Unit cost of modern fighter jets?

I would like to know the unit cost for the Dassault Rafale M and the navy Eurofighter?

 

Read. It also helps to learn how to use Google.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

 

God may have created all men equally, but men did not create all combat aviation equally.

 

Where does it say how much it costs?

 

The Rafale M is listed clearly on Page 7.

Unit procurement costs were estimated by the French Parliament during the debate on the 2006 defense budget at 56.6 million euros for the naval Rafale M, 49.6 million euros for the single-seat and 51.8 million euros for the two-seat Rafale C air force versions.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is on Page 10.

In 2005, the UK National Audit Office estimated the unit production cost of Typhoon aircraft for the Royal Air Force at £64.8 million, based on the Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 contracts that have already been awarded.

BTW, that converts to 62.5 million Euros.

However, there is no way to exactly figure out how much a "Navy Eurofighter" would cost, since one does not exist. Yes, I am aware that BAE has made a prototype that is to be shopped around to other nations (especcially India), but that is not a production aircraft. It will take longer and cost more money to actually produce a tested and ready to produce Naval version. But to take a typical aircraft, even if it is possible a Naval version will cost at least 20-25% more then the land version. So call it between 75-78 million Euros per aircraft. Assuming there are no major problems in the program.

And that is not even figuring in the extra cost involved in working with a first run aircraft, or any extra expenses in development costs. For that money, a proven aircraft like the Hornet would be a better bet (Page 9).

Unit fly-away cost of the F-18E, as included in the US Navy FY07 budget request, is $78.4 million per aircraft.

BTW, that converts to being 56 million Euros. Even if you take the higest estimate of $95.3 million per unit, this still makes it only 68.2 million Euros, still one heck of a deal for a proven modern fighter.

 

Exactly. Especially when you are trying to compare Apples and Oranges (or in some cases Apples and Potatoes).

Mynoon is trying to compare "Naval Fighters" that are designed to fly off of ski-ramp carriers against those that are designed to take off from full-sized carriers. There are large differences between all fighters, but especially when comparing Naval Fighters. These are a very special breed, and this has to be recognized.

For example, the F/A-18E Super Hornet is a Naval Fighter. So is the A/V-8B Harrier II. Both of these are Naval Fighters, but both have very different flight characteristics and behaviors. And it is really impossible to try and compare the two fairly.

 

Wiki says the Rafale M cost 165 million euros. Now it seem the Europeans have the 2 best conventional military jets in the world, atleast that is what India is saying. Even then the Eurofighter is quite a bit better than the French plane, and once they build a naval Eurofighter the French jet will never sell. Stupid French they had there chance and they blow it, the British pull out of a European building program and build the type 45 Destroyer, better than the Frigate the French and Italians built.

 

No, that is actually not what Wiki says. Here is what wiki lists the cost as:

Rafale M: €70 million, US$90.5 million

That if the fly-away cost for the aircraft. The other cost (163 million euros) is the cost for each under a large package. This includes a lot more then just aircraft. A package includes replacement parts, technical representatives, specific modifications needed, training, and a lot more. There is a big difference between the two.

As for which is best, that is always an opinion. I can show you people that say it is the F-22, the F-35B is the best, even the MiG-29. You have to consider what is best for the mission and role. And then what may be outstanding in one area is lacking in another.

And there is no Naval Eurojet at this time. Heck, not even the UK is planning on putting the Naval Eurojet on their new carriers, they are getting F-35Bs for them.

 

I did say I wanted the unit cost, not the fly away cost. The Eurofighter for an airforce is proberly the best jets in the world, better than the MiG-29, by quite a way, better then the F16 and F15, better than any F35, apart from maybe the F35C. The F22 is a better jet but cost about 250 million Euros, so in real terms not better for most airforces. So in my view the F35C or the Eurofighter is the best airforce jet.

 

But they are not the same thing! If you want the cost per plane, that is the fly-away cost. You need to stop changing your mind on what you want.

