Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
maint123
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:57 pm

Ozair wrote:
The only real detail in this article is the intent to start serial production in 2031 with first deployment in 2035. Given how long programs have bene taking there is some significant optimism from Turkey, South Korea and Japan on their respective programs and entry into service.

Japan aiming to start production of new fighter aircraft in FY 2031

The Japan Ministry of Defense (MoD) has proposed to members of the country’s National Diet (parliament) that series-production of a next-generation multirole fighter aircraft to replace the Japan Air-Self-Defense Force’s (JASDF’s) Mitsubishi F-2 should start in fiscal year 2031 (FY 2031).

Documents obtained by Janes on 8 July show that the MoD aims to start prototype production in FY 2024, which will be followed by flight tests from FY 2028 ahead of the start of mass production three years later. The ministry plans to begin formally deploying the new aircraft around 2035, which is when the F-2s are scheduled to be retired.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... in-fy-2031

Meanwhile Japan has placed orders for 105 f35s.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 34.article
Wonder what role the domestic plane will play , with the f35 nirmt going anywhere in the next 10 years.
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:37 am

]It appears that HAL's organisation of production of Tejas FOC is failing

- quality issues
- poor management of supply chain
- unlikely to supply the 8 aircraft scheduled in financial year 2020-2021

http://idrw.org/lca-tejas-production-sl ... ore-230984


I would guess that the AMCA schedule will slip by many years as long as HAL is involved in 'organising' production. .
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:53 pm

The U.S. State Department has approved a possible sale of eight MV-22 Block C Osprey aircraft and related equipment to the Government of Indonesia for an estimated cost of $2 billion.


https://defpost.com/u-s-approves-sale-o ... indonesia/

Something strange going on here, it seems to me

- Indonesia appears not to have the cash to pay its agreed share of dev costs for the KF-X
- Indonesia, however, is interested in buying Osprey at an estimated cost of $2 billion

Could it be that Indonesia has in effect ceased to be involved in KF-X but has not yet made withdrawal from the project official?
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:24 pm

art wrote:
Something strange going on here, it seems to me

- Indonesia appears not to have the cash to pay its agreed share of dev costs for the KF-X
- Indonesia, however, is interested in buying Osprey at an estimated cost of $2 billion

Could it be that Indonesia has in effect ceased to be involved in KF-X but has not yet made withdrawal from the project official?

Indonesian participation in KF-X probably looked good at the start with the promises of tech and production work but I wonder how much technology they are getting compared to what they expected. I don’t think they will leave the program but will just try and renegotiate the deal or delay payments. The other point they have struggled with is having to pay with money instead of goods. Some previous arms deals have involved palm oil or other commodities and it would be no surprise if they were keen to do that type of deal here but South Korea aren’t as interested.

It is also different funding a development program compared to funding an actual acquisition. It is literally different buckets of money they would be pulling from and so no surprise they have funds available, or access to a good line of credit from the US, compared to what would be available from South Korea.
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:45 am

Ozair wrote:

It is also different funding a development program compared to funding an actual acquisition. It is literally different buckets of money they would be pulling from and so no surprise they have funds available, or access to a good line of credit from the US, compared to what would be available from South Korea.


I can see that there are different budgets for military development and procurement but I would not be too pleased if an industrial partner on a military development said they did not have the funds to pay as agreed but at the same time were known to be ready to take on a big expenditure or debt for a new procurement. Take your point, though, that if no cash is involved in buying Osprey, no extra cash would have been available to divert to catching up on outstanding debts on the KF-X development programme.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:16 pm

art wrote:
Take your point, though, that if no cash is involved in buying Osprey, no extra cash would have been available to divert to catching up on outstanding debts on the KF-X development programme.

