For all you foreign fighter fans and believers that foreign countries can build things cheaper, here’s a cost data point for the French Rafale:
$121M (USD) each
__________________________________
(1)Defense News website, “France begins backfilling its Rafale fleet after selling some to Greece”, Christina Mackenzie, 29-Jan-2021,
Without discussing what includes exactly that price you should take into account several facts:
ReplyDelete- That have been built only 201 vs two thousand F35 for example, so there is not benefits of economy of scale
- That is being built only in France in part by state owned companies or private owned by in monopolistic position, so there isn't any competition. In USA, in theory, there is a competition for obtaining the contract
PD: I'm not French
JM
You are correct and I make no claim that the cited cost is accurate or comparable to any other aircraft. I also make no claim that the cost does or does not include govt subsidies or other accounting 'games' as is common.
DeleteAs far as economy of scale, while the F-35 might be planned for 1000-2000, that has not yet happened and may well never. So far, some 500 or so F-35s have been built so the 'scale' comparison is not all that far off from 200 Rafles to a few/several hundred F-35s.
My takeaway from the article was that foreign builds - whether aircraft or ships - are all about the same as ours once all factors are accounted for.
I saw that article and did some mental math and arrived a t a similar $ figure. Why would the Greeks spend that much on Rafale when they could have gotten F-16s for comparable or lower cost and where they have a developed support system in place? Surely this save costs in training and basing. This doesn't even delve into the question of actual capabilities or combat records. Is it an-antiamericam or pro-european thing?
ReplyDeleteAS usual for military sales, it's more than just the weapon system itself. It's part of a "package", France has been behind both Greece and Egypt in terms of national security and foreign affairs, where as sometimes, USA has been "flaky". Some countries will always pay more to diversify their portfolio of weapons so they have more than one source in case of a conflict. They already have probably enough F-16s and don't need to "double down" on it more, better buy a different jet, tank or ship from a different vendor than USA....
DeleteAs far as I can read from French media, this is only the first contract, they really wanted them in service fast so that's why they getting 12 from FAF then the 6 new ones. Second contract will be weapons maybe ships and other systems. Third contract will be training and service....Greece might have been willing to pay a little extra to get it done faster and we don't know what the gvt to gvt loans will be either. Good job on the part of French govt.
"AS usual for military sales, it's more than just the weapon system itself. It's part of a "package""
DeleteDigging and backtracking through the article references, it appears that the $120M is for the aircraft only and does not include support, weapons, etc. which appear to be covered in separate contracts. Admittedly, the trail of articles is less than crystal clear but that's my read of it.
The $120M figure was from a few years back so with inflation adjustments it would be more like $140M or so today.
Conclusion? … top of the line fighter aircraft (and ships) are expensive no matter who makes them. Any country that claims to be building such aircraft or ships for significantly less is playing some kind of accounting game.
It is worth noting that, in buying Rafale, Greece are rapidly acquiring a new a fighter that exceeds the F-16 in BVR capability.
Delete@CNO. Actually, after reading the French articles, I would say its far from cheap since 12 Rafales are "used" and only 6 are new builds! So cheaper it isn't! Now,capability wise and other benefits compared to an F16, we'll have to see....there's at least 2 more contracts according to French media.
DeleteThe Greeks may be hedging their bets. France has been very helpful to Greece in the maritime dispute between Greece and Turkey. The USA, which has troops operating out of Turkey right now, can't be so helpful.
ReplyDeleteWe also don't know the financing schedule behind the deal. Greek national credit isn't great right now.
Finally, the F16 is something the US Air Force is foolishly committed to phasing out. If the French are determined to stick with Rafale it's the better bet if you are going to hold your figter for the next 25 years.
Not all foreign nations can make weapons cheaper than US, nor all weapons made in US are most expensive. Other nations also use defense spending to pay politicians and well connected to achieve what politicians want.
