the simple fact that for Dassault, the Indian competition was the last chance saloon.
We have discussed the numerous issues around the Rafale win but if it is as simple as price then the Eurofighter partners should simply reflect on the fact that it has been beaten by a worthy opponent, have some dignity and let the Indians bleed Dassault dry during the final negotiations over the next 6 or 7 months.
Volumes are one thing, sustaining a supply chain is another but actually making any money is entirely another!
Given that the only 18 Rafales will be built in France and therefore a likely number in Europe if the Typhoon had won perhaps it is not that big a loss. Typhoon still has a reasonably good chance of securing orders in Saudi Arabia and although the UAE deal might be a little shakier than it was before the Indian decision there is also Malaysia to consider. None of these of course add up to the Indian deal and we must also not forget the Brazilian competition which must now be seen as at least shifting towards Rafale.
With BAE and Dassault moving towards a collaborative project on a MALE UAV the big loser is EADS/Cassidian.
BAE also have the F35
There seems very little appetite to put development money into Typhoon for the AESA, weapons integration, conformal fuel tanks and thrust vectoring so how does the lack of another large export customer affect this development path?
Rafale’s future looks bright, what of Typhoon?
i think you pretty much covered it when you said that development money wasn’t available for an AESA. that pretty much relegates the Typhoon to an air superiority asset and will place it second tier to competing aircraft.
but one thing that i think everyone is overlooking is the Saudi deal. i remember a Middle Eastern country funding development of a certain class of F-16′s and they were able to work out a funding arrangement if that work was used in aircraft sold to other nations.
the same might hold true for the Saudi’s. hopefully too much bad blood doesn’t exist from previous scandals and your diplomatic corps is strong enough to pull it off but it seems plausible.
long story short it looks bad now but could improve drastically if the partners put in a little work and someone can get the Germans to moderate their pacifist views on weapons exports.
Don’t know how accurate it is but the Times of India is reporting a defence official as claiming the Rafale price was 25% cheaper!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IAF-fighter-deal-Rafale-much-cheaper-than-Typhoon-govt-rules-out-review/articleshow/11830845.cms
Now theres a question! Crystal ball time. For France rafale will most likely be there sole fighter a/c and they will continue development to meet there requirements I would guess.
For typhoon italy and spain I would guess have little interest in much further development italy have suggested recently they would prefer to concentrate on F35 not typhoon. Any further development will be down to germany britain and saudi but I cant see productions lines lasting beyond this decade in any country. If it were me I would accelerate the paveway IV brimstone and raptor pod integration on typhoon at the UKs expensive if necessary and accelerate the draw down off tornado perhaps to 2018. As f35 should be ioc land around then the stormshadow role would be its priority UK integration option. The germans and saudi may like the aesa radar and conformal tank option personally im not sold on that one for the UK but if the other partners fund it we could look at it. typhoon has nearly a 100 a/c on order from outside partners already with a possible further saudi purchase so it not exactly dead in the water but I think f35 will lock up much of the far east market.
F35 will be the main focus of the UK industry over the next decade or 2 bae will be happy with that and developing system pods for both jets. And of course martin baker gets to put its seats in all three jets so they’ll be happy.
Isn’t the AESA extremely useful for aircraft in an air superiority role? Why the doubts on it’s utility?
the question I want answered is now we have the typhoon how long are we going to use it and are we going to get our moneys worth by upgrading to paveway IV et all.
Or are we, HMG, going to um and ar creating a bigger financial mess then the carriers.
That seems a very high percentage figure for the cost difference. I read that Dassault are trying to scupper the Gripen sale to Switzerland -for the sake of another 18 Rafales- by undercutting SAAB’s deal.
Perhaps they think that popping their export cherry will bring forth more foreign interest. Though I suspect that convoluted economic calculations may suggest increased sales and steady production will allow France to meet its own needs for Rafale more cheaply, even if that extra production has to be heavily subsidized.
observer;
bill sweetman thinks that the captor setup is more effective for air to air but he is a big Typhoon supporter. he’s an aviation writer by the way. i was just repeating his words. unfortunately, AESA has become ‘standard’ so the lack of it will hurt.
if the Typhoon doesn’t get outside funding then its in a world of hurt. we’ll see what we’ll see but somethings got to give. we can’t have some of the most powerful european countries flying aircraft that have limited air to ground utility. that would make coalition strikes almost a moot point.
this has bigger ramifications than i think many realize. i think those Tornadoes might remain in service longer than some realize.
