JSF vs the Eurofighter....is the Eurofighter project dying/dead?

[LtHans]

It seems to me that the RAF has the option of buying F-24s (the official number of the  X-35 prototype Joint Strike Fighter) instead of the Eurofighter 2000.

From what I understand the Eurofighter was mainly run by Germany, which had to cut back alot because of costs in their reunification with East Germany.  The Eurofighter seems to be hanging in limbo.

Of course, the USAF F-22 Raptor seems to be in a similar situation.  There was supposed to be a squadron or two of those up and flying by now, but all I have heard is problems getting the final design worked out in manufacturing, and reluctance by the government to actually buy them.

I guess noboby wants new planes?  Of all these new generation planes only the Saab Grippen is up and flying, mainly because it was cheap.

Who's going to fly what?

Hans.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]

[-tronski-]

I think the JSF is only replacing the ageing Gr3/FA2 Harriers. The Euro Fighter is the Tornado F1,Gr4 replacement.

 Tronsky

[Animal]

I read the if the EF2000 takes more time, the plane will end up costing even more than the F-22

Then it would be dumb to buy Eurofighters..

[qts]

Eurofighter is doing very well, thank you.

[Replicant]

The JSF will replace the Harrier GR9 (updated from GR7 in 2002/3) and the Sea Harrier FA.2 and their respective training Harriers (T4 & T10).  Both the RAF and Royal Navy Harriers are part of Joint Force 2000 and will operate from RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering, as well as operating from the future aircraft carrier project.  Although the JSF is at a fairly advanced stage it is still uncertain whether it will enter service with both the US and British military due to escalating costs and future expenditure cuts to their countries military budgets.  The main reason for this is due to the over budget of the F22 within the US budget.

As for the Eurofighter Typhoon, it's cost is already over that of the F22 - there were major delays when Germany nearly pulled out their share of the four consortiums involved in the project.  

The Eurofighter enters RAF service in 2003 at RAF Coningsby under a newly formed 29 (Reserve) Squadron and as the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU).  There will also be an Operational Evaluation Unit (OEU) which will either be at Coningsby or BAe Warton.  In 2004/5/6 it will enter service at RAF Leeming and RAF Leuchars with 111 Sqn and 43 Sqn accordingly.  Current Tornado F3s (ADV) will be phased out of service over the next 10 - 15 years.

Initially it will consist of single seat fighters and tandem seat training aircraft.  Future projects may advance the Typhoon to the Ground Attack & Reconnaisance (GR) role within the RAF where it may eventually replace the Panavia Tornado GR4 (IDS) and also the SEPECAT Jaguar GR3.

Regards

Nexx

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Replicant ]

[LtHans]

Well, talking costs here the JSF projects main goal was to get a good fighter (not a great fighter, just a good one) for a good price.

Price was the main goal.  Make it affordable.

From what I have read so far this is actually comming true in the JSF project.  Most planes end up running over budget and costing more than was originally planned.  My information says that for the first time when the company that developed the plane said it would cost X amount of money per plane, this time it will actually cost X amount.

The figues I have seen for the JSF put it about 28 million for an airforce version, 30 million for the Jump Jet, and 32 million for the navy carrier version.  I don't know why the Jump Jet is cheaper than the conventional carrier version, but it is.

Each F-22 Raptor will cost about 100 million.

I don't know about you, but I think with the threats we face in the future we need planes that don't cost an arm and a leg, but still marginally better than the planes we already have.  The USAF said they won't buy the JSF if it is worse than their current F-16s.  It wouldn't make any sense to go backwards.

[StSanta]

One must say that the F-16 is a damned fine airplane. Still alive and kicking arse very much. Apart from the latest top of the line fighters, which aren't out in numbers except the Gripen, it pretty much kicks anything's ass. Well, not counting the F-15  

[Dowding]

I talked to some people at British Aerospace (as was) involved in Eurofighter. In a simulation of combat survivability the F-16 had its survivability rated at 16%, the F-15 at something like 40%, the Eurofighter at 86% and the F-22 at 95%.

Just looking at production costs, what are the projected per unit costs for the F-22, the Typhoon and the Grippen? I'm betting the F-22 costs way more than the Typhoon.  

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Dowding:
I talked to some people at British Aerospace (as was) involved in Eurofighter. In a simulation of combat survivability the F-16 had its survivability rated at 16%, the F-15 at something like 40%, the Eurofighter at 86% and the F-22 at 95%.

Just looking at production costs, what are the projected per unit costs for the F-22, the Typhoon and the Grippen? I'm betting the F-22 costs way more than the Typhoon.  

Hi Dowding

The last I heard was that the Typhoon was going to cost loads more than the F22!  I can't remember the exact prices but the Typhoon was somewhere in the region of £30 - 40 million, whereas the F22 was in the region of £15 - 25 million.  I think the main reason why the F22 is cheaper is because they're building greater numbers and also have a level of lower avionics costs.  The price of the Typhoon almost doubled because of the fiasco that Germany put the project in when they almost pulled out.  I think some of the other three nations involved had to take some of the extra cost with Germany taking a smaller slice.  