ReplyDeleteKey issue is weapon price between US and China. China runs less than 1/3 (between 1/3 to 1/4) US defense budget yet from 2013, measured by tonnage, every year except one (USS Ford launched), Chinese navy launched more ships than US Navy.
Because US still has strong civilian aircraft industry, difference between US and China in making advanced fighter jet is much smaller than navy ship where US has virtually no civilian ship building industry.
"China runs less than 1/3 (between 1/3 to 1/4) US defense budget yet from 2013,"
DeleteThis is patently and absurdly false. It is only true if one believes and uses China's numbers. China HEAVILY subsidizes their military industry in many different ways so any cost quotes are deceptive, at best, and outright fraud, if we're being honest.
Beyond outright subsidies, China heavily subsidizes in non-traditional ways. For example, research and development in the US, which is, ultimately, included in construction costs one way or another, is heavily 'supplied' by the Chinese govt in the form of cyber espionage. No need to pay for what you can steal!
"Key issue is weapon price between US and China."
DeleteFirst, Chinese workers aren't exactly treated like in America or [insert Western country here].
That reduces costs.
Second, the official Chinese budget is so full of lies that makes the usual USN BS look tame in comparison.
(All economic numbers from the CCP are heavily suspect at best.)
Third, again, it's China.
The government pretty much owns the shipbuilders and everyone else involved in the process, they could "buy" a carrier for $1 for what matters.
Not to say the Chinese shipbuilding spree isn't impressive (it is, and Admiral heads should roll in the USA), but let's be real.
I suspect China is also suffering form the same issues as we do. Wide-spread corruption and lack of innovation (this is an odd claim but I will come back to this.) is epitome of a large standing military. It's because we don't hear and they don't talk about it that we have the impression that they are doing much better than we do.
DeleteSo all in all, I suspect costs would balance out. About that claim before, China does innovate but in areas that has already happened before, they haven't really experimented with ideas out of the box just yet. It's to be seen when they do.
Why would they really need to innovate?
DeleteThey can just steal our weapons systems technical data packets and spend a fraction on R&D that we do.
If a project is worth copying that is, if not, they didn't spend billions to figure that out.
"If a project is worth copying that is, if not, they didn't spend billions to figure that out."
DeleteOdd that China hasn't copied our LCS, huh? Considering how successful the Navy claims it is ...
"Odd that China hasn't copied our LCS, huh? Considering how successful the Navy claims it is ..."
DeleteDepends on how you look at it. There's the Type 056 corvette, which is pretty much a vessel in the same class as ASuW LCS, albeit there's a major difference: 44 ships built (as of 2019) out of a planned total of 71 corvettes.
On the other hand, unlike LCS with mission modules, you had a clear differentiation between the ASuW Type 056 and the ASW Type 056A.
My interpretation here is that China agrees with the _concept_ of LCS, as a relatively short endurance corvette for performing green water missions, but disagrees with the _execution_ - that is, the mission modules and swapping.
In a somewhat related note, there's also the Italian PPA program, where they're using a common hull and systems to recapitalise their frigates, corvettes and minesweepers. On the other hand, PPA isn't about swapping mission modules; rather it's using frigate hulls that are configured at the shipyard as OPVs, FFGs or minesweepers as ordered, with common systems so that there's less retraining needed when personnel are reassiged to different ships.
"My interpretation here is that China agrees with the _concept_ of LCS, as a relatively short endurance corvette for performing green water missions, but disagrees with the _execution_ - that is, the mission modules and swapping."
DeleteJMD, you provide a fascinating thought and if you don't mind, I hope I could disect it a little bit. What you're saying is that China's believe in the concept of the LCS but not the Navy's execution. The problem here, as debunked by CNO, is this" Littoral Combat Zone" only exists on paper and more of a rebranding of a brown-water Navy than anything.