@solomon
Well, nothing wrong with Tornados, they’re still incredibly useful, and once the missile is fired, the enemy fighter/ground target won’t really care if the missile came from a Tornado, Typhoon or a Sopwith Camel.
@solomon You’re thinking of the F-16E/F Block 60, which was funded by the UAE to the tune of $3bn, in return for royalties if anyone bought it (which they haven’t). It’s quite similar to what Typhoon needs – adding AESA, CFT, better engines etc.
@Mark – the RAF have been the ones pushing for CFT on Typhoon. The classic RAF Cold War mission was circling above the Norwegian Sea waiting for bombers to come – which is all about endurance (and a large missile load). That’s why the much-maligned Tornado F3 was so brilliant – it didn’t need 9g handling to fulfil its mission, it just needed to hang around for a long time, and then fire lots of missiles. Tick.
Range is always useful, and some CFT are a much cheaper answer than relying on tankers – fuel from a tanker effectively costs 17x as much as getting fuel from a truck. (or at least, the numbers were something like that when they looked at reengining the B-52 – and forgot to take that 17x number into account)
Typhoon developement will or already has devolved into national programmes. The RAF will probably fall back on the system they used on the F3 where it only really got the fixes it needed as part of UORs that were eventually brought into the mainstream, so look forward to it being deployed as often as possible to free up the UOR funding.
Whilst the Typhoon ia a good platform it could probably be the death knell for major collaborative ventures within europe. THe market is shrinking too much and both th eUS and Russia are soon going to have more attractive products on the market, with more stable support structures in place. A book is probably being written now on how the Typhoon and possibly A400 ae examples of how NOT to run a major programme.
France though is in an equally risky position as although the Rafale will serve them well for years to come its successor will be very hard to afford as a national project. They and the rest of the ruoprean areospace industry need to grab UAV/UCAV technology and run with it full tilt, using their own money rather than waiting for governmental funding to gain parity at least with the US, otherwise that area will also become a lost cause.
At current Defence budget levels, Europe is going to struggle aviation wise to prevent the US domination aviation and if not killing off then turning european aerospace companies into sub assembly suppliers.
Both Typhoon and Rafale were a missed golden opportunity. If they had been delivered on time, and developed to the planned spec, they would have had the world market almost to themselves, as the US would still be manufacturing the F15/16/18, with the JSF decades away. Instead the politicians dropped the ball with repeated delays, indecision and a lack of real understanding.
Returning to the RAF, current planns see its fast jet fleet reduced to just 6 squadrons post 2018 including one of F35s. The Tornados will go, maybe sooner as tke money saved is supposed to help fund upgrades to the Typhoon fleet but as Defence spending is now a lottery nothing regarding funding is certain or any basis to be optimistic.
Times of India 22-25% cheaper for the Rafale appears to be total cost (acquistion plus life cycle).A truely amazing margin!
Observer;
“once the missile is fired, the enemy fighter/ground target won’t really care if the missile came from a Tornado, Typhoon or a Sopwith Camel.”
Wrong.
Medium and long-range missiles have at least a one-way datalink and benefit much from updates during their flight.
Best is if one fighter accelerates, launches the missile, turns and runs away + leaves the tracking of the target and the uploading of data to the missile to another fighter.
The fighter’s radar and datalink technology is of great relevance for this. F-22′s with their reported datalink deficiency would not be good at the latter part.
@S O
That is true, the Camel part was a bit over the top, but beyond that, any airframe with the electronics you mentioned would be capable of the same tactic. You won’t even need a 2nd fighter, use your AWACs to do the mid-flight corrections.
Typhoon is great fighter no doubt but at present it lacks ground attack capabilities and ASEA radars,so in comparesion with Rafale it is much behind,as Rafale has developed ASEA and is multi role as it is equally good in air superiority role and as a bomber while Typhoon is good in air superiority role only. Again all the wepons intergreted on Rafale is of French origin while Typhoon depends on US wepons and missiles.So Britian like it or not Typhoon has lot of catching up to do in comparesion with Rafale.
