Eurofighter Typhoon

ed.r.lee · by **ed.r.lee** » 05 Jan 2010, 17:37

shep1978 wrote:all I did was to point out that if you find war planes so abhorent

You miss my point so completely. And therefore...

shep1978 wrote:I shall say no more on the matter.

Yes, you better.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 05 Jan 2010, 18:07

fasteagle wrote:Just my thoughts. and like it or not, Typhoon is here to stay as one of the best options to those who cannot afford F-35s or downgraded export F-22s.

What is the REC Flyaway cost of the EF? The F-35 is $133 mil today and will be below $100 mil within 2 years. Within 5 years it should be below $80 mil.

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 05 Jan 2010, 18:57

SpudmanWP wrote:
fasteagle wrote:Just my thoughts. and like it or not, Typhoon is here to stay as one of the best options to those who cannot afford F-35s or downgraded export F-22s.

What is the REC Flyaway cost of the EF? The F-35 is $133 mil today and will be below $100 mil within 2 years. Within 5 years it should be below $80 mil.

About 53 mln € for T1, 55 mln for T2 and 58-59 mln for T3A.
T1 figure comes from a request from the german parliament. Second figure is the average (T2 total contract value/number of aircraft). The T3A figure was claimed in an article and source was named as Enzo Casolini (Eurofighter CEO).

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 05 Jan 2010, 19:26

So at today's conversion rate, that's about $84 mil.

Does that include all the avionics, both engines, and a laser designator pod?

EADS's bid to India put the figure at $89 Mil WITHOUT AESA radar.

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 05 Jan 2010, 19:47

SpudmanWP wrote:So at today's conversion rate, that's about $84 mil.

Does that include all the avionics, both engines, and a laser designator pod?

EADS's bid to India put the figure at $89 Mil WITHOUT AESA radar.

Austria actually paid 62.9 mln €, export customers have higher prices. It doesn't include an LDP, just the aircraft with engines and avionics.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 05 Jan 2010, 20:12

So basically, for the next 3-4 years the EF will be cheaper, but after 2012-2013, the F-35 gets cheaper. This is especially true when you include the AESA, LDP, and maintenance costs.

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 05 Jan 2010, 20:39

SpudmanWP wrote:So basically, for the next 3-4 years the EF will be cheaper, but after 2012-2013, the F-35 gets cheaper. This is especially true when you include the AESA, LDP, and maintenance costs.

Well we'll see wether the F-35 will be much cheaper anytime soon. And maintainance costs can't be compared right now. LM already promised the F-22 would be much more maintainance friendly, easier to support and cheaper to operate than the F-15. We've learned they didn't achieve their goals. Remains to be seen wether they can hold their promises on the F-35 with that regards. And you'd better hope that an aircraft going to be produced in the thousands finally turns out to be cheaper than an aircraft to be produced in a few hundreds.

fasteagle · by **fasteagle** » 07 Jan 2010, 14:46

So just how good will the F-35 be without critical software included to export customers? UK, a joint developer, has already been denied mission critical items, so this whole argument toward it is a bit flawed with that considered!!! Personally, i would like to see UK dump F-35 and revert to an earlier idea to purchase F/A-18Es for Royal Navy carriers. For the RAF, why not have combat proven, cheaper aircraft in more numbers, such as blk 60 F-16 - it is good enough for wealthy Arab nations who can surely pick and choose from any aircraft available (Saudia Arabia has chosen Typhoon). These will compliment Typhoon, too.

Back to an earlier point, i hope it did not come accross that i think we will never face soviet aircraft, just those owned by Russia, anything is possible with dwindling gas reserves etc, though. Those operated by other nations are only a par to teen series and typhoon. Even Sukhoi admit the SU-27 must be heavily upgraded to compete.

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 07 Jan 2010, 15:34

fasteagle wrote: UK, a joint developer, has already been denied mission critical items

Not true, we have everything we need at this stage as can be seen by the latest statements on the subject.

http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=12 ... n=military

Quote FTA:
"The JSF is progressing well and the UK currently has the data needed at this stage of the programme, and is confident that in future we will continue to receive the data needed to ensure that our requirements for operational sovereignty will be met," the MoD said in the statement. "This remains the basis of the agreements reached with the US in 2006."

Note "the UK currently has the data needed at this stage of the programme"

BTW, we (UK) have no access and own non of the source code for our Apache's either. in short; It makes no difference.

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 07 Jan 2010, 16:16

More importantly it's not that the UK F-35s lack mission critical systems or software. Just the source codes won't be provided. That means the software is onboard, but you can't modify or change it by any means. Or in other words it's like with a PDF document you can read but which is password secured and doesn't allow you to edit the document.

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 07 Jan 2010, 16:56

Scorpion82 wrote:More importantly it's not that the UK F-35s lack mission critical systems or software. Just the source codes won't be provided. That means the software is onboard, but you can't modify or change it by any means. Or in other words it's like with a PDF document you can read but which is password secured and doesn't allow you to edit the document.

You're getting carried away with a non story hyped up into something its not. Read this line again and think about it.

"the UK currently has the data needed at this stage of the programme"

Notice the "at this stage of the program" part. Really, all you are doing at the moment is this

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 07 Jan 2010, 17:27

shep1978 wrote:You're getting carried away with a non story hyped up into something its not. Read this line again and think about it.

"the UK currently has the data needed at this stage of the programme"

Notice the "at this stage of the program" part. Really, all you are doing at the moment is this

Appears to be a comment just to have said something. :roll:

And no I'm not beating dead horses with a stick

"This line" doesn't tell us much at all and it first and foremost is no prove that the UK will ultimatley receive the source codes it demanded.

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 07 Jan 2010, 17:51

Scorpion82 wrote:
Appears to be a comment just to have said something.
And no I'm not beating dead horses with a stick
"This line" doesn't tell us much at all and it first and foremost is no prove that the UK will ultimatley receive the source codes it demanded.

Flogging a dead horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse is what you're doing.
Just as there is no issue with UK Apache source codes there is also no issue with F-35 source codes. The statement I posted says it all very clearly for those who can comprehend it.
There is NO issue with the source code. End of story, case closed etc etc unless you want to continue to flog the dead horse that is...

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 08 Jan 2010, 00:27

shep1978 wrote:Flogging a dead horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse is what you're doing.
Just as there is no issue with UK Apache source codes there is also no issue with F-35 source codes. The statement I posted says it all very clearly for those who can comprehend it.
There is NO issue with the source code. End of story, case closed etc etc unless you want to continue to flog the dead horse that is...

You don't understand what it's all about, but I don't care to explain because you don't want to hear it anyway. And you can spare me your semantics, if you can speak my language as I can yours let me know.

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 08 Jan 2010, 09:20

Scorpion82 wrote:
You don't understand what it's all about, but I don't care to explain because you don't want to hear it anyway.

Oh quite wrong, I understand exactly what it's about. It is about anti F-35 'critics' desperate to make a story out of nothing. Critics who don't know the facts and are therefore coming off looking pretty foolish when confronted with this statement by those who DO KNOW infinately more than them about the situation:

"the UK currently has the data needed at this stage of the programme"

Give it up pal, your making a fool out of yourself banging on about nothing.