Jump to content

Indonesia wants to buy Austria's Eurofighters?


Recommended Posts

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 3:29 AM, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Amen to that ! 

I would second that. All military contractors seem to ride the "gravy train" from dawn to dusk. When you read stories about the US air-force being charged $4,000 for a spanner, you do have to wonder. Keeping a B-2 Stealth bomber in the air for an hour costs the US tax-payer $95,000, so maybe the military brass are used to eye-watering operational costs. A modern US aircraft carrier costs around $15 billion to build and that's before you add all the aircraft and their support-systems to the equation. Having said that, considering the size and complexity of the ships, that seems a lot more understandable, from where I'm sitting.  

 

I read many years ago that you could feed the world's starving for a year, on the money that is spent globally on weapons in TWO WEEKS. Still, that kind of altruism wouldn't win the politicians any votes....

 

Chris.  

Edited by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall a conversation with a British architect a few years back. He was regularly in design competitions with other firms for big projects - office blocks, shopping centres, stadia and the like. Most of the work went into the design being pitched not after winning the contract. And they only reckoned on winning 25% of the time. So he still had all the design costs of that other 75% to recover against those contracts he won. People still need paid even if the contract isn’t won.

 

It’s the same in defence. In fact worse in many cases. Often there are only 2 competitors. There is now so much at stake no one can afford to lose hence the reason so many in the USA end up getting appealed with lawyers adding to the cost. Look what happened in the 1990s when McDonnell Douglas lost out on both ATF and JSF. They had to sell out to Boeing. Look at what happened to Airbus on the KC-46 Programme.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the USAF originally selected the Airbus KC-45, but Boeing eventually won when that selection was protested. Given the KC-46's apparently endless teething issues, I'd say that the USAF made the correct choice to begin with.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very difficult to assess the "value" of a modern aircraft, particularly as whatever cost is mentioned may or not take into account different things. It's also difficult to compare costs with aircraft of older generations as a lot of things have changed regarding the acceptance process and the expectations of the customer. This has led to much longer development times, something that in itself leads to higher costs (the money for all those engineers spending 10 years debugging software must come from somewhere).

At the same time the capabilities of more modern and expensive aircraft have increased constantly and no first tier air force today would feel safe with '70s technology.

This is also one reason why the various light fighter concepts have failed to gain any interest after the end of the F-5 production: why bother with a light fighter of redced capability when this can not hope to compete with more capable opponents ? Even more so when for "first world" air forces the cost of the equipment is only one part of the problem, the others being the cost of human resources and all supporting assets.

For other countries the light fighter concept has in the meantime found a very strong competitor: the second hand fighter ! Why spend say 30 milion on a new light weight fighter when 20 milion can buy a used F-16 or MiG-29 ? F-16 or MiG-29 that with some little upgrade can be more effective than the new aircraft ?

And let's not forget that countries that were considered "poor" in the '70s are now much richer and can afford brand new advanced fighters. A decent number of previous F-5 operators are today equipped with pretty modern and effective types

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 8/7/2020 at 5:10 AM, Blimpyboy said:

Getting back to the original theme, I wonder what groovy camouflage scheme the Indonesians could paint on the Eurofighter!

 

Anything would be better than the light greys currently used (utility notwithstanding).

 

tiger 05

 

Bad news, TNI-AU now uses Hill One camo for the F-16s. Can't imagine Typhoon (if ever it comes) will use our old camo like the one on this F-5E.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, junglierating said:

I'd been suprised if the sell goes ahead....I dont think that Indonesia is top of the democratic countries poll....Dont think the EU will allow it....maybe that's a good thing

We are 'democratic'. I mean, we can vote for president and vote them out.

But they seems to be serving only for majorities. Minorities like me? Tough luck, laddie. You got to be filthy rich if you want government to pay attention.

But then again, the government seems to be really good at maintaining facade to let EU and USA approve the sale of Typhoon.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, exdraken said:

Yes, for some reason we went for the usual dark grey-light grey Hill One camouflage like... well, pretty much every other F-16 operators, save for countries like UAE, Poland and Greece.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2020 at 8:21 AM, Tyas said:

Yes, for some reason we went for the usual dark grey-light grey Hill One camouflage like... well, pretty much every other F-16 operators, save for countries like UAE, Poland and Greece.

interesting! any photos available?

 

there are more countries actually...

Venezuela, Romania, Israel, Norway, Chile, Maroco, Egypt, Iraq,....

 

actually quite many!

Some countries start using Have Glass paint on their Vipers... (USAF, Denmark)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, exdraken said:

interesting! any photos available?

