Eiköhän tuossa puhuta ihan eri asioista. Mitään järkevää selitystä ei tuollaiselle erolle löydy.
F-35 Lightning II
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Hejsan
- Aloitus PVM
Eiköhän tuossa puhuta ihan eri asioista. Mitään järkevää selitystä ei tuollaiselle erolle löydy.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Katsokaa mustaruudin viesti edellisellä sivulla. Jos Norskit laskeneet tavalla 1 (inflaatiokorjaus) ja Tanskalaiset käyttävät tapaa 2 (nykyhinnalla), tuollaiset erot ovat ihan mahdollisia.
Järkevä selitys mutta kaksi täysin eri asiaa siis. Toisaalta samalla hyvä esimerkki siitä kuinka laskelmat saa myös pelattua mieleisikseen kun vain muistaa unohtaa nuo pienet yksityiskohdat.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Toki laskentatapa oli kaikille kilpailijoille sama joten luvut sinänsä vertailukelpoisia, Eurofighter ja Boeing kritisoivat omien koneidensa liian pieneksi arvioimiaan lentotuntimääriä, ei kummallakaan ollut nokan koputtamista hinnoista itsestään.
Sitten menikin jännäksi jos pitää eri kauppoja ruveta vertaamaan keskenään
Eli Tanskan luvut saattavat olla keskenään vertailukelpoiset mutta Tanskan ja Norjan eivät todellakaan ole. Ennen vertailua pitäisi aina hankkia ymmärrys siitä mitä tässä oikein on laskeskeltu. Ylen jutusta tms. pikapläjäyksistä tuollaista infoa on turha edes yrittää saada.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Jep, juurikin näin
Sarek1
Ylipäällikkö
Kiitoksia. @Mustaruuti , @Rannari ja @Gyllis1 -pohdiskelu avasi kummasti peruskysymyksiä, mitä maan matonen halusi saada selville tästä hinnottelumatematiikasta. Meinasi välillä loppua sormet ja varpaat kesken.
---
Sitä minä vielä että tällä foorumilla eri ketjuissa on kyllä sivutolkulla vertailtu noita hintoja ja nimenomaan eri toteutuneiden kilpailujen ja kauppojen hintoja ja niiden perusteella kerrottu melkoisen varmoja vastauksia meidän tilanteeseemme.
---
Sitä minä vielä että tällä foorumilla eri ketjuissa on kyllä sivutolkulla vertailtu noita hintoja ja nimenomaan eri toteutuneiden kilpailujen ja kauppojen hintoja ja niiden perusteella kerrottu melkoisen varmoja vastauksia meidän tilanteeseemme.
Suomen vastaukset saadaan Suomen tarjouskilpailusta. Siihen saakka kaikki on spekulaatiota ja varma voi olla vain siitä että lähtötiedot eivät ole täsmälleen oikeita. Eivät välttämättä edes sinne päin.
Ainoa tässä vaiheessa varma asia on se hirmuinen sontamyrsky joka seuraa siitä että valituksi tulee ylivoimaisesti huonoin kone
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Asiasta kuudenteentoista, kiinnitittekö huomiota Tanskalaisten tehtäväskenaarioihin? Nämähän on repäisty suoraan kolmannesta maailmansodasta 
Defensive Counter Air-scenariet:
Air Order Of Battle:
– Six SU-30MK. The aircraft are armed with: o Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. o Four PL-12 active radar missiles. o SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.
– Four MiG-29 SMT. The aircraft are armed with: o Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. o Four PL-12 active radar missiles. o Gardenia jammer pod.
– Four SU-24 Fencer-D, The aircraft are armed with: o Two AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. o Guided air to ground munitions.
– One SS-N-30A cruise missile.
Electronic Order Of Battle:
– Two x SU-30MK. These aircraft are deployed as dedicated jammer platforms. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pod, SAP-14 jammer pod.
– One IL-76 Mainstay airborne early warning platform.