Apparently, there may be some money available for the acquisition of used EF Tranche 1s from Austria..... :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign:

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/in ... 93.article
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:43 am

@devilfish - thanks for the steer but reached my read limit for free FI articles this month

About AMCA, it looks like there might be progress in sourcing an engine:

The twin-engine AMCA, which is to have an indigenous AESA radar, has been a long time coming. In 2018, $60 million was allotted for prototype design and R&D. The project will face similar technology and knowledge transfer challenges as FGFA, because ‘no nation is willing to share its stealth technology', a senior official admitted.

However, an agreement is on the cards between the UK and India to co-create a new 110kN jet engine for which India will get IP. The new engine core will not be based on the Eurojet EJ200 due to the complex IP ownership within the EuroJet Turbo consortium.

Anil Gupta, military head of Airbus India, said: ‘Getting ToT [transfer of technology] for a new engine design is good progress from the technology infusion point of view.’

The initial contract with Rolls-Royce is likely to be for 140 engines over a nine-year period. Before then, the 25t-class AMCA will be powered by the General Electric F414 delivering more than 90kN of thrust. South Korea’s KF-X also uses the F414.


https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air- ... velopment/

Kaveri development was abandoned after spending about a quarter of a century trying to develop an indigenous engine. A deal to employ SNECMA to make it work as part of offsets for the Rafale deal (https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 534_1.html) came to nothing.

Perhaps an RR-designed engine with a few Indian-designed nuts and bolts in it will enable India to claim that it is an engine with much Indian input into the design. I don't see RR transferring enough technology for India to design its own engines after involvement in an RR project to power AMCA.. But unless India can access a foreign company able to design a 110+Kn engine, the AMCA will be saddled with the GE-414 which does not supply sufficient power (only 98Kn).

It seems to me that India might do well to consider a joint venture with RR to develop a !!0+Kn engine (a) to power AMCA (b) to power MWF - perhaps in a derated form (c) possibly to re-engine Tejas Mk1A aircraft in a MLU - again possibly in a derated form.

What I suspect will happen in the end is that India will want more ToT than RR is prepared to hand over and after years and years of negotiation India will end up paying GE $1+ billion to develop a more powerful version of the GE-414 (with not even a nut or bolt in it designed in India) for AMCA.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:25 pm

The Japanese Defence Minister has stated that Japan will have a single Prime for the development and integration of the F-X with expectations this will be MHI. Still no decision on whether they will go with the UK or the US as a partner though.

Japan confirms single prime contractor for F-X

Japan’s Defence Minister Taro Kono confirmed on 31 July plans to nominate a “single prime” Japanese contractor to oversee the development of the country’s next-generation fighter aircraft.

In comments in a media briefing in Tokyo, Kono said the prime contractor – almost certainly Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) – will be expected to act as the lead systems integrator on the project, which has been dubbed F-X.

“The MoD will adopt a single-prime system. [The selected company] will be responsible for integrating systems and the engine,” said Kono in comments published by the Ministry of Defense (MoD). Kano indicated that the MoD had now commenced the process for selecting companies to be involved in the development project but did not elaborate.

In the media briefing, Kono also confirmed that the MoD is currently considering developing the F-X alongside the United Kingdom and the United States. The latter is regarded as leading candidate, given its strong diplomatic, economic, strategic, and industrial ties with Japan.

The F-X project is led within the MoD by a dedicated office set up in April. According to the MoD, its responsibilities include technical investigations, budget execution, information security issues, and the control of intellectual property.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... or-for-f-x
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:15 am

Ozair wrote:
No further details were provided about the programme but Janes understands that the prototype is expected to conduct its first flight in 2022.

Probably with the indigenous first production prototype AESA radar already installed.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 69.article

Image
https://img.yna.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2020 ... 5_01_i.jpg


art wrote:
What I suspect will happen in the end is that India will want more ToT than RR is prepared to hand over and after years and years of negotiation India will end up paying GE $1+ billion to develop a more powerful version of the GE-414 (with not even a nut or bolt in it designed in India) for AMCA.