Hi LJ,
Could not agree more “the ruoprean areospace industry need to grab UAV/UCAV technology and run with it full tilt, using their own money rather than waiting for governmental funding to gain parity at least with the US, otherwise that area will also become a lost cause.”
- the good news is that Turkey’s own Anka has turned out to be a …dead duck (and Israel cut the support for their existing ones), so Turkey is now a solid and well-funded partner for EADS
- the bad news is that judging from what there has been in the press (not much) the UK/France effort seems to be leaning towards getting kit that could be bought from the market (which France actually just did, squandering their part of the budget for years to come)rather than taking a decisive step ahead
I wouldn’t expect AESA or additional weapons integration to be dropped on Typhoon for cost reasons, but rather delayed. The Indian request for 2015 timeframe rather limited what could be cobbled together in the next few years – whereas the UK wanted a rather more capable set. You suspect this is what will eventually emerge, but more towards 2020.
Weapons integration; I believe PWIV is scheduled for this year, Brimstone and Stormshadow before 2015, and that there is money to do this. Meteor as well obviously.
I’m not really sure what the comments regarding Tornado vs Typhoon ground attack capability are about. The only real advantage Tornado has at the moment is having more weapons integrated. Typhoon is a more survivable asset against Air Defences and better in the long run.
The biggest problem with development of Typhoon are Germany, Italy and Spain. They do not want to spend anything developing Typhoon so the only push is from the UK side. However, the four-nation contract makes it extremely difficult to do anything. It is probably indicative that the UK no longer wants to do any such multi-national development projects.
European UAS/UCAS: Well, the UK recently annouced a significant portion of the R&D budget was going to this area. If BAeS were sensible, they’d be matching with their own funds as a UK buy of UCAS is the only possibilty for sustaining the aero side of BAeS in the long term. The same thing applies to Dassault.
In the long run you can see EADS-Cassidian going down the pan. The UK has BAeS, France supports Dassault, and that’s the majority of the systems integrators in Europe. EADS is left with a possible partnering with Saab amongst 5 or 6 nations (Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Turkey) all of whom can neither afford, nor want to buy, large numbers of vehicles.
Really it depends on the situation at SDSR 2015; the UK either goes for UCAS, or the defence aerospace industry dies off.
El Sid
I agree range and extra fuel volume in fighters is always a gd idea. But if the raf only has a limited amount of money for typhoon upgrades id rather see them spend it on the weapons/raptor integration than conformal tank design an development in the immediate future.
The radar on typhoon is excellent and for once I would agree with mr sweetman
As for ucavs/uavs if that’s what Europe is pinning its hopes on its in trouble. There is some evidence to suggest the yanks are quietly walking away from the ucav option it’s just to expensive for the medium term. So uavs on the recon type it will be and with these I can’t see Europe getting together to buy a single type it could not do it with rafale typhoon and I can see the the same issues here.
Hi Hannay,
I read somewhere (can’t recall the source) that the Captor back end can be made compatible with the AESA and thereby the cost shock of the transition will be lessened.
- the source did not say whether this combo would be done as a retrofit or already on the production line
RE “The only real advantage Tornado has at the moment is having more weapons integrated” – my view is that both are/ will be perfectly good for the job for the rest of this decade, and it is the fleet economics that will determine the mix over time (subject to the minimum trickle required to keep the Typhoon production running, every export deal will help to string it out)
- what I am not clear about (but have a hunch) that Tornado would have a range advantage with equal weapons load?