Lisää luettavaa täältä:
http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8356
Defensive Counter Air-scenariet:
Air Order Of Battle:
– Six SU-30MK. The aircraft are armed with: o Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. o Four PL-12 active radar missiles. o SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.
– Four MiG-29 SMT. The aircraft are armed with: o Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. o Four PL-12 active radar missiles. o Gardenia jammer pod.
– Four SU-24 Fencer-D, The aircraft are armed with: o Two AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles. o Guided air to ground munitions.
– One SS-N-30A cruise missile.
Electronic Order Of Battle:
– Two x SU-30MK. These aircraft are deployed as dedicated jammer platforms. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pod, SAP-14 jammer pod.
– One IL-76 Mainstay airborne early warning platform.
Lisää luettavaa täältä:
http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8356
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Koska poliittinen korrektius?
Vaihdetaan yhden ohjuksen nimi erilaiseksi niin kukaan ei ajattele että skenaarioissa iivana vastassa, vaan joku mielikuvitusmaa...
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Eurofighterissa sekä Superhornetissa on kiinnitetty huomiota tutkapoikkipinta-alan pienentämiseen. Kummassakin on käytetty ram-pinnoitetta kriittisissä paikoissa (kuomun saumat, moottorin ilmaottoaukot etc). F-35 onkin sitten kauttaaltaan pinnoitettu. Huoltokustannuksia lisää aivan varmasti. Miten paljon, en osaa sanoa.
Vientiversiossa on sama pinnoite kuin Yhdysvaltojen koneissa, eikä sitä tarvi erikseen ostaa.
Edittinä vielä, tuo vientiversiosta puhuminen on hieman harhaanjohtavaa, sellaista ei ole olemassakaan. Israelin F-35 Adir tulee poikkeamaan joltain osin muista, mutta muut samanlaisia.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Omasta mielestä oikeastaan ainoa oleellinen summa jolla on merkitystä on se kuinka paljon se kone tulee kaikken kaikkiaan maksamaan oletetun eliniän aikana. Valmistaja pystyy enemmän ja vähemmän siirtelemään summia koneesta vaikkapa "pakollisiin" päivityksiin tai huoltoihin tai varaosiin. Voitaisiinhan F-35:sta myydä vaikka eurolla mutta siinä vaiheessa sen käyttö ja huolto olisi ihan eri hinnoissa.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Tuota on mahdoton etukäteen arvioida tarkasti. Muista nyt kuinka pitkistä ajoista puhutaan. Laske autoosi tarkka huoltobudjetti seuraavalle 30 vuodelle, ota valuuttakurssit, inflaatio, huoltamohenkilökunnan palkkojen kehitys, ts aivan kaikki muuttujat huomioon. Katsotaan sitten kuinka lähelle asui.
Ps tämä pätee Gripeniin niinkuin kaikkiin muihinkin Suomen ehdokkaisiin samalla tavalla
Edit
Luin muutaman viestisi edelliseltä sivulta, jos meinaat että F-35:n hankintahinta on painettu alas piilottamalla osan siitä huoltoihin, olet todennäköisesti aika pahasti metsässä. Tanska ostaa koneensa Yhdysvalloista ja Lockheed Martinilta, koneet tullaan huoltamaan Italiassa Finmeccanican pyörittämässä huoltokeskuksessa. Tuskin Amerikkalaiset niin tyhmiä ovat että ulkoistavat myyntikatteensa muille.
Viimeksi muokattu:
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Tottakai se pätee kaikkeen ja kyllä siitä arvion pystyy laskemaan. Ihan vaikka sen auton 30 vuoden huollonkin osalta. Toki siinä on heittoja. loppujen lopuksi se henkilöstön palkka kulu on sivu seikka. Oleellista on mitä osat maksaa ja muut tarvikkeet joilla kone pysyy ilmassa ja toiminta kykyisenä.