Perhaps they could piggyback on the UK/Swedish/Italian feasibility studies for the development of a future fighter engine.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/sponsored- ... 22.article

Image
https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/P ... 205928.png
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:15 pm

Devilfish wrote:
art wrote:
What I suspect will happen in the end is that India will want more ToT than RR is prepared to hand over and after years and years of negotiation India will end up paying GE $1+ billion to develop a more powerful version of the GE-414 (with not even a nut or bolt in it designed in India) for AMCA.

Perhaps they could piggyback on the UK/Swedish/Italian feasibility studies for the development of a future fighter engine.....


How likely is it that this feasibility study will result in an order for a production engine for a Tempest-based fighter? Without a decision to proceed to production of a fighter based on the Tempest programme, there will be no engine based on the study, will there? Still, given that India does not have the know how to develop an engine suitable for AMCA, why not gamble on an alternative to GE-414+ becoming available? It's not like GE will not develop a 414+ engine for India if India wants one a few years down the line.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:47 pm

art wrote:
How likely is it that this feasibility study will result in an order for a production engine for a Tempest-based fighter? Without a decision to proceed to production of a fighter based on the Tempest programme, there will be no engine based on the study, will there? Still, given that India does not have the know how to develop an engine suitable for AMCA, why not gamble on an alternative to GE-414+ becoming available? It's not like GE will not develop a 414+ engine for India if India wants one a few years down the line.

Highly unlikely I would say...but par for the course where tech development there is concerned...maybe a derivative for a single-engine fighter application? As you said.....

art wrote:
It seems to me that India might do well to consider a joint venture with RR to develop a !!0+Kn engine (a) to power AMCA (b) to power MWF - perhaps in a derated form

The GKN study is in collab with RR. Well, as long as an F414+ engine is already being contemplated, at the right :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: a PIP for the RM16 of the Gripen E to meet the AMCA thrust requirement wouldn't be too unthinkable. :arrow:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:47 am

South Korea unveils indigenous AESA radar for KF-X fighter

Following the US government’s refusal to share sensitive AESA technology with Seoul in 2015, South Korea’s Agency for Defense Development (ADD) embarked on the creation of an indigenous AESA set, with Hanwha Systems producing the radar’s hardware and LIG Nex1 the software.

The radar passed its critical design stage in 2019 and has 1,000 independent transmit and receive modules. The entire system includes the antenna, processing device, and a power supply.

A video of the unveiling ceremony shows the radar searching for and detecting targets in the air, on sea, and land, as well as a synthetic aperture radar function. It also shows technicians working on the system in laboratories.


https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 69.article
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:27 pm

Japan looking for more help on F-X project

Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) has published a notice inviting foreign companies to engage with its project to develop next-generation fighter aircraft.

The notice – issued on 25 August – invites firms to be involved in the development phase of the F-X project and the integration of related technologies and capabilities.


https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ject_11828
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:35 am

South Korea proposes an increased defence budget for next year.

$5 billion is set aside for major projects including the KF-X project to develop the homegrown fighter by 2026, and for projects involving the production of new K-2 battle tanks.


https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... llion.html

No slowing down of the KF-X programme by the sound of things.
 
tomcat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:17 pm

art wrote:
Japan looking for more help on F-X project

Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) has published a notice inviting foreign companies to engage with its project to develop next-generation fighter aircraft.

The notice – issued on 25 August – invites firms to be involved in the development phase of the F-X project and the integration of related technologies and capabilities.


https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ject_11828


They invite foreign companies to join the project but barely give them the time to read the notice:
In a press briefing on the same day, Japan’s Defence Minister Taro Kono said the deadline for companies willing to co-operate is 31 August.


I'm not familiar with that kind of process but it doesn't seem to me that Japan is really looking to maximize the amount of candidates.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:46 pm

art wrote:
No slowing down of the KF-X programme by the sound of things.