RE “sustaining the aero side of BAeS in the long term. The same thing applies to Dassault”
- perfectly agree, but Dassault has fingers in more pies (should the soufle not cook perfectly): UK/France; modifying the recently authorised purchase from Israel; lead in the multi-national programme that predates the UK/ France co-operation announcement
Hi Mark,
Mr Sweetman is quite an authority, but in this case he contradicts (that’s why we have journalists and analysts) the marketing blurb:
”
Multiple Radar Modes of Operation
• Simultaneous/interleaved A/A and A/G radar modes
• Air-to-Air search and track/search while track
• Air-to-Ground real beam ground map as well as high resolution modes
for surveillance and reconnaissance
• Ground moving target indication search and track
• Sea surface search
Integration/ Installation Aspects
• Easy integration inTyphoon
• Low Risk Upgrade of existing CAPTOR-M Radar
• Fits into existingTyphoon power, volume, mass and cooling constraints
• Highly reliable AESA antenna with graceful degradation
• Obsolescence robust design with low life cycle cost
Future Growth Potential
• Non Radar Modes like Data link, Electronic attack, ESM and ECM support
• Multi channel adaptive beam forming including SpaceTime Adaptive Processing (STAP)
I’ve seen other sources contradict one of these claims, namely:
“Fits into existing Typhoon power, volume, mass and cooling constraints”
- the key word might be “existing Typhoon” ie. which one?
Acc
Mr sweetman is a journalist so its just his opinion he wouldn’t be a technical authority. Captor is very capable probable as capable as the early aesa sets. It does not have all the nice add on that the current developing aesa radars will have and these are particularly useful in the strike role but again I would say in the immediate future with limited resources captor is gd enough. tranche 2 has the structure and space avaiable for aesa radar. And tranche 3 will have the structure plus systems and cooling available for aesa radar. also with in raf service typhoon being suplimented with f35 it should be that jet undertaking the primary strike role with typhoon being used more in the cas/ air superiority role than the pure strike role though with limited a/c there will be more difficult.
Hi Mark,
I thought it was on those lines, so thanks for the Typhoon/ AESA road map clarification.
RE ” in raf service typhoon being suplimented with f35 it should be that jet undertaking the primary strike role with typhoon being used more in the cas/ air superiority role” I fully agree, and it is only question of timing and phasing. Hence I was using “for this decade”.
An interesting snippet from the Chair of the Commons Select Committee who gets to see a lot of stuff but is not an expert in this:
“… we are still
doing the old things. For example, we are buying four
fewer Puma helicopters, presumably to stay in budget.
We are buying three fewer A400Ms, presumably to
stay in budget. Chinook aircraft: we said we were
buying 22; we are now buying 12. And we cannot
get any sense out of you about how many Joint Strike
aircraft we are buying, but we were going to buy 36,
and we think you are buying 10, 12—something like
that. [two Chinook attrition replacements, 14 (12+2), clarified in the footnotes to the minutes]
- she is clearly mixing up the total (initial) purchase with the number required to declare operational readiness. The point being that with the emphasis on getting carrier air settled in and working, it will be into the ’20s before the official view (expressed for 2018) of 5+1 land-based squadrons becomes a reality
i think people will see the typhoon integration carry on at this rate. This will mean gr4 will go on for longer than people think. It’s having LEP 4 and cap a and cap b upgrades. I would expect to see it flying for longer than 6 years more like 10 or maybe longer before it goes. @ mark i guess it depends on how important other countries in the program see aesa, and ultimately how useful, it’s not the only reason for it’s non integration and slow work up but it’s not helping.
“i think people will see the typhoon integration carry on at this rate. This will mean gr4 will go on for longer than people think. It’s having LEP 4 and cap a and cap b upgrades. I would expect to see it flying for longer than 6 years more like 10 or maybe longer before it goes.”
As much as i love old Tornado, i very much hope not. The 2014 date for Brimstone and Storm Shadow on Typhoon must be respected and by 2018 at the very latest i want no more money thrown at Tornado. It should just bow out with honor by then, and leave space and budget for other priorities which ideally should include investment for a new MPA.
By 2017 there should be all five Typhoon squadrons and weapons integrated on it. End of the need for Tornado. Dragging it forwards any further just removes funding for its replacement and for other priorities that by that day will be far more urgent.
I would very much like to hear opinions on whether the Typhoon production rate will be ramped with (any)export orders, or RAF take-up adjusted,
RE “By 2017 there should be all five Typhoon squadrons”
@ gabby 2014 is a bit hopefully to my mind. It may be then but it wouldn’t surprise me to see it slip further away. Main reason being money from the rest of the ef group. I don’t think they are at all interested in the versions. Up until now, to my knowledge the uk has done most of the weapons and av upgrades. I think that tells it’s own story. Well after this round of upgrades and life extensions that will be it, pretty much, the last version of tornado.