 

there are more countries actually...

Venezuela, Israel, Norway, Chile, Maroco, Egypt....

 

actually quite many!

 

spacer.png

Holy smokes I just realized there's a Sniper XR pod there. What is going on here...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, exdraken said:

thanks, those are by the way the upgraded old A models!

https://militaryleak.com/2020/02/19/indonesia-to-modernise-ageing-f-16-a-b-fleets/

Yes. Received new MLU upgrades including compatibility for AMRAAM, AIM-9X and JDAM.

I don't know at what cost, and personally I am not going to like where this is going, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/08/2020 at 17:56, Jure Miljevic said:

Anybody else thinks price of both military and civil aircraft today are set way beyond their value?

As a engineer in the aerospace industry (both civil and military), there isn't much profit in selling aircraft.

 

The cost has increased massively because the cost of engineering has increased. To put it into perspective, to design a totally new aircraft takes between 10-20 years and takes a team of around 5000-15,000 people.

 

For arguments sake, say it takes 10000 engineers, 15 years to design a new aircraft and their average salary is $50,000 - that's a total resource cost alone of $7.5 billion!

 

The A380 cost $25bn to design and took 20 years, the B787 cost £32bn and took 10 years.

 

When every component has to designed, analysed, tested, reported, qualified, manufacturer and treated - it's not surprising that a even a simple component costs a lot of money.

 

That said, when I was working in a previous company, the customer requested an engine bolt to be delivered the other side of the world the next day. We took the part from stock and sold it for a couple of grand (for a 50mm long bolt).

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 9:30 PM, Tyas said:

Bad news, TNI-AU now uses Hill One camo for the F-16s. Can't imagine Typhoon (if ever it comes) will use our old camo like the one on this F-5E.

 

That's too bad. It would be nice if they got a paint job like the F-5s or some of the pretty Hawk 209s...

 

297500_218355338228295_100001614907975_6

 

img8932copy.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say Austria would be best off with the Saab Gripen, the neighboring Czechs fly these too so their forces could cooperate.
The Saab is not bad and they are cheaper than most competitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, occa said:

I'd say Austria would be best off with the Saab Gripen, the neighboring Czechs fly these too so their forces could cooperate.
The Saab is not bad and they are cheaper than most competitors.

Why?  If "what the neighbours use" is a criterion then Austria should stick with Tyohoon as both the Italians and Germans operate the type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, occa said:

I'd say Austria would be best off with the Saab Gripen, the neighboring Czechs fly these too so their forces could cooperate.
The Saab is not bad and they are cheaper than most competitors.

Not that I am against Gripen, but Hungary and Czech republic just lease theirs... do not think for the next 30 years!

That would probably have been interesting 15 years ago...

C/D Gripen is on the downward leg of its life, max at peak!

Switzerland uses Hornets, Slovakia MiG-29s and soon F-16s, Slovenia no fighters at all...

So all can somehow fit regarding this rather irrelevant criteria!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An updated and redeveloped version, designated Gripen JAS 39E/F but also referred to as Gripen NG or Super JAS,[9] began deliveries to the Swedish and Brazilian air forces as of 2019.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, occa said:

An updated and redeveloped version, designated Gripen JAS 39E/F but also referred to as Gripen NG or Super JAS,[9] began deliveries to the Swedish and Brazilian air forces as of 2019.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

That is correct!

There is also a Superhornet Block III and F-15EX under developpment. And a Su-57...

Why would it suit Austria better than quite new and already in-service Eurofighters???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't fully understand why the Austrians have such a problem with Typhoon. It is a relatively up to date aircraft and although I understand the early airframes may not be ideal for upgrades it surely must be cheaper to continue with whatever can be added for the next ten years.

 

Keith

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Britman said:

I still don't fully understand why the Austrians have such a problem with Typhoon. It is a relatively up to date aircraft and although I understand the early airframes may not be ideal for upgrades it surely must be cheaper to continue with whatever can be added for the next ten years.

 

Keith

It is only a political issue, and one about costs.... Austrian defence spending is rel low, and those Typhoons need a chunk of it....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

Wellsprop, I agree, designing aircraft costs both time and money. But, speaking about airliners only, why do manufacturers sticks to the same design philosophy since Comet, Tu-104 and B707? Apart from Mach 2 Tu-144 and Concorde every major airliner type followed the same formula. Optimization is the word, yes, but if a company throws tens of billions and a decade or two into a development of a new airliner, why not aiming at something revolutionary? After determining the basic configuration, development would proceed as usual. Work of thousands of engineers would remain the same and computer time would not change either. So, why? Cheers

Jure

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...