And the Eurofighter Typhoon is a 4th generation multi-role fighter jet. And you can't really compare it to the F-15 or the MiG-29 (both of which are primarily air superiority fighters).

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

And the same with the F-22. That is also air superiority.

When comparing it to US fighters, the Eurojet compares to the F-16 or the F/A-18. These are both multirole aircraft of the same generation.

The F-22 is fifth generation, but air superiority. The F-35 is also 5th generation, but is multi-role, so compares in mission to the Eurofighter.

When comparing the F-35 and the Eurofighter, the 35 wins, hands down. It is decades more advanced then the Typhoon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter

So the Eurofighter is both. I said what I wanted the unit cost. The Eurofighter was built as a fighter, not a multirole jets, unlike the rafale which was. Why because it has stealth? On the Performance of the 2 jets the Eurofighter wins.

 

Too much. If I was in charge of a nation who did not build their own planes I would just buy some Grippens.

 

Nah. Just a mega-sh!t-ton of MiG-21 clones (at around $30 mil a copy, no need to get too much in the way of avionics or ECM, as you'd be using them to 'absorb' all the incoming missle shots) and 250+ SU-30s (to clean up the enemy's ramps while all the fourth / fifth gen fighters are on the ground reloading). Got your whole air force for around three billion or so.

Only problem with Gripens is the design is it's an early fourth generation design. You can fix that, to some degree, by upgrading your avionics, but that drives up your unit costs. If your mind is set on a European-only design, you're limiting your options considerable. If you have something against American made products, there is always Sukoi or MiG out there. And the Chinese. Even the Brazilians, to a lesser degree. At least when it comes to combat aviation, the quality of the product is directly proportional to the amount of money you are willing to put into it. It's your Euro to burn.

 

Time for you to brush up on cost terminology:

Cost Terms

Flyaway cost is the closest thing you'll find to a "Unit Cost" in military acquisition. There is no such term as "Unit Cost" in military weapons acquisition.

 

This kid gives me a migraine. Only a select few people know what the F-35 is capable of. None of those people are kids that would say something as nonsensical as "the Eurofighter is better than the F-35" on an internet forum.

 

I didn't say it was better fullstop, I said it was better for most airforces. Another thing is that I bet only the US F35's are that good. The UK's will not be.

 

The link will not work.

 

You are right.

 

Eh? What makes u think the UK F-35's wont be as good as the US variants?

 

It must be that censored Chinese internet you are on.

 

OMG, please, tell me how to stop laughing here!

Here we got a kid trying to tell a military pilot about aircraft.

I wonder when he is going to start lecturing me on air defense systems.

 

There will be some differences between the US version and the Export version. When they leave the US, they will not be as good because certain electronics componants will not be in place or functioning fully.

However, I expect that the UK will have absolutely no problem in creating their own replacements so that when they go in operation they are just as good as the US versions.

We see this all the time with the PATRIOT missile system. And it is the norm for any advanced weapons systems for export. But for a technilogically advanced country it is not much of a problem to get them to work they way they need them to.

 

Because they have better technology than the rest of NATO, which they will not give to the UK, so there jet will be better. I am not saying the UK jets will not be very, as it will be the 3rd best stealth jet in the world. But the real reason why the UK isn't just using naval Eurofighters, is that they cost to much. The UK is buying no F35's for the airforce because of the Eurofight, for the RAF the F35 and Eurofight cost about the same, but the Eurofighter is as good if not better than the F35, just it doesn't have stealth, but as a program said the Eurofighter doesn't need stealth.

 

I'll just copy/paste from the page:

 

Have you flown the F35 and Eurofighter? I am not telling you anything, I am just saing what I think. And I think the Eurofight is better for the RAF than the F35. That is why the RAF isn't buying any. But the F35C is better for the RN so they are buying 36 to save money, £20 million less than an F35B and 35 million less than a Naval Eurofighter per jet.