I would even go as far to argue that if anything, the Chinese copied the Russians rather than the LCS. As you know, for most of the PLAN history, China's Navy relied on hand-me-downs from the Soviets and as such heavily based their doctrine on the Soviet defensive mindset. This originally translated to the riverine and coastal waters which we known today as brown-water. The development of these ships are just retaining an old capability that is already well-developed.
I guess if you analyze the LCS further, the execution is what makes the concept. The LCS as envisioned is a ship that could tie in with the Navy's defense network and operate independently with the ability to hold its own. The Chinese did not copy any of that. The general design has already existed years prior,just rebranded and rehashed.
On your note, I believe that a few years ago, CNO did a brief analysis on the multi-mission modules of a Norwegian ship (don't quote me on this, I couldn't find the exact article). I think the result was the concept is doable IF it's not a Frontline critical combat mission. And I think that's the problem with the Italian PPA program. A Minesweeper would surely have different speed requirements, quieting measures and much more compared to a destroyer or an OPV. Trying to use an unoptimized hull for any kinds of combat missions is largely a failure as demonstrated by the US. Besides, Steel is not cheap and Air is not free. Why would we be using destroyers hull for a gimped down OPV or a too noisy Minesweeper?
@Ipnam9114: I mean, corvettes are basically considered green water ships in other navies. You must have some pretty big rivers if you're sending them upriver lol!
DeleteWith regards to PPA, it's not about hot swapping modules or components: my understanding of the program, talking to Italian acquaintances, is that the Italian Navy's opinion on LCS was that trying to do growth margin shenanigans on a corvette hull was a foolhardy measure. The Italian Navy has two opponents: the government's budget, and foreign adversaries. Building the minesweepers, OPVs and frigates on a common frigate hull with common gun and systems means that in wartime, if the italian navy needs to rapidly uptier to fight enemies, because the minesweepers and OPVs are already on the same frigate hulls, it's thus easier to slot in additional weapons (i.e. deck launchers for the missiles, replace and upgrade the radars, VLS cells) because the necessary space and weight margins are already present in the design (albeit this would still require yard time; the implication given to me is that the Italians would like to be able to take a ship from Light to Full config in 4 days, but don't think that's realistic).
While I'm not entirely sold on the idea of a frigate-sized minesweeper (my Italian acquaintances tell me it's meant to be more capable than the existing smaller Lerici and Gaeta-class minesweepers), there is some merit to a frigate sized OPV. The Italian logic is that this will allow them to afford a High-Low mix between Full frigate configured ships and Light OPV-configured ships, since the bulk of peacetime patrolling work can be serviced with the guns (127mm foredeck gun and 76mm mounted amidships above the helo hangar); they're banking on having enough buildup to a shooting war that they can cyle in the Light PPAs into yards to be refit into Full configuration.
The other, more cynical logic is that the Italian Navy assumes that Parliament will never agree to as many new build frigates in the Full configuration as the MN wants, but can be persuaded to upgrade Light OPVs into the Full configuration.
LCS is a strategic blunder. After the Cold War, Navy believe that they no longer face any powerful navy thus their main mission is to support land attack. "Littoral" means approach others' coast, not US'.
DeleteIn addition, rather than hold old thinking on China's industrial capability, we need to be sober. Not just military products, you can see China make most civilian products cheaper than US. What make me upset is the military industrial complex are not only just somewhat more expensive than China to reflect wage differences, their charges are way too expensive. Too many are on the food chain under disguise of "top secret".
Ah, the Rafale. I can still remember dealing with people who were crowing smugly about the Rafale A costing only 70 million euros, being so much cheaper than the F-35!
ReplyDelete...except that 70 million Euros is 85 million USD, and the F-35A's contract price at that time (2017) was 89.2 million USD. Oops.
At this point, even the F-15EX is a better value proposition than the Rafale: 87.7mil flyaway cost for the F-15EX, vs 121 mil for the Rafale (and the LRIP-14 contract price of the F-35A is 77.9 million!).