LM Määrittelee kuka koneita huoltaa, kuka osat tuottaa ja toimittaa. Yli päätään kaiken. LM on koneen kehittänyt ja tuottanut. Tottakai se pystyy sopimusvaiheessa sanomaan, että näin tämä tehdään tai olette ilman. Sama se monen kuluttaja tuotteen kanssa on, että valtuutettu huolto korjaa ja jos itse menet korjaamaan niin takuu lähtee. Hävittäjien jotka maksaa 100milj€/kpl ei varmaan kukaan lähde leikkimään.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Toivon mukaan Suomessa analysoidaan hieman paremmin kun valinnan hetki tulee...
F-35 Wins Denmark Competition: Trounces Super Hornet, Eurofighter
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 12, 2016 at 11:05 AM
[UPDATING with Aboulafia analysis of questionable pricing] The F-35 just won a competition — and it wasn’t even close. In every category, from combat performance to cost, the Danish government rated Lockheed’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter as superior to Airbus’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18F Super Hornet.
What’s striking here is not that the F-35 won: Denmark was already one of the nine Joint Strike Fighter partner nations and will build part of the plane. Nor is the size of the buy remarkable: Denmark’s a small country and it’s buying just 28 planes (less than the 48 it had initially considered to replace its aging F-16s). The big deal is how confident Denmark seemed in the F-35, resoundingly rejecting widespread criticism of the airplane’s performance and price — though there’s some debate about the latter (see below).
Denmark rated the F-35 higher than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon in every category.
In a detailed summary of its decision, the Danish government rates all three aircraft in four categories:
Denmark decided the F-35 would be the least costly option because its longer service life would allow the Danes to buy fewer aircraft.
How did the F-35 win the price war? The Danes argued they would need to buy fewer F-35s (28) than Eurofighters (34) or Super Hornets (38) because the F-35 is designed to last for 8,000 flight hours, while the other aircraft only last 6,000. This 33 percent increase in service life mattered because the Danes chose a 30-year timeframe to evaluate life-cycle costs: a shorter window might have given them a different winner.
The F-18 is also a two-seat aircraft, which increases personnel and training costs, the evaluation noted. (Why the Danes didn’t evaluate the one-seat F/A-18E model is unclear.) Finally, the report said, both procurement cost per plane and cost per flight hour are higher for the Eurofighter than either competitor.
[UPDATE: Leading aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia pointed to me that the procurement prices per plane are dodgy. The F-35A is priced at $80 million, which is the ambitious but no longer implausible target that program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the plane will reach around 2019. But the F/A-18F Super Hornet is priced at a whopping $122 million, whenthe Navy’s official figure is $57 million and prospective sales are often priced lower.]
The evaluation did acknowledge that the F-35 is a new and unproven aircraft compared to the longer-serving alternatives. In fact, the F-35’s lack of a track record led to the one rating where it lost, a miscellaneous “candidate risk” assessment where the Super Hornet came out on top. But this loss was just one factor buried in the military/tactical evaluation, which F-35 won overall. Again, a different structure to the evaluation, one that weighted such risk more heavily, might have given a different winner.
Conversely, F-35’s newness led to it trouncing its competitors on all other ratings of tactical military value. Its combination of stealth features — to avoid being seen — with advanced sensors and pilot displays — to see better — were cited as carrying the day on survivability and mission effectiveness. The fact that F-35 will be produced in large numbers with regular updates won it the “future development” subcategory.
Denmark rated the F-35 as militarily superior to the alternatives, but more risky.
The international scale and scope of the F-35 program also won it the “strategic” category. The US has partnered with Canada and seven European nations on F-35 (Britain, Italy, theNetherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark itself), and the plane is likely to sellelsewhere. As a result, the evaluation said that “the broad scope of the group of Joint Strike Fighter users will foster both Denmark’s transatlantic ties and the country’s collaborative relations with a range of European partners.”