It seems they're wary of the hawks' ascendancy in the North and are making hay while the sun shines. :sun:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:27 pm

S. Korea Begins Assembling First Prototype of Indigenous Fighter Jet

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... r-jet.html

It mentions in the article that it should be 'ready' next year. First of 6 prototypes and should take to the air 2022. Development should be completed 2026.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:10 pm

Very interesting and enlightening video. The photo accompanying the Flightglobal article shows the mockup outdoors during ADEX 2019.....

Image
https://d1a2ot8agkqe8w.cloudfront.net/w ... _79045.jpg

Quite a big bird for a pair of F414s it seems. Then again, if a lone F414 could power the Gripen, two should be alright for the KF-X, wouldn't it?


https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/so ... 20.article
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:30 pm

I see a KF-X dev cost figure in the region of US$7.5 billion on Wiki. On looking at average salaries in South Korea, I see a 2017 figure of US$37,849 (adjusted for purchase power parity) and wonder how the dev cost can be so low.

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/557 ... nual-wage/

For comparison, the estimated program cost given in Wiki for production of 100 F-X aircraft by Japan is US$40 billion.

Any ideas how the KF-X dev cost can be so low when it includes local development of AESA radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical target tracking devices and radio jammer technology?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:03 am

art wrote:
Any ideas how the KF-X dev cost can be so low when it includes local development of AESA radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical target tracking devices and radio jammer technology?

Design software has been growing in power exponentially for many years. The Boeing trainer is the first military aircraft to fly using this. It went from a cleansheet of paper to a flying prototype in a single year. The entire aircraft cost less to develop than Airbus fitting off the shelf engines to an existing air frame to make the A330NEO.

For instance if this software and computing power was available at the start of the JSF program I would estimate it would have entered service in a third of the time and cost less than 10% of the development cost.

The Pareto principle or the 80/20 rule also means you can get 80% of the performance for 20% of the cost. So any F-35 competitor being designed today will have big cost savings if the performance targets are lowered slightly. The avionics are the biggest strength of the F-35 which today is the most costly part to develop. While these new competitors might have similar aerodynamic performance they would have far inferior avionics bringing these aircraft inline with the 80/20 rule in terms overall capability.

The RAAF getting a stealthy drone for what seems like pocket change is another design showing the improved development process.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:11 am

art wrote:
I see a KF-X dev cost figure in the region of US$7.5 billion on Wiki. On looking at average salaries in South Korea, I see a 2017 figure of US$37,849 (adjusted for purchase power parity) and wonder how the dev cost can be so low.

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/557 ... nual-wage/

For comparison, the estimated program cost given in Wiki for production of 100 F-X aircraft by Japan is US$40 billion.

Any ideas how the KF-X dev cost can be so low when it includes local development of AESA radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical target tracking devices and radio jammer technology?


Development costs for the Grippen (which does not include a new engine) was 1.84 billion euros. (Hard to believe)
Development costs for the Typhoon were 18 billion euros.
Anyone know what there were for the Rafale (which would be a very comparable, single nation program)
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:43 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Development costs for the Grippen (which does not include a new engine) was 1.84 billion euros. (Hard to believe)
Development costs for the Typhoon were 18 billion euros.
Anyone know what there were for the Rafale (which would be a very comparable, single nation program)

The Gripen was actually a very low risk design. Going from the Viggen to the Gripen was a small improvement in technology. Much larger steps were made going from the F-4 to F-15 to F-22. Effectively the Gripen was a low risk scaled down Viggen with very moderate improvements added from the two decades of knowledge gained from a low Research and Development budget. An off the shelf engine keeps costs down compared to the other fighters. The avionics are simply an evolution made by Saab and Ericsson swapping the three CRT screens for LCD and extra processing power because computers became faster. The full avionics setup could fit inside the Viggen and was even tested inside a Viggen.

The Gripen design did not push the envelope that much yet they still had crashes during development. I am sure billions of dollars of extra labour put towards quality control could have prevented those but it was a very cheap development.

The Rafale was fairly cheap because it is also a very small step compared to the Mirage 4000. Very few aerodynamic advancements and the first Rafale prototype actually flew with F404 hornet engines. The avionics again were pretty basic at the start and evolved continuously.