@ acc well number 4 is being formed now. Number 5 is a couple of years away. Export orders i don’t think will really see that change much.
Still going for 96?
RE ” Well after this round of upgrades and life extensions that will be it, pretty much, the last version of tornado.”
Hi Topman,
I thought the T1s being binned and the others being introduced was a bit of a piece of string as for timing (or more like a rubber band?), but it could well be that there is a contract that stipulates the take up
Then again, the gvmnt-to-gvmnt part is just the total obligation (to keep unit costs in check) and the rest could be between the customer (us) and the EF consortium
“Main reason being money from the rest of the ef group. I don’t think they are at all interested in the versions.”
May be, but i honestly wonder, by now, how the system does even work. Brimstone matters only to the RAF, for example.
Storm Shadow matters for Uk and Italy, assuming Italy funds integration, which, judging from how long it took to get it on Tornado, might well not happen as you yourself say;
Taurus matters only to Spain and Germany.
Paveway IV is UK specific…
How much do each nation matter into the decisions of the other partners, at the point we have reached? The basic “for-everyone” insertions in terms of weaponry are done with integration of Paveways and EGBU. The rest is national / bi-national requirements.
If i was the decision-maker, i’d spend the damn money and get the weaponry integrated, throwing in RAPTOR as well, (another national requirement at the end of the day) and would offset the integration cost by withdrawing Tornado as soon as possible once the capabilities are available on the new fighters.
Marham anyway is likely to get the F35, so the base wouldn’t have much empty time to worry about, and valuable funds would be released.
There would be a temporary drop to 5 frontline jet squadrons, but frankly, with Afghanistan over and the weaponry integrated, there is no reason in hell why it shouldn’t be done.
Far worse capability gaps have been introduced in these years.
@ acc number 4 is being stood up now. Notices to move have been issued i’m pretty sure. The t1s going is well repeated but i’ll bet money on it nothing has been decided yet. @ gabby as to the ins and outs of development costs and timelines would be above my payscale. It’s in the world of netma a complex world to say the least.
@ acc yes 96 is what the budget pays for.
@Mark
The thing is that CFT is all part of the package – once you start using up underwing stations with A2G weapons, you start running out of places to hang drop tanks, just at the time that you want nice long range to make strike missions.
Also, every mission can benefit from CFT’s, from a purely RAF perspective I’d rather they didn’t rush to integrate more weapons, it just means that they’ll put more hours on the Tiffy airframes rather than running the GR4′s into the ground.
@Gabriele – I wouldn’t be so sure about only the RAF being interested in Brimstone integration. ;-/ But it is a priority for them, far more so than Storm Shadow.
@ACC No chance of production being ramped, quite the opposite, it will be like Rafale where you produce the bare minimum per year in order to keep the lines open for as long as possible.
Yes “@ACC No chance of production being ramped, quite the opposite” – I was thinking on these lines as well.
- just that I don’t have the base information to do the maths, say with an order of 12 and another of 75 just for an example’s sake slotted in-between for export, when would the RAF get their last delivery (with those numbers that they have contracted for)?
@el sid what chance of cft ever being fitted? The larger uwt were cancelled to save 20 million. How much for cft ?
Italy is killing Eurofighter production for F-35. There will be no Tranche 3B which Saudi’s demand. Eurofighter is dead.
It would be amusing if next decade Europe has to intervene in say Algeria and the UK can’t do much because Tranche whatever of Typhoon has problems with air-to-ground and Italy leads the campaign from the deck of the Cavour with F35b……..
“and Italy leads the campaign from the deck of the Cavour with F35b……..”
It’s not going to be a very potent campaign if its being led by a nation with a carrier strike capability of 10 or so F35Bs.
I was joking. Anyway did you have to go to google Cavour? If not I am impressed, but only slightly.
Basically it seems all this FJ business is literally and figuratively up in the air.
It’s going to be even less potent if the F-35s keep slipping on it’s target dates, but what are the chances of that happening? Oh wait…
I’m still very suspicious of the hype surrouding the F-35, seems like they’re trying to justify the plane on it’s supposed capabilities in light of the huge amount of money spent on it. I won’t be surprised to see it underperforming.