The main problem now is that as the F22 is going to be considerably cheaper it will be a lot easier to sell than the more expensive Typhoon.  Remember that the Typhoon is running about 5 - 10 years behind schedule and that doesn't come cheap!  Additionally the basic Typhoon is the fighter variant that will replace the Panavia Tornado F3 within RAF service.  The expected Ground Attack & Reconnaisance version that will replace the Tornado GR4 will come at an even greater expence.  So, because of this hike in price the anticipated numbers of Typhoons that will enter service will be lower than the original order.  I think the only country outside of the consortium to show any interest is regular customer Saudi Arabia and possibly Kuwait.  

So, in all I believe the Typhoon will be a top class aircraft BUT I don't think it will be a successful export aircraft.

Regards

Nexx

[-lynx-]

Now if we finally realise that there's no threat from the East any more spending millions of dollars/pounds/marks/whatevers on a plane with the only purpose to get air superiority over those pesky MiGs and Su's does look daft. If and when Russia joins NATO the source for any advanced military plane will be cut off for the Middle East (not that they can use them anyway). The only other potential "enemy" with supersonic capability is China but they can't even fly around big slow moving planes safely . Why is all this massive expense still necessary?

 

[qts]

We Brits need to defend ourselves from the French  

There are multiple possible flashpoints - India/China, China/Russia, Arabia, Libya, Malaysia, etc ad nauseam.

Even against guerrillas, air superiority is important - control the air and your ground troops are at less risk.

[Dowding]

Didn't know that Nexx. The guy definitely said the F-22 was more expensive, but it was a year and half ago. Perhaps they decided to gold plate the Typhoon cockpit or something?  

Lynx - it's called job security and national pride. The Eurofighter project must employ thousands alone. Unlike previous Labour governments, the current lot show no intentions of reducing military strength in any great amount.

[Soda]

I heard the F-22 was going to cost in the range of almost $180 million/copy considering in all the development expenses and the reduced number that are being purchased.  The Eurofighter was in the range of $60-80 million a copy.  The JSF was supposed to be in the $30-35 million/copy range though that was only accurate if the overall development costs were factored over almost 3,000 total aircraft.  Other current aircraft, for reference, were the F-18E at ~$60 million, Rafale @ ~$65 million, and Gripen @ ~ $40 million... (all estimates from different sources and might only include airframe costs, not including spares, etc).

Nowhere have I read that the Eurofighter is even close in cost to the F-22 and I would be very astonished to find that the truth.  Then again, typically, fighter design costs appear to have the expenses mostly associated with the engine (20% of total cost) and avionics (30% of total cost) so the airframe only accounts for 50% of the price.  Still, the exotic nature of much of the F22 would carry a premium I would think (materials, special avionics, weapons bays, thrust vectoring, etc).

btw, I'd be really surprised if the JSF ends up in the $30 million/copy range.  Maybe if the overall buy exceeds 3,000 units, but the early purchased models will most likely cost more and the late purchase models way less.  The engine and avionics alone are still going to be very expensive.

-Soda

[Replicant]

I tried looking at work today where I read this information about the F22 being cheaper than the Eurofighter.  What I do remember is sitting back and thinking that it would be cheaper to equip the RAF with the F22 so it couldn't have been more expensive than the Eurofighter.  I'll continue looking through the MOD/RAF publications.  

Remember than the initial order of the F22 was for it to replace all F15s, F16s and other used aircraft, so we're talking about a BIG order.  Divide that by the total cost and you've got price per plane.  As the Eurofighter is only going to be bought by the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy then it's going to have a lower production outlay hence high cost.  Possible buyers include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Netherlands and Norway are still yet undecided.

Regards

Nexx

[Soda]

I don't think the F-22 was ever envisioned as a replacement for the F-16.  They are designed for totally different roles and the largest number of F-22's I ever heard being considered for purchase was only 750.  That would barely make a dent in the US F-16 fleet.  Current projections have only 200-250 being aquired, not even enough to replace all the F-15's 1 for 1.  The F-22 is one very expensive bird.

I honestly think the Eurofighter will have a good opportunity to take a nice portion of the mid-heavy fighter market worldwide.  The JSF is considered too light, as is Gripen.  The Rafale carrys around some performance concerns and compatibility concerns with a price that runs about the same as the Typhoon.  Other than that, Sukoi is the only real fighter manufacturer that could put out a competing product.  The new MiG (1.44) and Su (Su-40 or whatever the new name is) are pure demonstration aircraft with a new russian "jsf" type model still a couple of years away from first flight.  I read an article last week saying the russian JSF is still just a paper aircraft and little if any design work has been even started yet.

Anyone looking for a heavy weight fighter and can't afford an F-22 will have little choice but to look seriously at the Eurofighter.  Then again, a lot might go with lightweight JSF's for the price.

-Soda