The Eurofighter was expensive because you had multiple countries who had never built a delta canard and the avionics and engines were state of the art from the very start.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Development costs for the Grippen (which does not include a new engine) was 1.84 billion euros. (Hard to believe)
Development costs for the Typhoon were 18 billion euros.
Anyone know what there were for the Rafale (which would be a very comparable, single nation program)

The Gripen was actually a very low risk design. Going from the Viggen to the Gripen was a small improvement in technology. Much larger steps were made going from the F-4 to F-15 to F-22. Effectively the Gripen was a low risk scaled down Viggen with very moderate improvements added from the two decades of knowledge gained from a low Research and Development budget. An off the shelf engine keeps costs down compared to the other fighters. The avionics are simply an evolution made by Saab and Ericsson swapping the three CRT screens for LCD and extra processing power because computers became faster. The full avionics setup could fit inside the Viggen and was even tested inside a Viggen.

The Gripen design did not push the envelope that much yet they still had crashes during development. I am sure billions of dollars of extra labour put towards quality control could have prevented those but it was a very cheap development.

The Rafale was fairly cheap because it is also a very small step compared to the Mirage 4000. Very few aerodynamic advancements and the first Rafale prototype actually flew with F404 hornet engines. The avionics again were pretty basic at the start and evolved continuously.

The Eurofighter was expensive because you had multiple countries who had never built a delta canard and the avionics and engines were state of the art from the very start.


Israel and Sweden were able to cheaply afford to design a delta wing canard. (The Israeli stole a good part of it, and re-engined and added the canard and changed all the electronics).
In what way were the electronics on the Rafale "pretty basic" compared to the Eurofighter? The radar had better technology than the mechanically scanned radar form the Typhoon. It's fly-by-wire with a MIL-STD 1760 bus.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:58 am

RJMAZ wrote:
art wrote:
Any ideas how the KF-X dev cost can be so low when it includes local development of AESA radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical target tracking devices and radio jammer technology?

Design software has been growing in power exponentially for many years. The Boeing trainer is the first military aircraft to fly using this. It went from a cleansheet of paper to a flying prototype in a single year. The entire aircraft cost less to develop than Airbus fitting off the shelf engines to an existing air frame to make the A330NEO.

For instance if this software and computing power was available at the start of the JSF program I would estimate it would have entered service in a third of the time and cost less than 10% of the development cost.

10% of the development cost... Sorry mate that is bonkers. The new design software may have assisted in reducing the airframe design but it does nothing for development of all the new tech that is in the jet, from the new stealth material, RCS reduced antennas, radar and even the electro-hydrostatic actuators etc etc. None of that comes for free. Boeing developed the T-X on a shoe string budget and yes the software probably helped keep airframe design costs down but they haven't invented any new tech, it is essentially an off the shelf development using as many existing industry available parts and materials as possible.

RJMAZ wrote:

The Rafale was fairly cheap because it is also a very small step compared to the Mirage 4000. Very few aerodynamic advancements and the first Rafale prototype actually flew with F404 hornet engines. The avionics again were pretty basic at the start and evolved continuously.

The Eurofighter was expensive because you had multiple countries who had never built a delta canard and the avionics and engines were state of the art from the very start.

Neither Rafale or Eurofighter were cheap developments. Total program cost for the Rafale in FY2013 was Euro 45 billion factoring in appox 270 aircraft. Minus the projected aircraft cost the overall Rafale development cost above Euro 25 billion. That doesn't include F3R or F4 costs that have subsequently been funded. That does of course include both a land based and naval CATOBAR aircraft.

Eurofighter was similar with development funding by the partners up to Tranche Two at least Euro 18 billion and likely more than that. Tranche 2 was projected at Euro 5 billion so Tranche 3 was likely around the same amount. All up you get a similar cost to the Rafale of around the Euro 25 billion mark.