Does that mean that air superiority in Algeria would be provided by Chinooks?
@ Observer
Well a Chinook. But it won’t be flying. It will be secured to the flightdeck of a T45 as QINETIQ will be working on a software update for its flight system.
I know about Cavour. But I did Google the a/c complement. And added two to it.
Even IF EF/Typhoon was/is dead – that wouldn’t be so bad.
It’s a 1980′s concept updated with 1990′s tech.
Considering the development cycles, we better ditch it soon if we will face a real challenge in the 2025-2035 time frame. A new design would inevitably be superior.
We already have a window of relatively poor A2A equipment in the 2020-2025 time frame at least (hopefully facing only a handful T-50′s by then).
@SO
I’d be more reassured if any new superior fighter also came with an anti-bureaucracy system. This way, it might just have a chance to survive something worse than combat.
New plane, old boss.
With all these studies and paperwork, somehow, it makes me nostalgic for the old days of “kick the tyres and light the fires”. Lots of nice stuff came out then. Skyhawk, F-5, F-14 to F-16 etc
I’ll pass on commenting on the development processes of the M-16 though.
Observer.
between Japan, Korea, Singapore and the Turkish plus up to 120 from 100 airplanes, it wouldn’t hurt one bit if the British decided against fielding the airplane.
perhaps i’m a bit jaded but i tire of the criticism from the other side of the Atlantic.
the issue of the Typhoon is beyond funny. i have heard many state that its the equal of the F-22. that got dialed back to its the second best thing to the F-22. now after this competition in Switzerland and India we’re seeing that its considered by potential buyers to be behind the Rafale.
add to it the fact that to even match the avionics present on the F/A-18E/F its still a dinosaur and i’d seriously advise a push to develop a new fighter today if possible.
so in summation, the UK pulling out of the F-35 program will not kill it, the Typhoon is in a developmental tale spin and the criticism of the airplane continues.
make up my mind guys what do you want????
@solomon,
A multi-role stealth or semi-stealth fighter with AESA radar and equipment/weapons compatability out of the box, not “in 5 years time”, with at least 4 hardpoints and supercruise.
Lack of overruns and delays help. A lot.
On a more amusing note, I’m on the other side of the planet, you’re looking in the wrong direction solomon. Or should that be the “long” direction?
TD made a comment in the article that got me thinking.
“but actually making any money is entirely another!”
Is it possible that part of the reason for the low price is that there is NO profit?
If Dassault is simply working in austerity mode and looking to get through this financial crisis with basically its’ skin intact and nothing else, it’s possible that the deal they offered is simply nothing but break even manufacturing costs.
If BAE tried to factor in a profit in the deal, it would be no wonder that there is such a price gap.
Possible?
well where ever you are you mirror alot of the comments that i hear here and elsewhere.
quite honestly i am tired of the endless jabs at the US procurement plan.
if the UK, Australia, France, Canada…whoever it is thinks that they can do it better with their domestic companies then i say have at. the Russians or Chinese would love to have a Western partner.
i have no idea why you have chosen to hide your location but so be it. it still applies. we’re heading toward a drastic roll back of this ‘globalization’ fraud anyway. i personally can’t wait.
“well where ever you are you mirror alot of the comments that i hear here and elsewhere.”
You think it could be because we’ve been waiting for the final product for a bit too long? Or keep being informed that the price keeps going up?
And just to be sure you’re on topic, wasn’t the original track of building a future fighter with an old bureaucracy a jab at the “-UK-” procurement plan? And not the US one, though now you mention it…
We’re tired of waiting on the F-35. I already mentioned that a viable alternate pathway might be for F-15 buyers to locally develop a stealth chasis for the F-15, and no, not the Silent Eagle. The SE is limited by Congressional laws limiting the amount of stealth an “export” fighter might have, and frankly, asking others to go against J-20s and PAK FAs with a handicap due to paper laws rub me the wrong way.
I do believe now that a chasis upgrade of old reliable fighters might be the safer, cheaper and more dependable way to go.
One cost overrun and budget delay too many solomon.
Now if the Russians or the Chinese were to offer to co-develop their fighters… that would be an interesting deal. And one worthy of serious consideration.