Typhoon costs US$204+m
-
News has been leaking out in bits
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12614995
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5837697&c=EUR&s=AIRUK MoD cost exceeded GBP20.2 billion (US$32.7b) for 160 a/c. Unit cost = GBP 126.25 (US$204m or ~S$260m each).
No full weapons carriage capability until 2018 incl no storm shadow.
53 tranche 1 to be retired by 2019 (due to lack of funds) leaving just 107. Tranche 1 was equipped with A2A capability only.
Final tranche 3 still no AESA.
Problem obtaining spares.
Problem fully training pilots.
And yet some people still want Singapore to buy Typhoons....
-
The Ministry of Defence has said it has "no current plans" to export Typhoon fighters to Indonesia after the Times alleged Britain's defence minister was due to discuss the sale at a summit this month.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/10/mod-no-plans-typhoons-indonesia
Personally, good luck to anyone buying Typhoon or Rafale.
-
Personally , I bet that that the F15 also needed some good luck back in 1972.
-
Personally, good luck to anyone buying Rafale.
-
Aiya, hindsight is always 6/6. Back then, Typhoon was so well marketed. Even had a damn cool youtube video of it blowing up some WMD site and taking on some SA-6 battery.
-
Some might call it hindsight. However, am pretty sure DSTA/mindef asked the right questions about schedules and capabilities before deciding on the F-15SG. Its either have or don't have. Otherwise, why bother to have such a long tender process?
Typhoon is still well-marketed. Even to the extent that prior to the selection, someone will say that xxx bought it already. They did that in the SG comp, they did that in the EJ-200 comp for the LCA, they have done it for the Indian MRCA comp. Its so well marketed that some in mindef tot the decision was already made that an official rebuttal was needed.
-
Sg's purchase of the F-15SG was for political reasons. The Typhoon is still much better
-
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:
Sg's purchase of the F-15SG was for political reasons. The Typhoon is still much better
Agree. Supercruise can't hurt either.
We can't say singapore has a good fiscal track record simply because they avoid buying into anything experimental or under development.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Agree. Supercruise can't hurt either.
We can't say singapore has a good fiscal track record simply because they avoid buying into anything experimental or under development.
Pehaps it was the difficulty of fitting US made weapons onto a European fighter like the Typhoon.
But that is no excuse
-
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:
Pehaps it was the difficulty of fitting US made weapons onto a European fighter like the Typhoon.
But that is no excuse
Actually, it is an excuse. singapore can't work it out, and won't find it worth it for such a small number of fighters. especially when the rest of the fleet and arsenal are american.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Actually, it is an excuse. singapore can't work it out, and won't find it worth it for such a small number of fighters. especially when the rest of the fleet and arsenal are american.
Lame excuse. the RSAF bought russian SA-18 IGLA SAMs for its air defence and not US MANPADs missiles. the only Eastern Bloc weapons purchase ever.
-
I would like to think there is a difference between maintaining an aircraft that requires thousands of spare parts to a hand-held missile.
I can understand preference for one plane as opposed to another. However, it would be nice to have some factual basis for a change.
-
What I'm saying is that the F-15 was the wrong purchase. It's such an old aircraft and it was bought because of SG-US links. The Typhoon is a more modern and advanced aircraft and incidentally it can fire any US missileso there no problem with that. And it's stealthier than the F-15
-
And if, as you posted, it had a problem using US ammo? Then what is it going to fire? An unarmed plane isn't a real threat or defence.
BTW, the Typhoon design was designed for survivability through agility and speed, you need a specialised flight suit beyond the normal ones, so that is another cost point. And the physical punishment on the pilot is harsh, not sure if our pilots can use it to the full effect considering that we are generally smaller than the Europeans. The F-15 on the other hand, is more balanced in it's survivability design, i.e a mix of stealth, armour, system redundency and agility.
Ultimately though... it's the missiles!! :)
You don't go into Top Gun dogfights, air to air is usually vollying missiles at each other then running like f-. That is the reason why our F-5s can still be used. You're not fighting the plane, you're fighting the AIM.
And the F-15 carries a lot more of them on the underbelly pylons. (6 I think, assuming that the AMRAAM can be changed 1:1 for a Sparrow)
It can also be tasked as a stand-in bomber, something the Typhoon has trouble doing due to it's design focus.
"And it's stealthier than the F-15"
This is wrong, the canards boost the radar signature, while the F-15 is a more "traditional" configuration. Though the difference may be slight.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
And if, as you posted, it had a problem using US ammo? Then what is it going to fire? An unarmed plane isn't a real threat or defence.
BTW, the Typhoon design was designed for survivability through agility and speed, you need a specialised flight suit beyond the normal ones, so that is another cost point. And the physical punishment on the pilot is harsh, not sure if our pilots can use it to the full effect considering that we are generally smaller than the Europeans. The F-15 on the other hand, is more balanced in it's survivability design, i.e a mix of stealth, armour, system redundency and agility.
Ultimately though... it's the missiles!! :)
You don't go into Top Gun dogfights, air to air is usually vollying missiles at each other then running like f-. That is the reason why our F-5s can still be used. You're not fighting the plane, you're fighting the AIM.
And the F-15 carries a lot more of them on the underbelly pylons. (6 I think, assuming that the AMRAAM can be changed 1:1 for a Sparrow)
It can also be tasked as a stand-in bomber, something the Typhoon has trouble doing due to it's design focus.
"And it's stealthier than the F-15"
This is wrong, the canards boost the radar signature, while the F-15 is a more "traditional" configuration. Though the difference may be slight.
We already operate an American/Israeli fleet, if the idea was to standardize on 2 fighter types in the long run, Typhoon would've been though. The F-15/16 have a huge amount of commonality in parts, in common with American fighters from even the A-4 era.
Spain and Italy at least have large enough mixed fleets to make Typhoon worthwhile, but we were only in for 24 aircraft. Germany found the MiG-29 better than the F-16, but they sold them to Poland for $1 each and retained the F-4.
Anyway, cost was a huge factor, and a strong preference for mature technologies even if better alternatives exist. There isn't a credible air threat out there.
-
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:
What I'm saying is that the F-15 was the wrong purchase. It's such an old aircraft and it was bought because of SG-US links. The Typhoon is a more modern and advanced aircraft and incidentally it can fire any US missileso there no problem with that. And it's stealthier than the F-15
A high thrust-to-weight ratio, plenty of growth space and a low wing-loading never goes out of fashion.And as a bomb-truck, the F-15E is more than enough to do the job.
-
"Germany found the MiG-29 better than the F-16"
No joke, the helmet mounted aiming system was a killer, it totally owned those F-16 due to off-bore targetting.
"A high thrust-to-weight ratio, plenty of growth space and a low wing-loading never goes out of fashion.
And as a bomb-truck, the F-15E is more than enough to do the job."
So true. Some ASAT missiles might also be an interesting research path for the -15, makes people wary of using sats to do some peeping, though it's probably a luxury buy than a serious one.
-
The F-22 follows the F-15 in many concepts.
In particular: 2 big engines and low wing-loading.
The first: "2 big engines" was probably learnt from the F-4.
-
"2 big engines" was probably learnt from the F-4"
Along with "always bring a gun. Just in case." :)
-
So true. F-22/F-35, F-15/F-16, F-4/A-7 etc.
I wish we had bought the F-4 instead of the A-4 back then, it might still be around today and definitely as a Turkish/Israeli variant. Too bad we were looking for something cheap and simple to maintain.
-
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:
What I'm saying is that the F-15 was the wrong purchase. It's such an old aircraft and it was bought because of SG-US links. The Typhoon is a more modern and advanced aircraft and incidentally it can fire any US missileso there no problem with that. And it's stealthier than the F-15
I would like to see a Typhoon shoot a satelite down.That would not happen.
You know why?
I think you do.
The Typhoon simply can't do it. It lacks the initial acceleration the ASAT missile needs.
Its not to say the Typhoon sucks or what....it just wasn't designed to be an overkill airplane like the F-15 and F-22 were designed to be.
Old aircraft like the MiG-25 and the SR-71 still hold records btw, and these records are not irrelevant today. Dare you say that the MiG-31, as an interceptor is irrelevant today? Hardly. It fills niches that even the F-15 can't do. It just isn't a dogfighter. That's all.
When you consider what SG needs, and the fact that F-15 and F-16s were made to be compatible in missions and spare parts, it won't make sense to purchase the Typhoon.
But I don't mind in the least if RSAF purchases one for eyecandy purposes.
-
"I wish we had bought the F-4 instead of the A-4 back then"
We had money troubles then. Can't buy what you can't pay for. And our maintainance crews were new then too. Can't say it's "wrong" to wish for a F-4, but I'd probably say the A-4 was better for our conditions then.
When Singapore seperated from Malaysia, what do you think was it's economic situation? Remember, all $ went to the central government then, so I suspect we were actually broke, just that we hid it well. May be the reason for the pathatic $1 cash settlement for resettling people into HDB, I suspect we actually couldn't afford to pay more.
-
The Typhoon had no clear upgrade path (and even now, the upgrade path is at the sufference of member nations), and the Rafale was simply expensive because France was the only one selling it, and using it. The Typhoon was also too expensive because its first priority was jobs, and sales second.
-
Yup, existing tech onboard the Typhoon isn't exactly cutting edge. Doesn't use the latest litening pod. Didn't integrate the AIM-120C-7 and a whole host of other munitions.
The UK still ended up still having to use Tornadoes for the strike mission against Libya from the UK including firing the stormshadows. Rather embarassing considering the missions F-15s and rafales have been taking.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
I wish we had bought the F-4 instead of the A-4 back then"
We had money troubles then. Can't buy what you can't pay for. And our maintainance crews were new then too. Can't say it's "wrong" to wish for a F-4, but I'd probably say the A-4 was better for our conditions then.
When Singapore seperated from Malaysia, what do you think was it's economic situation? Remember, all $ went to the central government then, so I suspect we were actually broke, just that we hid it well. May be the reason for the pathatic $1 cash settlement for resettling people into HDB, I suspect we actually couldn't afford to pay more.
I know the problems, just wishing. The Egyptians learnt that when they went from MiGs to F-4s, Vietnam wanted to try but US didn't let them.
This is the first I've heard of the $1 cash settlement for resettling into HDB, but is consistent with current practice. Do you mean all the occupants of farms in Lim Chu Kang, Tekong, Jurong, and etc got $1 for example? When the govt acquires your land "for a public purpose", it will pay $1, and those people would still have to buy their flats. Did that happen? If not, I think it was only cos they couldn't afford it. Flats were $3000 back then but those farmers barely had tens. *Friends, please don't debate the rights and wrongs of the matter, I know we had to build a strong SAF first. I am only asking if this happened.