Sources for the above are the following,

Eurofighter - http://eurofighter.airpower.at/faq.htm
Rafale - http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html

kitplane01 wrote:

Development costs for the Grippen (which does not include a new engine) was 1.84 billion euros. (Hard to believe)

Very hard to believe... Saab numbers generally cannot be believed.

art wrote:
I see a KF-X dev cost figure in the region of US$7.5 billion on Wiki. On looking at average salaries in South Korea, I see a 2017 figure of US$37,849 (adjusted for purchase power parity) and wonder how the dev cost can be so low.

Any ideas how the KF-X dev cost can be so low when it includes local development of AESA radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical target tracking devices and radio jammer technology?

Probably need to include the Indonesian funding, if they have actually ever paid anything..., but I agree the number is still low even for what will be a 4.5gen aircraft at best.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:13 pm

Does the F-16 belong here nowadays? It’s no longer a top-tier new build for the USAF, certainly, and may impact second tier sales significantly per below.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 55.article

Fair use excerpt (it’s a very long piece, free with login, I read it on twitter):

As part of an indefinite-delivery and indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) fixed-price-incentive contract, which has a $62 billion ceiling and was granted by the US Air Force (USAF) in August, the company plans to offer standardised examples of its new-build F-16 Block 70/72 aircraft.

The traditional process of pricing and customising the F-16 for foreign buyers was cumbersome, says JR McDonald, vice-president of business development in Lockheed’s integrated fighter group.

“The development of the pricing, and the back and forth with the country on the pricing, and then the actual pricing when we deliver it to them in the form of an offer and acceptance letter, that takes a very long time,” he says. “And, it takes a lot of money to develop those individual contracts for each individual country.”

Now, the US government’s Foreign Military Sales process will start with a base model of F-16 that comes with a standardised price and a standard set of features, including avionics, mission systems, an active electronically scanned array radar, electronic warfare suite, Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System and an engine, among other typical items. The standardised items in the contract are at the lowest possible price, adds McDonald.

The idea for a standardised F-16 pricing list came from the USAF’s System Program Office. Lockheed believes all international sales of the fighter will now go through the IDIQ contract and the Foreign Military Sales process, with the exception of the potential F-21 variant the company is proposing for the Indian air force’s 110-unit fighter programme.

The USAF and Lockheed believe that by using the same contract over and over again, instead of writing new contracts for each customer, time will be saved in the sales process of the fighter.

“It’s a way to streamline contracting, make the pricing as transparent as possible in an [Foreign Military Sales] environment,” says McDonald. “Everybody knows what the baseline is.”

The process should also save time and money on the production line as customisations typically slow work, he adds. Lockheed builds the F-16 at its Greenville, South Carolina facility, which started producing the fighter in 2019 after final assembly was moved from Fort Worth, Texas.

Should a customer want a particular item, say a different head-up display, that request would be fulfilled via a separate contract, while the rest of the base model fighter would be configured with the standard IDIQ contract. Speciality technologies to be incorporated into the F-16 as part of an offset agreement with a foreign nation would be handled via a separate contract also.

The USAF plans three pricing periods over 10 years for the base model F-16. The initial pricing period will be relatively short. Lockheed is already in negotiations with the US government for the second period, which will last two or three years. The third will span the remainder of the contract.

Lockheed has already secured two contracts via the IDIQ totalling 90 aircraft: 66 examples of the F-16 for Taiwan and 24 for Morocco.


I’m not clear if the standardized block 70/72 models will include GE or PW engines.

This Lockheed Martin pitch at the end I found particularly interesting as a marketing ploy;

McDonald says, for some nations, the F-16 could serve as a stepping stone to the Lockheed F-35 stealth fighter – sales of which are tightly controlled by the Pentagon and permitted only to the USA’s allies and most-trusted partners.