By contrast, Eurofighter involves only European partners, not the US, though the evaluation notes . The Hornet family involves only the US and a few partners mostly far outside where Denmark would operate (Finland, Spain, and Switzerland in Europe, plus Australia, Canada,Kuwait, and Malaysia), of which only Australia has yet bought the Super Hornet model.
The Denmark competition was always F-35’s to lose — and a loss here, in one of the nine partner nations, would have struck a major blow to the program. Denmark’s choosing F-35 is not a surprise, but the enthusiasm behind their choice is a major boost.
[UPDATE: “I don’t think Eurofighter had a chance in this market. It was Super Hornet versus F-35, and Russia’s aggressive posture in the region proved to be Lockheed Martin’s best friend,” Aboulafia told me. F-35’s stealth, sensors, and other advanced combat features look very attractive against Russian “anti-access/area denial” systems designed to detect and destroy conventional fighters. “As for Eurofighter,” he said “it has the costs of an F-35 without the modern features.”]
F-35 Wins Denmark Competition: Trounces Super Hornet, Eurofighter
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 12, 2016 at 11:05 AM
[UPDATING with Aboulafia analysis of questionable pricing] The F-35 just won a competition — and it wasn’t even close. In every category, from combat performance to cost, the Danish government rated Lockheed’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter as superior to Airbus’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18F Super Hornet.
What’s striking here is not that the F-35 won: Denmark was already one of the nine Joint Strike Fighter partner nations and will build part of the plane. Nor is the size of the buy remarkable: Denmark’s a small country and it’s buying just 28 planes (less than the 48 it had initially considered to replace its aging F-16s). The big deal is how confident Denmark seemed in the F-35, resoundingly rejecting widespread criticism of the airplane’s performance and price — though there’s some debate about the latter (see below).
Denmark rated the F-35 higher than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon in every category.
In a detailed summary of its decision, the Danish government rates all three aircraft in four categories:
- strategic aspects, especially whether the aircraft is used by international partners;
- military aspects, the ability to conduct and survive missions both now and against future threats;
- economic aspects, meaning the cost of buying and sustaining the aircraft in adequate numbers; and
- industrial aspects, whether building that aircraft would benefit Denmark’s industrial base.
Denmark decided the F-35 would be the least costly option because its longer service life would allow the Danes to buy fewer aircraft.
How did the F-35 win the price war? The Danes argued they would need to buy fewer F-35s (28) than Eurofighters (34) or Super Hornets (38) because the F-35 is designed to last for 8,000 flight hours, while the other aircraft only last 6,000. This 33 percent increase in service life mattered because the Danes chose a 30-year timeframe to evaluate life-cycle costs: a shorter window might have given them a different winner.
The F-18 is also a two-seat aircraft, which increases personnel and training costs, the evaluation noted. (Why the Danes didn’t evaluate the one-seat F/A-18E model is unclear.) Finally, the report said, both procurement cost per plane and cost per flight hour are higher for the Eurofighter than either competitor.
[UPDATE: Leading aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia pointed to me that the procurement prices per plane are dodgy. The F-35A is priced at $80 million, which is the ambitious but no longer implausible target that program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the plane will reach around 2019. But the F/A-18F Super Hornet is priced at a whopping $122 million, whenthe Navy’s official figure is $57 million and prospective sales are often priced lower.]
The evaluation did acknowledge that the F-35 is a new and unproven aircraft compared to the longer-serving alternatives. In fact, the F-35’s lack of a track record led to the one rating where it lost, a miscellaneous “candidate risk” assessment where the Super Hornet came out on top. But this loss was just one factor buried in the military/tactical evaluation, which F-35 won overall. Again, a different structure to the evaluation, one that weighted such risk more heavily, might have given a different winner.
Conversely, F-35’s newness led to it trouncing its competitors on all other ratings of tactical military value. Its combination of stealth features — to avoid being seen — with advanced sensors and pilot displays — to see better — were cited as carrying the day on survivability and mission effectiveness. The fact that F-35 will be produced in large numbers with regular updates won it the “future development” subcategory.
Denmark rated the F-35 as militarily superior to the alternatives, but more risky.
The international scale and scope of the F-35 program also won it the “strategic” category. The US has partnered with Canada and seven European nations on F-35 (Britain, Italy, theNetherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark itself), and the plane is likely to sellelsewhere. As a result, the evaluation said that “the broad scope of the group of Joint Strike Fighter users will foster both Denmark’s transatlantic ties and the country’s collaborative relations with a range of European partners.”
By contrast, Eurofighter involves only European partners, not the US, though the evaluation notes . The Hornet family involves only the US and a few partners mostly far outside where Denmark would operate (Finland, Spain, and Switzerland in Europe, plus Australia, Canada,Kuwait, and Malaysia), of which only Australia has yet bought the Super Hornet model.
The Denmark competition was always F-35’s to lose — and a loss here, in one of the nine partner nations, would have struck a major blow to the program. Denmark’s choosing F-35 is not a surprise, but the enthusiasm behind their choice is a major boost.
[UPDATE: “I don’t think Eurofighter had a chance in this market. It was Super Hornet versus F-35, and Russia’s aggressive posture in the region proved to be Lockheed Martin’s best friend,” Aboulafia told me. F-35’s stealth, sensors, and other advanced combat features look very attractive against Russian “anti-access/area denial” systems designed to detect and destroy conventional fighters. “As for Eurofighter,” he said “it has the costs of an F-35 without the modern features.”]
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Toivon mukaan Suomessa analysoidaan hieman paremmin kun valinnan hetki tulee...
F-35 Wins Denmark Competition: Trounces Super Hornet, Eurofighter
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 12, 2016 at 11:05 AM
[UPDATING with Aboulafia analysis of questionable pricing] The F-35 just won a competition — and it wasn’t even close. In every category, from combat performance to cost, the Danish government rated Lockheed’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter as superior to Airbus’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18F Super Hornet.
What’s striking here is not that the F-35 won: Denmark was already one of the nine Joint Strike Fighter partner nations and will build part of the plane. Nor is the size of the buy remarkable: Denmark’s a small country and it’s buying just 28 planes (less than the 48 it had initially considered to replace its aging F-16s). The big deal is how confident Denmark seemed in the F-35, resoundingly rejecting widespread criticism of the airplane’s performance and price — though there’s some debate about the latter (see below).
Denmark rated the F-35 higher than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon in every category.
In a detailed summary of its decision, the Danish government rates all three aircraft in four categories:
That last item is a lock for F-35, on which Denmark is already an industrial partner. The proposed industrial cooperation for F-35 was valued at almost $4 billion (26.5 billion Dutch kroner), compared to $2.8 billion (18.7B DKK) for the Eurofighter and $2.3 billion (15B DKK) for the Super Hornet. But the F-35 also won the other three categories handily, even when it came to cost.
- strategic aspects, especially whether the aircraft is used by international partners;
- military aspects, the ability to conduct and survive missions both now and against future threats;
- economic aspects, meaning the cost of buying and sustaining the aircraft in adequate numbers; and
- industrial aspects, whether building that aircraft would benefit Denmark’s industrial base.
Denmark decided the F-35 would be the least costly option because its longer service life would allow the Danes to buy fewer aircraft.
How did the F-35 win the price war? The Danes argued they would need to buy fewer F-35s (28) than Eurofighters (34) or Super Hornets (38) because the F-35 is designed to last for 8,000 flight hours, while the other aircraft only last 6,000. This 33 percent increase in service life mattered because the Danes chose a 30-year timeframe to evaluate life-cycle costs: a shorter window might have given them a different winner.
The F-18 is also a two-seat aircraft, which increases personnel and training costs, the evaluation noted. (Why the Danes didn’t evaluate the one-seat F/A-18E model is unclear.) Finally, the report said, both procurement cost per plane and cost per flight hour are higher for the Eurofighter than either competitor.
[UPDATE: Leading aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia pointed to me that the procurement prices per plane are dodgy. The F-35A is priced at $80 million, which is the ambitious but no longer implausible target that program manager Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the plane will reach around 2019. But the F/A-18F Super Hornet is priced at a whopping $122 million, whenthe Navy’s official figure is $57 million and prospective sales are often priced lower.]
The evaluation did acknowledge that the F-35 is a new and unproven aircraft compared to the longer-serving alternatives. In fact, the F-35’s lack of a track record led to the one rating where it lost, a miscellaneous “candidate risk” assessment where the Super Hornet came out on top. But this loss was just one factor buried in the military/tactical evaluation, which F-35 won overall. Again, a different structure to the evaluation, one that weighted such risk more heavily, might have given a different winner.
Conversely, F-35’s newness led to it trouncing its competitors on all other ratings of tactical military value. Its combination of stealth features — to avoid being seen — with advanced sensors and pilot displays — to see better — were cited as carrying the day on survivability and mission effectiveness. The fact that F-35 will be produced in large numbers with regular updates won it the “future development” subcategory.
Denmark rated the F-35 as militarily superior to the alternatives, but more risky.
The international scale and scope of the F-35 program also won it the “strategic” category. The US has partnered with Canada and seven European nations on F-35 (Britain, Italy, theNetherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark itself), and the plane is likely to sellelsewhere. As a result, the evaluation said that “the broad scope of the group of Joint Strike Fighter users will foster both Denmark’s transatlantic ties and the country’s collaborative relations with a range of European partners.”
By contrast, Eurofighter involves only European partners, not the US, though the evaluation notes . The Hornet family involves only the US and a few partners mostly far outside where Denmark would operate (Finland, Spain, and Switzerland in Europe, plus Australia, Canada,Kuwait, and Malaysia), of which only Australia has yet bought the Super Hornet model.
The Denmark competition was always F-35’s to lose — and a loss here, in one of the nine partner nations, would have struck a major blow to the program. Denmark’s choosing F-35 is not a surprise, but the enthusiasm behind their choice is a major boost.
[UPDATE: “I don’t think Eurofighter had a chance in this market. It was Super Hornet versus F-35, and Russia’s aggressive posture in the region proved to be Lockheed Martin’s best friend,” Aboulafia told me. F-35’s stealth, sensors, and other advanced combat features look very attractive against Russian “anti-access/area denial” systems designed to detect and destroy conventional fighters. “As for Eurofighter,” he said “it has the costs of an F-35 without the modern features.”]
Voisitko hieman avata mikä tuossa evaluaatiossa mätti? Olihan siinä ne elinkaarikustannuksetkin laskettu, 104 sivuinen pumaska jonka tekemiseen meni vuosia ja maksoi miljoonia.
Onko ongelma nyt se että JSF voitti vai se että hinnoittelu ei sitten ihan vastannutkaan Bill Sweetmanin ja kumppaneiden arvioita?
Miksi tästä SH:n yksikköhinnasta jaanataan kun jo eilen laitoin, että se selittyy erilaisella huoltomallilla? F-35 ostetaan pelkkä kone, mutta SH:lle paketti, jossa mukana huollon käynnistämiseen tarvittavat kamat ja alustava air & ground crew -koulutus.
F-35:lla nuo kirjataan huollon kustannuksiin. Eli SH saa "vahingon kiinni" siellä puolella ja Tanskan numeroiden perusteella onkin 26% halvempi huolto.
Elinkaarikulut on mahdollisimman vertailukelpoiset kun niihin sisältyy kaikki.
Viimeksi muokattu:
Jos meillä tosiaan aiotaan edetä jonkinmoisen erillisrahoituksen turvin ( en kyllä usko ennen kuin näen ) niin mahdollisimman iso osa kustannuksista pitäisi saada sisällytettyä kauppahintaan. Korkeat vuotuiset käyttökustannukset olisivat suomalaisessa rahoitusmallissa myrkkyä.