There's another hidden cost with Rafale, and that is buying Rafale locks you into the French weapons ecosystem, which means that you now have to buy French missiles, because those weapons are already integrated with Rafale. Want to use your existing supply of weapons? You're gonna havta pay extra for the integration testing and validation.
It's part of the rationale for why the Malaysian Air Force chose the F/A-18 in the 90s, while the rest of its neighbours were getting F-16s; Hornet comes integrated with Harpoon from the get go and has a maritime strike function in the radar; you can get Harpoon intergration with the F-16, like what the Greeks did, but you have to pay extra.
So how long will it take for you people to notice that Greece is preparing for war against Turkey, and Turkey is flying F-16's...
ReplyDeleteRegarding aircraft costs. Doesnt matter your thinking or your idea, all are expensive.
ReplyDeleteF35 cost: doesnt include the engine contract, the engines are being contracted separatedly than the rest of the aircraft, same for the minimal pack of supplies and support system needed to operate the aircraft, the nunber of 80 million is only "assembly cost", all elements are ussually purchased in advance in independent contracts, basically each aircraft for USA is something like 100-130 million. also for foering countries it must be considered financial costs (you need us dollar to pay for it) this issue is not like exchange rate when you visit other country (in Australia related to F18G contract it supposed +950 million aprox, for example).
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2020-21_19.pdf
But, please, its the same for almost all aircraft and all countries, its almost impossible to find something below 100 million, even the F15 new, check the brazilian grippen contract for example.
Its almost impossible to know real cost of any modern aircraft program, the purchase or not its more related with politics, international support, and local industry than military value. Same in USA.
@Anon: do you have a source that the LRIP-14 price is without engine? This source says it's with engine.
Deletehttps://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/29/pentagon-lockheed-reach-34-billion-megadeal-for-f35-production
This source gives the F-15EX prive as 87.7 million inclusive of engines:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2020/07/24/how-much-does-an-f-15ex-cost-boeing-and-the-air-force-dont-agree/?sh=51d7241867bc
That said you're right that politics plays a role. Singapore chose the F-15SG, despite evaluating it as technically lower than the Rafale, because the US threw in CONUS basing for training detachments and participation in Red Flag.
It seems to me any "Western country" developing a new aircraft cost it about the same for the same capability. If you want it a bit more advanced eg stealth, it cost more. If you have a longer / bigger production run it cost a bit less. It was always thus. I remember when I was a boy reading about the cost of spitfires at the time of the battle of Britain, they were eyewateringly expensive. But they were at the time the best (in my opinion) fighter in the world. I'm not saying fighters could be made cheaper (anything government gets involved in, in my opinion, costs more than it should) but if you are serious about defence you need to spend.
ReplyDeleteAn aircraft's sell price includes - R&D amortization, cost of production, overhead, and profit. In addition, political payout is an open secret.
ReplyDeleteR&D amortization - total R&D cost divide on expected sale (you know productivity of these defense companies)
Cost of production - parts and labor (you know efficient of French government own companies and US defense union workers).
Overhead - defense companies have no worry to hire many upon many non-production, non-R&D staff, include many political payouts
Profit - they cannot add too much on paper to anger the public
Political payout - such as "consultation contracts" to well connected, etc.
Greek here. Rafale flyaway cost per new airframe for HAF was 88mil€/105mil USD. It is 128mil€ including everything (training,FOS,simulators,the whole deal) but this price will end up considerably lower when we order the second squadron (22 more are plan and Greece has always bought at least two squadrons per plane). Why didn't we buy more F-16s?We own and operate 153 F-16s already and are currently upgrading 84 of these on the Block 72 level, we know what they can do and appreciate them but Rafale F3R is a way superior airplane in almost every mission. From Air superiority (Rafale has better radar/sensors/missiles/performance/maneuverability), ground attack (range,payload), TASMO etc. It is more comparable to an F-15EX really and superior to that even in some areas.
ReplyDelete