“Not every country in the world is ready today for an F-35. And, that can be either because they from a policy perspective haven’t become that level of partner with the United States yet, or maybe just the maturity of their military: it’s hard to jump from a MiG-21 directly into an F-35,” he says. “An F-16 is the perfect pathway to F-35. You gain that familiarity with the United States, you become a reliable partner with the United States and then the next step into the F-35 is not such a stretch.”
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:05 pm

art wrote:
I see a KF-X dev cost figure in the region of US$7.5 billion on Wiki. On looking at average salaries in South Korea, I see a 2017 figure of US$37,849 (adjusted for purchase power parity) and wonder how the dev cost can be so low.

If annual salary, US$37,849 is indeed quite low for high tech aviation R&D jobs in such a very industrialized economy like SK's -- compared to their Western counterparts.


Ozair wrote:
Probably need to include the Indonesian funding, if they have actually ever paid anything..., but I agree the number is still low even for what will be a 4.5gen aircraft at best.

That has reared its ugly head yet again..... :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign:

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/in ... 69.article


texl1649 wrote:
Does the F-16 belong here nowadays? It’s no longer a top-tier new build for the USAF, certainly, and may impact second tier sales significantly per below.

$~50M per copy :?: Thru FMS at that price, the PAF could probably spring for a squadron and a half :!:

https://www.flightglobal.com/will-commo ... 85.article

Image
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... edium.jpeg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:45 pm

Speaking of the F-16... And I know that in F-16 circles this has the same sort of reputation as the 757 does in the normal a.net civil forum, I have to wonder if the F-16XL would make for a compelling Gen 4.5-4.75 aircraft? Looking at what it offered, including the substantial increase in fuel capacity, and the enlarged fuselage, while not really compromising on its general maneuverability and vastly increasing its range and stores capability, I have to think that it would offer a lot to smaller militaries as a highly capable multi-role fighter. Just the inclusion of a few modest upgrades that have already been researched and developed, including the DISI inlet that was prototyped on the F-16, and more modern materials in construction than what was available in the 80s, as well as the latest electronics that are available, and the most recently available engines, I wonder how capable it could actually be in service. It would be in the ballpark of any of the euro-canards (maybe not quite as agile as the Eurofighter) in most areas. Unit cost (excluding R&D) shouldn't be drastically more expensive than the proposed F-21/latest block F-16. With the latest engines, it should be able to supercruise with a limited A2A loadout (2XIR, 2XBVR) as the prototype that NASA was using did it with F110-129, and block 60s have been made with the -132.

I realize that it's no Gen 5 aircraft, but, for Gen 4 level stuff, it would be very compelling. The extra internal space could be used for additional self protection countermeasures, including an integrated jammer, to aid in its survival.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:02 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
Speaking of the F-16... And I know that in F-16 circles this has the same sort of reputation as the 757 does in the normal a.net civil forum, I have to wonder if the F-16XL would make for a compelling Gen 4.5-4.75 aircraft? ... including the DISI inlet that was prototyped on the F-16, and more modern materials in construction than what was available in the 80s, as well as the latest electronics that are available, and the most recently available engines, With the latest engines, it should be able to supercruise with a limited A2A loadout ...

I realize that it's no Gen 5 aircraft, but, for Gen 4 level stuff, it would be very compelling. The extra internal space could be used for additional self protection countermeasures, including an integrated jammer, to aid in its survival.

That sounds like the idea of the Gripen NG, which turned out to be too heavy to supercruise in regular operations and too expensive to compete against old, used F-16.

The (western) export market currently supports three categories:
- Cheap: F-16, (Gripen)
- Capable but no access to F-35: Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15, (F-18)
- 5th Gen: F-35

The F-16 will never get into category 2, so there's no point in spending extra money. The F-16 is attractive because it offers full multirole capability at the lowest price possible. There's no threat from below because these are usually trainers with a max speed of ~M1.2 and very limited loadout.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:03 pm

Oh, I was under no delusions that the F-16XL had a prayer of ever seeing the market these days. It was more of a "what if" musing. I dare say that, with the -132, and some lightening of the internal equipment from 20+ years of integrated circuit development and materials engineering, that limited load-out supercruise would have been achievable. Now, that's not saying that its necessarily needed, just that it could be done. Remember, the F-16XL was competing for the purchase contract that acquired the F-15E Strike Eagle. It had similar payload and range in the day, and would only be more capable (than it was when presented) today. So, while the F-16XL would likely fit into category 2 from above, I doubt it would have sold well enough to ever pay for it's development.

