Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10 year AC Development Plan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    No-one buys just the airframes; countries buy arms deals, with service packages, simulators, training,etc,etc, which is why the overall packages cost so much over the lifetime of service plus, of course, the fat built into the contract and the gold plating the buyer usually adds to a package. What countries don't tell you is how much of a discount they got of what percentage is offset by local manufacturing or procurement or, of course, what eh, gratuities may have changed hands.

    Comment


    • #77
      I think it was the Canadian dept of public works - responsible for digging Canada out of its F-35 shaped hole - that worked out that, for the F-35 at least, the cost of the airframe/initial purchase was only around 25% of the total lifetime cost of operating the system.

      I assume that for other non-stealthy fast jet types of aircraft that additional cost is reduced because of the relative complexity of the systems, however it's probably something to bear in mind...

      Comment


      • #78
        Companies have been known to dump unrelated costs/taxes/losses/whatever into pricing of projects like multiple aircraft buys. You'll notice that it's not remotely the same for airliner buys. A well-known Irish airline paid less than half the official list price per aircraft for a major buy so a bit of tough negotiating does work. Militaries are regarded as a soft touch by manufacturers as they rarely have staff who have actual purchasing experience and are prepared to fight back, especially when politicians get involved.....somebody broke down the cost of a Typhoon purchase to one customer and the standalone aircraft cost Eu60m and the cost per aircraft over the projected lifespan (30 years) was Eu 240m. That kind of contract means that the customer's tech staff did the basic servicing but absolutely everything else was done by the supplier, so you can imagine the cost of overhaul/engine changes/software/electronics/weapons/upgrades,.etc....anyone entertaining that Ireland could afford a top rate fighter better think again.

        Comment


        • #79
          When compared a/c price you have to look at the flyaway unit costs as the contract price mix items such as support, weapons, spares, offsets etc. The latter are never the same from 2 companies.
          For the record the current flyaway cost of an UH60m is $19.5m (source US DoD Budget).

          Comment


          • #81
            Make it 4 and we have a deal!
            2 for MPA + 2 for dedicated Transport

            Comment


            • #82
              keep the EC135, may be add 2 more as ministerial transport

              replace the Cessnas with King Airs - 2 ISTAR, 1 general dogsbody. Add 3 more ISTAR later.

              replace the CASAs with 3 MC27-J with the SAAB Swordfish electronics on pallets, add 9 C27-J eventually

              replace the AW139s with H225M Caracal, bring number to 12, arm with Brimstone SPEAR 2

              16 Gripen E and 8 Gripen F "Growler" and 4 SAAB Globaleye

              OK, I'll stop now ;o)

              Comment


              • #83
                I have always had a like for the G222/C27 but I would never buy one. As a MPA it is totally unsrigen due to the large diameter of the fuselage, means that it has much higher drag and thus higher fuel consumption as a smaller diameter aircraft with the same engines. The C295 not only has a smaller diameter but much smaller engines allowing it lower operating costs and longer range.

                There are plenty of myths about the capacity of the C27, one is it has a wider cargo compartment. True it is wider than a C295 but this width cannot be used to load wider vehicles as the ramp and thus the width of the opening is almost the same as on the C295. If you want to know why just draw 2 different sized circles and then a horizontal line with the same length. This is the rough situation you have today with the C27 and C295. What you should notice is the allowable height on the C27 is greater. This is the advantage it does have. But the typical mission would be troop or pallet transport. Here the longer fuselage of the C295 means it can carry more 463L pallets!
                For MPA the C295 is better suited or a conversion of a business jet. Embraer offer a MPA version of their EMB145 and EMB190 jets! There are many similar offers on the table, from Boeing, Bombardier, IAI, Dassault....
                For transport the smallest should be C130/KC390 range. Can get most of the army's kit onboard and enough range to get to the played grounds in Sweden.

                Comment


                • #84
                  Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                  I have always had a like for the G222/C27 but I would never buy one. As a MPA it is totally unsrigen due to the large diameter of the fuselage, means that it has much higher drag and thus higher fuel consumption as a smaller diameter aircraft with the same engines. The C295 not only has a smaller diameter but much smaller engines allowing it lower operating costs and longer range.

                  There are plenty of myths about the capacity of the C27, one is it has a wider cargo compartment. True it is wider than a C295 but this width cannot be used to load wider vehicles as the ramp and thus the width of the opening is almost the same as on the C295. If you want to know why just draw 2 different sized circles and then a horizontal line with the same length. This is the rough situation you have today with the C27 and C295. What you should notice is the allowable height on the C27 is greater. This is the advantage it does have. But the typical mission would be troop or pallet transport. Here the longer fuselage of the C295 means it can carry more 463L pallets!
                  For MPA the C295 is better suited or a conversion of a business jet. Embraer offer a MPA version of their EMB145 and EMB190 jets! There are many similar offers on the table, from Boeing, Bombardier, IAI, Dassault....
                  For transport the smallest should be C130/KC390 range. Can get most of the army's kit onboard and enough range to get to the played grounds in Sweden.
                  The advantage of the diameter of the C-27J fuselage over the C-295 is that with the same type of vehicle loaded in each aircraft, you can move down the side of the vehicle in the C-27J.

                  From a military transport point of view being able to move around the vehicle or freight is huge advantage, as in many cases your offload point will not have ground support equipment.

                  IMHO any aircraft in the C-295/C-27 class is huge overkill for a basic Marpat operation, in effect you spend a lot of money to fly big blocks of Air around.

                  I hope that the Transport and Marpat requirement can be separated and that much more suitable aircraft can be assessed for each role.

                  Comment


                  • #85
                    C-27J have much more powerful engines (better hot-and-high performance) and higher payload and range. And yes I agree that specialized a/c would be better, I just can't see it happening. In a complete dream world, we'd buy KC-390s and Swordfish Global 6000s.

                    Comment


                    • #86
                      Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                      C-27J have much more powerful engines (better hot-and-high performance) and higher payload and range. And yes I agree that specialized a/c would be better, I just can't see it happening. In a complete dream world, we'd buy KC-390s and Swordfish Global 6000s.
                      KC-390/C-130J would be a huge increase in military capability, I think that an aircraft in the Global class is massive overkill for Marpat.

                      If a more cost effective Marpat/ISTAR platform were selected maybe the savings could be used towards a capable military transport aircraft.

                      Comment


                      • #87
                        Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                        KC-390/C-130J would be a huge increase in military capability, I think that an aircraft in the Global class is massive overkill for Marpat.

                        If a more cost effective Marpat/ISTAR platform were selected maybe the savings could be used towards a capable military transport aircraft.
                        Well, the Saab Swordfish is also a highly capable C4ISTAR platform, which might come in handy.

                        Comment


                        • #88
                          Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                          Well, the Saab Swordfish is also a highly capable C4ISTAR platform, which might come in handy.
                          A $45m airframe or an $8m airframe...

                          Comment


                          • #89
                            Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                            A $45m airframe or an $8m airframe...
                            $8m ?? Sorry, the stuff doesn't fit into a King Air.

                            Comment


                            • #90
                              Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                              $8m ?? Sorry, the stuff doesn't fit into a King Air.
                              Just trying to add a touch of realism, Kingair 350er with a ISTAR fit is possible, the Global 6000 is for the Hanger 13 based wing..

                              Shadow R1 is good enough for the RAF, most likely do a passable job for us.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X