Today, I think that there is only one situation where it might, and I mean outside, off the wall, MIGHT have made sense, and that's the India contract that the F-16/F-21 is competing for. That's enough units to justify the development work. But, again, given the absolute craziness of any of those bids, it'll never happen.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:23 pm

art wrote:
@devilfish - thanks for the steer but reached my read limit for free FI articles this month

Fortunately, this defense-aerospace article reporting on Austria's agreement to start talks about the potential Eurofighter sale is accessible.....

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... nesia.html


The big question is whether the consortium countries would continue to support the EFs in case their sale to Indonesia proceeds, considering members also want to offload their Tranche 1 jets...while Airbus is being fined €3.6B for bribery and Austria is seeking to recover €183.4 million in illegal payments too? :scratchchin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7126
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Sep 12, 2020 9:47 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I’m not clear if the standardized block 70/72 models will include GE or PW engines.

From the article.....

Quote:
"Lockheed Martin presently offers Block 70 F-16s with General Electric F110 engines and Block 72 variants with Pratt & Whitney F100s."

Moving forward, it's a good bet that the same arrangement will continue...unless a customer would order both blocks - in which case a common engine could be selected. Quite a nice package they're offering here for the Block 70.....

Image

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... ized-price
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:16 pm

Korea and Indonesia to renegotiate KF-X deal?

Korea and Indonesia are working on a new agreement for their joint fighter jet project, which has hit a snag following Indonesia's delay in paying hundreds of millions of dollars.


According to the article, sources say that Indonesia is looking to reduce its 20% share of the project cost to 15%. Industry officials said Indonesia also wanted the Korean government to transfer more of the technology for the fighter jet development to Indonesia.

So, haven't paid as agreed, don't want to pay what was agreed, want more ToT than agreed. Good luck to the Indonesian negotiators!

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... oject.html
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:24 pm

AMCA to become a joint private-public venture?

NEW DELHI: India is likely to produce its next generation of fighter jets in a private sector-led joint venture, which could require investments of over Rs 2,500 crore from the selected company but would catapult it into a select league capable of manufacturing cutting edge aeronautical systems.

India’s leading aero manufacturer, state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd NSE -0.84 % (HAL) is currently working out the costs involved and the structure of the planned JV for the production of the fifth generation Advanced Multirole Combat Aircraft (AMCA), with an ambitious target for 2028.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... aign=cppst
 
art
Topic Author
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:54 pm

With KF-X Fighter Jet, S. Korea Eyes Foothold in Global Market

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... arket.html
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Second tier advanced fighter projects news and discussion

Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:46 am

art wrote:
With KF-X Fighter Jet, S. Korea Eyes Foothold in Global Market

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... arket.html

"Our 4.5-generation aircraft is an ‘extreme machine,’"

This is very interesting. South Korea seems to be aiming for the Pareto principle commonly known as the 80/20 rule where they can get 80% of the capability for only 20% of the cost. Capability per dollar is really the only way to compete with 5th gen fighters from Europe. Hearing this makes it certain success.

South Korea licence build the F404 for the T-50 trainer. As the goal is to get around any US export restrictions they will need to make their own engine. I assume the engine will be heavily based on the F404. I also assume it will be very similar to the Shenyang FC-31 in shape, dimension and performance.

If Korea could hit the price point of a new build F-16 but offer capability half way between the F-16 and F-35 then they will have a huge hit on their hands. It is a pretty easy target. Samsung is developing an AESA radar for the F/A-50.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LyleLanley and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos